Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.

I suspect this is a marketing strategy meant to associate gun ownership with mental illness. It's like attacking people by calling them "gun nuts" because they are wary of yet more gun control legislation.

Typical slurs against gun owners include;
- Gun nuts
- Ammosexuals
- Right wing fanatics
- Insurrectionists
- over compensation
- murders in waiting
- paranoid
etc.

 kronk wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place

You misspelled drugs.

Drugs are the reason are crime rate is so high.

You'd have to be on drugs to say that with a straight face

When did you move to America? Do you enjoy our freedom fries?

Gang related, dude. In Chicago alone it's 65% of the shootings.

Gangs are about protecting their turf and selling drugs to people.

Agreed. Drug users could be argued to be accomplices in these crimes.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VYU25aJpg5o

A huge cause of gun violence, right there.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Thought this was interesting for all sides.

Interesting that they take a completely different definition for mass shooting than most others.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Thought this was interesting for all sides.

Interesting that they take a completely different definition for mass shooting than most others.

What, 4 or more victims? Pretty sure that's the FBI definition (correct me if I'm wrong).

EDIT: The FBI has definitions for mass murder, not shootings, upon further digging. However, shootings, at least in my opinion, doesn't require fatalities; getting shot has more effects than just death.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

...Typical slurs against gun owners include;
- Gun nuts
...

I wouldn't have thought of 'gun nut' as a slur. I mean I'm a book nut, and I call myself that. I know people who call themselves gun nuts, and they certainly don't seem to think it's a slur. I guess it would depend on who's saying it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I wouldn't have thought of 'gun nut' as a slur. I mean I'm a book nut, and I call myself that. I know people who call themselves gun nuts, and they certainly don't seem to think it's a slur. I guess it would depend on who's saying it.

When it is being spoken with someone who has utter contempt for those obeying the law peacefully it isn't typically a phrase meant to be cordial

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Typical slurs against gun owners include;

I haven't heard gun owners called that, but I have heard firearm fetishists referred to in such a way. Many gun owners are responsible, well meaning people. On the other hand you have the people that are not and that many of those titles apply to. Thinking in a bifurcated manner probably puts someone on the list I imagine as the actual issues are more complex than just "guns good" and "guns bad".

I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.

 Manchu wrote:
I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.

To the educated, I believe the term is "Bibliophile"


Honestly, I think that this, like so many other things really does depend on the source. Not to equate the two, but I see it as kind of how certain crowds use the N-word. In one setting, it's completely cool, it's somehow, inexplicably not a put-down. But if someone from outside that social circle says it, people are ready for Armageddon. If a guy who owns a bunch of guns calls him/her self a "gun nut" he's usually around like minded people, and will quite often take some kind of offense when "dem librals" call him a "gun nut" as a slur.

 Manchu wrote:
I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.

You have to go to the right section of Craigslist.

 Manchu wrote:
I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.

You have obviously never met my family.

It's also just the way I talk. I tend to mix and match, and use weird word conglomerates instead of the actual term (like book nut instead of bibliophile, although that is influeced by the fact that not everybody knows the word bibliophile, so I just say what gets the point across). But you'll here science nut, car nut, sports nut, ect. Basically, it's someone who is really into that particular subject.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.

You have obviously never met my family.

It's also just the way I talk. I tend to mix and match, and use weird word conglomerates instead of the actual term (like book nut instead of bibliophile, although that is influeced by the fact that not everybody knows the word bibliophile, so I just say what gets the point across). But you'll here science nut, car nut, sports nut, ect. Basically, it's someone who is really into that particular subject.

So... would you say something like "People in glass houses sink ships?" or "don't cross the road if you can't get out of the kitchen?"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I have never heard the phrase "book nut" before.

You have obviously never met my family.

It's also just the way I talk. I tend to mix and match, and use weird word conglomerates instead of the actual term (like book nut instead of bibliophile, although that is influeced by the fact that not everybody knows the word bibliophile, so I just say what gets the point across). But you'll here science nut, car nut, sports nut, ect. Basically, it's someone who is really into that particular subject.

So... would you say something like "People in glass houses sink ships?" or "don't cross the road if you can't get out of the kitchen?"

No, but I will now.

Edit, nevermind, didn't realize it was sarcasm


Hitting targets to begin with is hard, hitting moving ones is even harder. Plus the caliber on those "scary black rifles" is fairly pathetic compared to EASILY accessible bolt actions such as the Mosin Nagant. Put 5.56X45mm into somebody's torso and they may very well survive. 7.62x54mm? Yeah you are probably dead all things considered. Plus semiautomatic rifles aren't even used in crime all that much due to them being RIFLES. You can't exactly smuggle a rifle through the public unless you either seriously modify the gun by cutting away the barrel and stock (and still needing a longcoat to hide it) or putting it in the trunk of your car, and pulling it out from a hundred meters or less of the thing you want to shoot. They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.

I suspect this is a marketing strategy meant to associate gun ownership with mental illness. It's like attacking people by calling them "gun nuts" because they are wary of yet more gun control legislation.

