Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Blind groper]

would a woman who owned guns be compensating for?

The gun nutters are largely male. Relatively few women become gun owning and gun totin' nut cases. Generally speaking, this shows that the female gender is saner than the males. But there are always a few exceptions.

[Coito ergo sum]

would a woman who owned guns be compensating for?

The gun nutters are largely male. Relatively few women become gun owning and gun totin' nut cases. Generally speaking, this shows that the female gender is saner than the males. But there are always a few exceptions.

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/08/20/ ... -the-rise/

I have no issue with reasonable regulations concerning guns. However, I have no respect for the line of argument that simply smears the opposition as nutcases. It's bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

It isn't only men who own guns.
So what fallacious, stereotypical inadequacies would a woman who owned guns be compensating for?

Attacking manhood is a way to ad hominem attack the issue. Men are "compensating for something" -- to anti-gun folks if they own a gun, and they're "compensating for something" to environmentalists if they drive an SUV. For some reason, it's considered a personal failing for men to have a penis size to the left of center on the bell curve.

If these "compensation" theories were true, we'd reduce crime and other bad male behavior, and save the environment, merely by requiring all men to get their penises measured, and those with below average penises could be jailed or sent to reeducation camps. LOL.

[Blind groper]

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

I define a gun nutter as anyone who owns a gun that has no value beyond shooting other humans. A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun who genuinely uses it to put food on the table does not fit under that definition. A person, though, who owns a hand gun for 'self defense' has a gun for killing other humans. That is : he/she is a gun nutter.

[Coito ergo sum]

He is. But the nut cases live on!

Yeah, but I'm optimistic that there will be a day when there are no more nutcases spouting obsolete Freudian psychoanalytic babble.

I'd rather be optimistic about people not having the mental and physical inadequacies that make them want to own a gun.

I find this notion that wanting to own a gun is likely the result of mental and physical inadequacies to be lazy psychobabble. It's actually just a rephrasing of "I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up." It's a childish argument.

[Blind groper]

"I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up."

If a person owns a gun, and has no practical reason for owning a gun, then you have to look at psychological reasons. My view is that the main psychological reason is the feeling of power over other people that the gun provides. Relationships to penises, large or small, are probably imaginary. Feelings of power, though, are not.

People, and especially males, love power. For those who cannot gain political power (most of us), there is the alternative of holding a loaded firearm and knowing it gives you the power of life or death.

[Coito ergo sum]

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

I define a gun nutter as anyone who owns a gun that has no value beyond shooting other humans. A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun who genuinely uses it to put food on the table does not fit under that definition. A person, though, who owns a hand gun for 'self defense' has a gun for killing other humans. That is : he/she is a gun nutter.

What sorts of guns are these? Almost all guns sold commercially can be used for hunting, even handguns. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... -ever-made

Handguns can are used for hunting, and self defense doesn't make one a nutter. Some neighborhoods are dangerous, and police response times can be insufficient. Retired police officers often keep their handguns.

Some people also use guns for sport shooting, like skeet, trap and whatnot, target shooting.

[Coito ergo sum]

"I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up."

If a person owns a gun, and has no practical reason for owning a gun, then you have to look at psychological reasons.

The thing is, you seem to gauge what is practical by your needs, and not someone else's needs. Just about everyone who owns a gun has a practical reason for owning one -- hunting, sport shooting, self-defense, are all practical reasons, and are all reasons cited by gun owners. Almost nobody has a gun because they "just want one." Some will say that they don't need a reason to own a gun, because they don't see it as a function of their having a reason to own a gun, but rather a function of there being a reason for them not to be able to own a gun. They shift the burden of proof. But, almost nobody has a gun when they don't have any reason at all to own one.

My view is that the main psychological reason is the feeling of power over other people that the gun provides. Relationships to penises, large or small, are probably imaginary. Feelings of power, though, are not.

This is all just psychobabble. Do you have any evidence for your view on this?

People, and especially males, love power. For those who cannot gain political power (most of us), there is the alternative of holding a loaded firearm and knowing it gives you the power of life or death.

Especially males? Where do you get this from? That's decidedly sexist, and as with your previous imagined psychology, do you have any evidence for it?

[Blind groper]

To Coito

No serious hunter uses a hand gun. By serious, I mean someone who is not out for 'sport' but to get meat. Even the very best hunting hand gun is inferior to a good rifle.

