Talk:Gun nut

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I play and prefer FPS games and have absolutely no obsession with weapons o.O. And I can't take a joke! MarkeDC (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of the link to world.guns.ru? It's just an encyclopedia of weapons that happens to be one of the more popular on the Net (largely because of the sheer size of it); it does not really offer any opinions that would be in line with "gun nut" thinking (or, really, any political opinions in general). 131.107.192.112 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Take out Mall Ninja, make new article of it.

Mall Ninja may have to do with gun nuttery, but they also overlap with bad martial arts (often victims of bullshido), have terrible racial/cultural superiority problems (everything from Japan is better! Even though I don't know who the current Prime Minister is? Oh well only Anime is in Japan, it's where they make it!) and commonly circulate various broscience and war myths. Basically it's a person who has formed their worldview of pop culture aspects they find cool but has never done any research on them, or has researched only points that support their position. I knew several of these in high school. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion nomination

This was drive-by nominated for deletion a couple weeks back. I think it should be kept, but needs revising to better cover how this term is used & how it relates to the gun control debate. Gun nuts run the gamut from responsible enthusiasts & hunters to survivalists and Sandy Hook denialist cranks, so it's an on-mission subject. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll see what I can do. I'll try to draw a delineation between responsible gun owners and hunters on one hand, and the hardcore Gun Owners of America fringe on the other. User:KevinR1990 19:46, 18 January 2013 (EST)
    • Update: How does that look? I narrowed down usage of the term "gun nut" to mean the wingnuts and cranks who take their guns way too seriously, defining them in contrast to the average gun owner. User:KevinR1990 21:38, 18 January 2013 (EST)
Better. Thanks for your work on this. I'm taking down the delete tag. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What a well written article. It is nice to see we can spot nuances, while those on the far right, paint with a broad brush. ~~fairandunhinged~~ — Unsigned, by: fairandunhinged / talk / contribs

[edit] A few requests for changes from a gun owner

As a gun owner I think this article goes a very long way towards explaining the difference between a "gun nut" and a "gun owner," but I personally think these few changes should be made to reflect common positions among gun owners; they're very common among gun nuts, but it's also common for gun owners to feel the same way:

"Restrictions on weapons, magazines, and "assault" features, as well as measures like waiting periods for gun purchases and permits for ownership and carry, are seen as not only an unnecessary burden..." - The reason I think this should be changed is so that it's not as specific; some gun owners do not believe in 10 round limits and choose to support higher maximums, and some do not believe a limit is necessary or effective at all.

"Some gun owners hope that the mere sight of the gun, or the sound of it being cocked, would scare off any potential threats before things turned ugly." - Again, same as above. A large number of gun owners believe that the mere visual of a gun will cause an attacker to become desperate rather than run, and that pulling a weapon for self defense is the last option you have and you intend to immediately use it.

"The guns they view as defensive weapons are likely to be higher power than the weapons that gun owners choose to defend their homes." - Gun owners themselves are divided on the practicality of a shotgon, handgun, or long gun in home defense; there is no majority or clear winner, as it's a constant debate. In addition, it's not uncommon for handguns to use rounds more powerful than one would find in a long-rifle and vice versa.

Now, I obviously have not made these changes because I don't want to edit the document without at least one other voice of agreement; if there's dissention I think it's important to hash out why someone would like the article to remain as it is.

--Chelatek (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with it, in all sincerity. I sympathize with anyone's desire to add a reasoned voice to this discussion, but it is difficult to keep the heat/light ratio low enough for any progress to be made. More contentious than abortion, at least in the circles I've watched. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Buncha tags added