Typical slurs against gun owners include;
- Gun nuts
- Ammosexuals
- Right wing fanatics
- Insurrectionists
- over compensation
- murders in waiting
- paranoid
etc.

Typical things Liberals are called
-Idiots
-Hippies
-Commies
-Socialists
-Granola Eaters
Stoners
-Dumb college students
etc
It goes both ways

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

-Dumb college students

I've always found the irony of this one so delicious... Especially coming from someone who either didn't graduate high school, or barely got a GED

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

-Dumb college students

I've always found the irony of this one so delicious... Especially coming from someone who either didn't graduate high school, or barely got a GED

Agreed to some extent. On the other hand I met plenty of people with very shortsighted world views as an undergrad, grad student and postdoc working in a STEM field too.

Seems like "education" (at the undergrad level in soft studies) != intelligence.

Wait a second, if Walmart stops selling me guns where else am I going to use a reaching stick to buy an AR-15 from the comfort of my rascal? I'll be dammed if I have to actually walk into a gun store.

Disability legislation will compel gun shop owners to create accessability ramps and wide doors for mobility scooter borne shoppers, so don't worry.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Disability legislation will compel gun shop owners to create accessibility ramps and wide doors for mobility scooter borne shoppers, so don't worry.

That's already a thing in many areas. Seriously, it really is.

How is accessibility a problem?

 Wyzilla wrote:
They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.

Heh. In past threads I mentioned that meaningful gun control should focus on restricting access to pistols. There was no comment from the left, and the right was fairly silent, except a few people who thought it was the worst idea that could have been suggested.

It's how the Australian approach was handled, for the most part. They looked at what guns were actually used to kill people, and then looked at how to regulate those weapons in particular. The end result is that anyone who wants to own a rifle for hunting or farming needs can get one, but the rate of killing with firearms plummeted because the number of pistols on the streets was massively reduced.


Just as a side issue, there's a common assumption that murder is about other types of crime. It only accounts for about half of murders. But as you say above most of the killings were with pistols - while rifles were so small as to be almost a rounding error.

I don't know how many pistols there were in Australia when this happened (I think the federal buyback was a million pistols, and you still have like 300k?) , but I think that may not be tenable in the US, with 110 million handguns.

I truthfully am not sure what can be done to prevent mass shootings, but I certainly agree that banning or reducing access to select rifles based on aesthetic properties or magazine capacity probably won't help in any significant way. I'd tend to agree that easy access to firearms in general tend to increase violent crimes but then you have places with very stringent gun control that still have very high gun violence, so... eh. Maybe those places are outliers.

Of course, I also believe that Walmart was being truthful when they said it was sales that prompted this rather than other factors.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How is accessibility a problem?

Because people might transform their mobility scooters into mini-tanks (like a Dalek) to protect themselves from criminals, and say they have the 2nd amendment right to do this

Ouze wrote:
I don't know how many pistols there were in Australia when this happened (I think the federal buyback was a million pistols, and you still have like 300k?) , but I think that may not be tenable in the US, with 110 million handguns.

Sure, you'd never see an Australian style buy back in the US because there's just so many guns out there. You'd also never see controls as stringent as Australia (and to an extent this is a good thing, our gun laws are quite needlessly difficult in many places).

So any kind of US regulation wouldn't see the sudden change that happened in Australia, but I think the effect just of tighter restrictions on pistols would go a long way. Even just keeping a tab on who's buying pistols, so you know who's purchasing them legally then constantly having them 'stolen' to ship them in to black market would go a long way.

I truthfully am not sure what can be done to prevent mass shootings, but I certainly agree that banning or reducing access to select rifles based on aesthetic properties or magazine capacity probably won't help in any significant way.

Yeah, not sure what can be done to stop mass shootings, but banning scary guns won't help. People talk about mental health services, but that feels like something of a cop out to be honest. It might just be one of those things that you have to live with. And I think the bigger issue is the constant stream of murders that don't reach the headlines, and most of them are done with pistols.

I'd tend to agree that easy access to firearms in general tend to increase violent crimes but then you have places with very stringent gun control that still have very high gun violence, so... eh. Maybe those places are outliers.

You'll never see a neat correlation between gun control and murder, especially not on a city by city basis because crime is due to many factors. Drugs, poverty, education and a bunch of other factors are also major major factors.

Despite the scarcity of guns we still had something of a spree of shootings in Melbourne through the late 90s and 00s, basically a turf war over ecstasy.

Of course, I also believe that Walmart was being truthful when they said it was sales that prompted this rather than other factors.

Yeah. Walmart hasn't exactly made pleasing the more left wing part of the country a part of their business strategy.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
I must admit, I didn't know about citizens owning cannon and the like. America was founded on the "I'll do anything I like and no one can tell me any different" attitude though, so I guess it shouldn't come as a shock. All I'm seeing is "60 dead school kids in a minute and you can't take it from me." Say what you will about me not understanding the situation or the culture or whatever you like, we will continue to disagree and I'm fine with that.

