Talk:Gun nut

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)

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. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks 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. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks 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}

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)

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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks 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. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks 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)

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)

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. Queex_{chthonic 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. Bicycle^wheel 20:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Queex_{chthonic 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)

The Good Soldier Schwejk, dumb insolence, 'doing exactly what they say and not what they mean', ignoring the authorities, and similar methods can be effective, cheaper (and less likely to have unpleasantly negative consequences).

Syllogism

• Mao said 'Power comes from the barrel of a gun'
• These people say something similar
• Therefore they are the Maoist-socialist-communists they are trying to protect themselves from. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• BoN says something about guns.
• Larry Pratt says many things about guns.
• Therefore, BoN must be Larry Pratt. MarmotHead (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

From my entries I am fairly liberal (in the UK sense) and 'rational about guns'

• LP is not.
• Therefore there is not-identity.

And - I know I have bent the logic horseshoe theory-wise. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the horseshoe theory at all, your correlations are nonsensical.

• My head is grey with some black (beard and hair)
• The moon is grey with some black
• My head is the moon

The style matches, but the link and conclusions are nonsense. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Buried in all this, you, dear BoN, may have a point, but I can't yet see it. Your syllogism fails for the reasons ECP portrays. MarmotHead (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I was using deliberate quote mining to 'bend' the gun nut's illogic against them. Feel free to spaghetti-knot-develop it into something useful (possibly using the 'proving 1=0 formula') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but this bending where there isn't really a target using this syllogism to bend. A quote mining usually uses someone to mine for that quote...and to have a pre-written mocking of the quote should likely be a popular quote or person IMHO. Like Ray Comfort's "Are you a good person" BS. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(reset) I don't much care for the Chairman either btw.

'Creative misinterpretation using a convenient tool'/'highlighting synchronicity of views of persons at a large angle to logical normality and reality.'

Besides slings, 'lumps of water', elephant traps and bows can be better weapons than guns. Arrows (often) and stones can be reused, there is always more ground to be dug up and river/sea dams can be rebuilt: and once you have run out of bullets there is not a lot you can 'do at a distance.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wut? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I can has constitutional right to bear lumps of water? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Icicles and [1] - as well as 'the lump of water behind a dam.' (And, as it is coming up to Halloween, fill a plastic glove sufficiently with water, freeze, remove glove and use ice hand.) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

MarmotHead - are you 'a classic film'?

Larry Pratt seems to advocate [2]: I merely quote Brecht and the Red Flag. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Try as they might

... they cannot become the god of the smoking gun.

To borrow another quote - what have 'the guns is good, the government/women wishing to be autonomous is bad' lot done for us? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: "God of the smoking gun"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Creative quoting (from Ted Hughes) [3]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I, uh, still think I need some explaining. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was reworking the line in [4] - what is the mindset of 'gun nuts# (as distinct from 'the hunters, military, target shooters, collectors and similar categories) - given that 'yet another shooting in in the US' was mentioned in the UK news. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like most of your odd comments need a good deal of explanation. We get about halfway there and you start a new thread 82. It's not terrible but it seems kind of pointless...like walking in on someone talking to another on the phone where you can hear half the conversation after missing parts that would give context. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am 'mostly harmless' - my questions and quotes range from 'the idly curious' (before moving to the next topic) to more serious/intending to start a discussion/pointing out an obvious flaw in the discussion. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said there was any harm or problem. I was hoping that maybe the dialog could improve. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I say dialogue you say dialog - so we are at 'a slight angle to each other' to start with. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to sound like a concern troll but having a political epithet on this wiki isn't really a good idea

I mean this article is basically doomed to be written in a negative tone towards people who own guns. It doesn't foster constructive dialogue about any of the issues relating to guns. Considering this site is meant to be about free thought it's a little silly to have pergorative articles.^{— Unsigned, by: 82.19.19.125 / talk / contribs}

My two cents

This article focuses heavily on the characteristics of the gun nut, but it doesn't get to the core of the issue. the core of the issue is that some people are obsessed with weapons. What I don't like about this article is the idea that "if you're not in favor of tight gun laws, you're a gun nut", which is ridiculous. There are plenty of libertarian-minded people who don't care at all for guns but don't want to take them away from other people. You all here would likely call me a gun nut. Am I packing an HMG? Am I praying sincerely I get to kill someone today? Do I have an NRA bumper sticker? No to all! I have a couple of old Soviet WW2 firearms and believe that shooting is a part of America's culture heritage which should be preserved, and that the right to self defense by the best means possible is an inalienable right as fundamental as the right to vote, be able to stand fair trial with legal aid, run a free press, have any belief or lack of belief, and to make of your life what you will. I see firearms as a matter of human rights and civil liberties.