Claims that needed sources or explanations. What (to use one example) makes a firearm higher-grade? Frostbyte (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More cites added, and fact tags for related material that does not have cites. Several of Zero's cites have been clarified or retagged. "Anti-material" corrected to "anti-materièl". Various other spelling touch-ups and the Black Panther segment has been reworded for clarity. "Easily accessible, high-grade" removed because in two of the three incidents (Aurora is the third) referred to the guns were not obtained by the conventional "easy" channels and in none of the three were the firearms used "high-grade" by the definition the article now provides (nor, in the Columbine case, by any definition; they had obtained a notoriously crappy TEC-9 and sawn off an antique shotgun). Frostbyte (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
TEC-9 was one of the guns targeted by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do you bring this up? Also, it was both grandfathered and re-released without the offending features (renamed, barrel shroud omitted, weight reduced to meet the fifty-ounce ceiling). It's a piece of crap - seriously, try one. It just looks scary. I mentioned it because it's not high-grade by any definition, least of all Zero's, and because it has none of the features Zero listed in the "assault features" cite. Frostbyte (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Piece of crap or not, the authors of Federal Assault Weapons Ban must have considered it a dangerous weapon. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
And it didn't consider the AB-10 (the aforementioned feature-stripped model) dangerous. So I ask again, why bring up the TEC at all? The TEC-9 at the shooting you refer to was grandfathered (the 1994 law specifically incorporated a grandfathering provision), and therefore legal even without Intratec's later modifications. Frostbyte (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I mention it because your claim that the TEC-9 is "not high-grade by any definition" simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Regardless of whether you agree with the AWB's assessment or think that other weapons were more deserving of attention, the fact remains that the TEC-9 was already a weapon that had been highlighted as a public safety concern at the time of the Columbine shootings. The comment you removed about Columbine & other shootings involving "easily-accessible, high-grade firearms" should be reinstated. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
They fit with neither the definition of "high-grade" provided (which was only added after I pointed out the flaw) nor with "easily accessible", having been purchased through illegal channels. If you wish to offer an alternative definition of "high-grade" under which the POS would fall, go ahead and we can discuss whether it falls under that. But for now there's no reason for it to be present given the terminology defined herein. Frostbyte (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
When I saw this article there were way too many fact tags, even when they weren't needed. I tried to expand some of them and just axed the ones that begged the question of "who really needs this?" Zero (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Happy to flesh those out as long as it's clear the descriptors aren't being applied normatively. Frostbyte (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious left-wing bias

This article displays an obvious center-left, "soft anti-gun" bias. Some examples:

"Restrictions on semi-automatic (and in some cases fully-automatic) weapons,"

Stealthy bull butter here: I can almost understand why you'd want regulation on fully automatic weapons (although our founders wouldn't, as the purpose of the Seconds Amendment was originally to keep tyranny at bay, tough if you think that's "nutty"), but mentioning semi-auto weapons here as though any "reasonable" person would support banning them is beyond the pale. The EVIL BLACK RIFLE OOOOH SCARY is far from the only semi-automatic weapon out there: most handguns are either semi-automatic or behave similarly (i.e. double action revolver), there are semi-auto shotguns, there are other semi-auto rifles, etc.

"magazines that hold more than ten rounds,"

Beep beep boop, now detecting BS in the vicinity. Criminals don't care, lunatics can find other workarounds, and you can still make a pretty mean gun without going over this limit. See: most shotguns, the M1 Garand rifle (8 rounds, but you can reload it real fast if you're good - Gen. Patton called it "the greatest battle implement ever devised), 1911 pistol, etc.

"and "assault" features,"

This is a cosmetic, emotional game played by the gun grabbers.

"as well as measures like waiting periods for gun purchases and permits for ownership and carry, are seen as not only an unnecessary burden, but as a step towards authoritarianism and a threat to freedom (a view vindicated to a considerable extent by both the implementation of the claimed slippery slope and actual confiscations in California and New York)."

That's 'cause they are. The left has good excuses for a lot of gun control policies, but what they really want is to render the citezens unable to defend themselves.

There's a ton more, but I'm too lazy to respond to every point. This whole article was written by a left-winger who has made very little attempt to conceal their anti-gun bias.72.35.126.82 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Gun-Nut

Hate to break it to you, but the orthodoxy you claim for your opinion is somewhat unique to the US among developed nations. If you think that private firearms are going to do jack shit if somehow the gubmint does end up attacking its populace, you're daft. The 'left-wing' does not want to "render the citezens unable to defend themselves". That's prime conspiracy theory territory. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like him to explain how having a gun defends him from the government's army, air force, navy, drones and police. BicyclewheelModerator 20:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia article on Asymmetric warfare. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Saw WP's article. What do you mean by it? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In the astronomically unlikely event of a unified popular insurgency in the US, small arms (rifles, shotguns, and hand guns) could play a role in demoralizing the forces mentioned by the one with lacy spokes. It has happened before, but it probably won't happen here any time soon, for reasons too numerous to mention in this format. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstood when I said "they" want a helpless populace. It's not just about the millitary and police... it's about everything. Criminals, gangs, lunatics, etc. The reasons for this are probably different in each case. Some of the anti-gun camp really are schemers, and want guns out of the way, while others may not go that far and simply reason that a terrified, helpless population is more easily goaded into accepting totalitarianism as a path to safety. And, probably scariest of all, are the ones who think they're really doing something good. Those tend to be the same kind of people who think helmets for soccer and calorie counts on restaurant menus should be legally mandated, and they should not be allowed anywhere near government. The plotting evilmongers might slow down once they think they have what they want, but the nanny do-gooders won't be satisfied until free will itself has been abolished for our safety. 72.35.107.182 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, dude, take your meds.--Umichcynic (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support