We obviously see things differently. I see a tragedy that usually has some from of mental illness, which is then exploited by people to try to restrict the rights of millions of law abiding Americans who are routinely vilified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's a very good argument that the 2nd is a collective right (militia) and not an individual right.

And the militia was any male over age 18.

It was quite interesting to learn that James Madison wanted a pacifist clause inserted into the 2nd amendment, which supports the argument that the Militias would be the prime defenders of security in the USA, but Madison was overruled due to the horse trading that was going on at the time.

A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.

 sebster wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.

Heh. In past threads I mentioned that meaningful gun control should focus on restricting access to pistols. There was no comment from the left, and the right was fairly silent, except a few people who thought it was the worst idea that could have been suggested.

It's how the Australian approach was handled, for the most part. They looked at what guns were actually used to kill people, and then looked at how to regulate those weapons in particular.

To be fair, this effectively banned or extremely heavily restricted most types of firearms. and this meant that anything but bolt action rifles and small rimfire weapons are exceedingly difficult to obtain at all, at least as far as I am aware.

The end result is that anyone who wants to own a rifle for hunting or farming needs can get one, but the rate of killing with firearms plummeted because the number of pistols on the streets was massively reduced.

One must note that the rate of killing with firearms decreasing in and of itself may not necessarily be significant, unless that rate of decline is significantly higher than the general decrease in murder rates (otherwise it just means that people are using different weapons). I don't have that data in front of me so I don't know what the reality is, but just thought I'd caution about simply using the "firearms deaths" number, in and of itself.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, this effectively banned or extremely heavily restricted most types of firearms. and this meant that anything but bolt action rifles and small rimfire weapons are exceedingly difficult to obtain at all, at least as far as I am aware.

Well, every gun became restricted, effectively. Pistols and semi-auto rifles are difficult to get, you need a good reason or a lot of patience. Other weapons aren't that hard to get, but the licensing is high and stupidly bureaucratic, it'd be nice if that was relaxed.

One must note that the rate of killing with firearms decreasing in and of itself may not necessarily be significant, unless that rate of decline is significantly higher than the general decrease in murder rates (otherwise it just means that people are using different weapons). I don't have that data in front of me so I don't know what the reality is, but just thought I'd caution about simply using the "firearms deaths" number, in and of itself.

The murder rate itself has declined steadily, but it's basically unknowable to determine how much of that was due to guns, because the rate of firearm murder wasn't that high beforehand, and the murder rate was in decline already.

What is telling is the sharp decline in stolen weapons, that's dropped by more than half. Probably a lot of that is due to stronger databases tracking who's purchasing firearms, so it's now really foolish to buy guns then have them 'stolen', selling them to the black market.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A pacifist clause could have had a major impact on US history, especially with conscription in wartime.

Yeah, I suspect a lot of the people who argue that we need to go with a strict, literal reading of the constitution, and eliminate everything not specifically provided for (meaning the EPA, and the Department of Education) don't realize under this theory, the Army would also need to disbanded. I think the founding father were pretty clear on how bad an idea they thought standing armies were, and by the fact they explicitly called for the creation of a Post Office and left nothing whatsoever for a standing army.

Of course, in 2015 that's no longer a good idea. Conscript armies thrown together on the fly haven't been unworkable in forever. It's almost like the founding fathers knew they they needed to have a flexible document that allowed for societal evolution.

 sebster wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
They aren't common in crime, what's common are PISTOLS. The Democrats unfortunately gak themselves whenever they see those "big scary black painted military firearms" and use their appearance to sow fear and thus gain support- but they don't play a major part in crime. Pistols do. You can hide a pistol practically anywhere on your person. You can take it anywhere without anybody realizing you're carrying concealed. You can also easily dispose of it, or hide it once more while fleeing the scene of the crime.

Heh. In past threads I mentioned that meaningful gun control should focus on restricting access to pistols. There was no comment from the left, and the right was fairly silent, except a few people who thought it was the worst idea that could have been suggested.

It's how the Australian approach was handled, for the most part. They looked at what guns were actually used to kill people, and then looked at how to regulate those weapons in particular. The end result is that anyone who wants to own a rifle for hunting or farming needs can get one, but the rate of killing with firearms plummeted because the number of pistols on the streets was massively reduced.


Just as a side issue, there's a common assumption that murder is about other types of crime. It only accounts for about half of murders. But as you say above most of the killings were with pistols - while rifles were so small as to be almost a rounding error.

Plus if you want something to defend your home with- you'll want something akin to an AR-15 or Shotgun instead of a puny handgun. The appeal of handguns as items of self defense purely spawns because other people may also have handguns on the street. As you mentioned in Down Under... remove that and the need for handguns in the first place virtually dries up. The only practical application of handguns that I know of besides defending against other handguns is keeping something like a .357 or .44 on your hip when hunting mean game like Boar in case the rifle fails to kill it.