So the way the defensive issue gets framed gets under my skin. I know mechanically about a number of firearms, and I have to tell you that honestly, the world's simplest gun designs are open bolt submachine guns -- fully automatic only. The rifles that are implicitly attacked, AK's and AR's, are not all that mechanically complicated, especially the AK. The pistols you're probably okay with are about as complex as most of these weapons are. My point of view is that semiautomatic carbines are the best tools for the job of defending your home for a few reasons. First is that they offer the most firepower that is controlable -- on average, you get 5 shots for a rifle, 6 shots for a revolver, 8 shots for a shotgun, 14 shots for a pistol, 30 shots for a carbine. Of course, if you use the full mag somehow, you'll be the one in a billion. Secondly, they are much easier to control than any of the other options. The rifles are too long for dwellings and probably recoil hard, the pistol and revolver are hard enough just to use normally on a controlled range, the shotgun may be difficult to wield and control with recoil, but the carbine, especially one in a pistol caliber, is compact and handy and recoils softly; anyone can use it easily even in a small apartment. These are the best tools for the job of preserving your life in gravest extreme; telling people that they're insane for wanting to give themselves the best possible chance of surviving is frankly bonkers, and to a degree, inhumane.

As for standing up to corrupt police and the black helicopters and jackbooted government thugs coming to take away guns and God from real American patriots? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If you're worried about the way the country is going, you vote in elections, write your representatives, contribute to campaigns, run for office, and file lawsuits. And no, nobody is coming to snatch your guns away and to forcibly make all your kids into evolutionary atheist Communists; we have very strong rule of law stopping that, and if such motions came forward, we have the democratic process, which has generally worked pretty darn well at curbing excesses. I'm sick and tired of the endless doom and gloom people with puerile survivalist fantasies, and even more disgusted at the people who exploit these fears for the sake of making a quick buck; they aren't helping the situation. The people who genuinely believe that stuff and say to buy gold/silver/platinum/pelicans for the coming collapse are genuinely crazy and IMO have seen The Road Warrior probably dozens of times too many. These are the kind of people who think that they really have to have perhaps tens of thousands of rounds per gun per person stored because they think they'll need that much. I personally have about 3000 rounds on hand, or as I think of it, about 10 years worth of trips to the range so I won't have to worry about ammo shopping in what looks like a repeat of the BS ammo prices of the past 7 years. I don't expect to use my weapons on people; I picked the wrong ones if did -- a couple of nifty historical pieces aren't what I'd consider ideal for combat, but they're great fun for blasting away at pieces of paper at a safe firing range. If any apocalypse happens, we have the infrastructure and organisation to cope with it, and I think we'd all be too busy trying to help each other survive to focus on going postal in a fantasy straight out of the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic. Even in such nightmare scenarios, I see myself turning my rifle on deer a lot more than on people.

And just for a quick note: I hate Ted Nugent; that man is why I won't join the NRA again anytime soon so long as he's there.

Signed, a college-educated Liberal gun owner^{— Unsigned, by: 72.205.27.251 / talk / contribs}

I like the cut of your jib! Though, I'd change the headline "Feels biased" right now, or people might skip your text and go right to the (valid) point that we are not neutral, thinking you're just yet another concern troll. And you make good points here so don't let others miss your point by stubbing their toes into your headline. Change it nao! Also, time for you to register an account and get formally welcomed? All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Took the liberty of just tossing in a headline that wasn't about neutrality or bias or view... because we're not neutral, bud. Anyways, a good read you wrote there. Hope the headline tinkerin' was fine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

First time using a talk page, I hope I'm doing this right.

I understand RationalWiki's need to not be neutral, so as to be free to colorfully criticize things that are irrational, but that's easier to do for some subjects than others. It's easy to point at something with evidence and something for which only faith exists and say which of the two is correct, but social issues like this one are not always so cut and dry. For example, what stood out to me in this article is the notion that semi-automatic rifles are somehow unreasonable for home defense compared to bolt-action rifles, despite being more common, easier to use, and more effective. One could argue that rifles in general are less preferable to shotguns as far as long guns are concerned, due to the danger of the slugs penetrating walls and the smaller projectile leaving less room for error, but that has nothing to do with with the rifle's action, and even in the case of shotguns I don't think there's any reason to avoid semi-automatic as long as it's well-maintained. I also question the implication that a given self-loading (semi-automatic) handgun is necessarily less "mechanically sophisticated" or appropriate for self-defense than a given semi-automatic rifle, with no regard to the specific model, design or even caliber; a .22 rifle is not going to do more damage than a .500 S&W handgun just because it's a rifle. There are also a couple uses of the phrase "assault rifle" where it isn't clear whether the author is referring to a select-fire rifle or simply a "military style" rifle, possessing the appearance of a military rifle but having little functional difference.

For me, it goes beyond just not being neutral. It seems irrational, and seems to indicate a lack of even basic firearm research in an article about the use of firearms. --ThingkenOfName (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThingkenOfName Hmm... You raise some interesting points there. Personally though, I would think that most models of handgun would be preferable to rifles (too bulky and specialized toward long range) or shotguns (too high powered at close range, shot can go wide and hit collateral, and on that same note not very accurate compared to other firearms). Thoughts? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie It can depend on the situation. A handgun is more maneuverable in tight hallways and around corners, but a long gun that you can use with a foregrip and press into your shoulder might allow you to shoot more accurately. A rifle would also likely have a larger magazine than either a handgun or shotgun, though it's debatable how much of said magazine you would need. The "specialization" for long range isn't terribly relevant; you can get sights for rifles that can be used at short distances. The main concern I see with rifles is that you don't have the maneuverability of a handgun, but still have to worry about your bullets potentially going through your walls and into other rooms/houses. As far as "the shot can go wide" I don't think that's such a large issue for shotguns. The spread of 00 buckshot at 30 feet is only 10 inches or so at most, and the potential for part of the shot to miss the target is, I think, made up for in the potential for part of the shot to still hit the target if your aim is a little off. Better you lose a chunk of furniture than miss your chance to take the guy down before he returns fire. By too high-powered, do you mean for the shooter, or for the person getting shot? If the latter, you shouldn't be shooting at anyone you don't intend to kill anyway.

If it were me, I think I'd keep a shotgun somewhere in the house, but also keep a handgun with me in case I can't get to the shotgun. --ThingkenOfName (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThingkenOfName "As far as "the shot can go wide" I don't think that's such a large issue for shotguns. The spread of 00 buckshot at 30 feet is only 10 inches or so at most, and the potential for part of the shot to miss the target is, I think, made up for in the potential for part of the shot to still hit the target if your aim is a little off. Better you lose a chunk of furniture than miss your chance to take the guy down before he returns fire. By too high-powered, do you mean for the shooter, or for the person getting shot? If the latter, you shouldn't be shooting at anyone you don't intend to kill anyway." Both points for the shotgun are addressed here. My concern was that you would hit your target yes, but also that you would hit someone or something else that was near your target. You addressed those points. As for rifles it is, from my understanding, that part of why they're so bulky is because they are specialized for shooting at targets at longer ranges, thus requiring a longer barrel, a larger stock, etc. On the subject of ammo capacity it is both my understanding and opinion that you really don't need all that much in the way of ammo if you know what you're doing. (No offense intended towards you, nor in general.) That is to say that you only really need enough ammo for less than a handful of targets, plus spares in case you miss. (Let's say 5-12 for example.) Based on all of these factors it would seem that a medium caliber pistol would be the ideal self-defense weapon in case of a home invasion. either that or a hand-held taser, but the latter option is generally restricted in commercial use from what I've heard and read. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Your ping had a template error; I took the liberty of fixing it. I hope you don't mind.

You're partially right about rifles being specialized for long range. More specifically, rifles in general are specialized for accuracy, which is very relevant at long range, though can play a role at medium range as well. Additionally, the longer barrel and presence of a stock allow not only more accurate handling of the weapon, but potentially larger calibers to be used since the recoil is absorbed better and the longer barrel gives more space for the powder to burn. Larger calibers can increase the effective range as well as the damage caused by the impact, but small-caliber rifles are also very popular for sport and comfort reasons.

By "hand-held taser" I'm not sure if you mean the projectile, needle-shooting kind, or the melee kind. The former is a taser, the latter is a stun gun. I wouldn't ever recommend a taser for personal defense; you only get one shot before having to reload the cartridge, and the prongs can potentially get stuck in the target's clothes without making contact. I did check though, apparently tasers are legal for both law enforcement and civilians in 48 states. I think mace would be a better non-lethal projectile weapon, if one is unwilling to kill in self-defense. --ThingkenOfName (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThingkenOfName Thank you for assisting with my previous ping. On tasers, yes, I meant the needle-shooting kind. And thank you for correcting my knowledge on their legality. On killing, though I would prefer not to kill someone, given my knowledge that they could have a multitude of reasons for their behavior, as well as the philosophical understanding that living things are only guaranteed one lifetime, anything is speculation at best, I would be willing to cut them down if that was the only option. I simply wish to avoid that if possible, and if not, have the best tool(s) for the job. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

as an aside the non-lethal aternatives to firearms such as mace or tasers are also highly illegal in areas where firearms are verbotten. in the uk at least. you are not even allowed to carry a screw driver without good cause - self defense not being such a cause. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Black Panthers and horseshoe theory

I don't think this comparison between the BPP and gun nuts is fair. The BPP had (has?) legitimate reasons to advocate for arming the black community (police brutality and systemic oppression), especially since if you're a minority, you can't really rely on the police for help. Vee (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)