As far as target shooting for sport is concerned, you do not need to own a weapon of murder. There are pistol clubs and shooting ranges that keep the hand guns on site, in a very serious safe, and rent them to their members, for a low fee. There are also air pistols that are not lethal to humans, but totally suitable for shooting targets.

Self defense, as I have pointed out repeatedly, with a hand gun is an illusion. It is an illusion, because owning a hand gun does not make your family safer. It actually increases the risk of a member of the family being killed, as very clear cut statistics show. For example, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, having a hand gun in the house, and readily available (not in a safe) increases the risk of a member of the family successfully committing suicide by ten fold. Seth will, doubtless go callous on this and say that a suicide does not matter. But if it was his child who picked up his gun and shot him/herself, he would change his idiot tune very quickly.

Telling a truth about gender difference is not sexist. If I say most males have stronger biceps than most females, that is simply true, not sexist. By saying that being a gun nutter is more characteristic of males than females, that is also simply true, not sexist. With a few exceptions, of course.

[JimC]

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

I define a gun nutter as anyone who owns a gun that has no value beyond shooting other humans. A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun who genuinely uses it to put food on the table does not fit under that definition. A person, though, who owns a hand gun for 'self defense' has a gun for killing other humans. That is : he/she is a gun nutter.

What sorts of guns are these? Almost all guns sold commercially can be used for hunting, even handguns. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... -ever-made

Handguns can are used for hunting, and self defense doesn't make one a nutter. Some neighborhoods are dangerous, and police response times can be insufficient. Retired police officers often keep their handguns.

Some people also use guns for sport shooting, like skeet, trap and whatnot, target shooting.

Rather disingenuous...

Sure, there will be a small number of exceptions, but BG's point is about people who own hand-guns where the primary reason for owning them is self-defence - a very American phenomenon... (I would also include semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines...)

So, most anti-gun people here are not including guns owned for hunting, skeet shooting or competitive gun sports, all of which (given safe storage) are perfectly legitimate reasons.

And personally, I would restrict the use of the word "gun nut" to those who go on and on about their selfish "rights", and cheer from the sidelines when a householder guns down an unarmed intruder...

[Kristie]

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

I define a gun nutter as anyone who owns a gun that has no value beyond shooting other humans. A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun who genuinely uses it to put food on the table does not fit under that definition. A person, though, who owns a hand gun for 'self defense' has a gun for killing other humans. That is : he/she is a gun nutter.

What sorts of guns are these? Almost all guns sold commercially can be used for hunting, even handguns. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... -ever-made

Handguns can are used for hunting, and self defense doesn't make one a nutter. Some neighborhoods are dangerous, and police response times can be insufficient. Retired police officers often keep their handguns.

Some people also use guns for sport shooting, like skeet, trap and whatnot, target shooting.

Rather disingenuous...

Sure, there will be a small number of exceptions, but BG's point is about people who own hand-guns where the primary reason for owning them is self-defence - a very American phenomenon... (I would also include semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines...)

So, most anti-gun people here are not including guns owned for hunting, skeet shooting or competitive gun sports, all of which (given safe storage) are perfectly legitimate reasons.

And personally, I would restrict the use of the word "gun nut" to those who go on and on about their selfish "rights", and cheer from the sidelines when a householder guns down an unarmed intruder...

Especially the last part.

[Gallstones]

"I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up."

If a person owns a gun, and has no practical reason for owning a gun, then you have to look at psychological reasons. My view is that the main psychological reason is the feeling of power over other people that the gun provides. Relationships to penises, large or small, are probably imaginary. Feelings of power, though, are not.

People, and especially males, love power. For those who cannot gain political power (most of us), there is the alternative of holding a loaded firearm and knowing it gives you the power of life or death.

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

[Gallstones]

There are more people who hunt with handguns than you think. It is not some specialty or outlier sport. There are many handguns designed for hunting. Many hunters carry a large bore handgun as a backup.

[Gallstones]

I'd much rather be a nut than an impotent lamb.
You know what? That is MY choice to make regardless.

[Seth]

No. The correct statement is to say that John Lott claims they are wrong. But John Lott is a self serving person who has to say that or admit he was wrong. Which he never will do.

The Harvard study is wrong and biased.

it's perfectly clear that Obama, Feinstein and their ilk are absolutely and unquestionably out to get gun owners.

Obama and his allies want what is best for the American people.

No they don't, they want to increase their power over the people by disarming them one law at a time.

For the reasons I have repeated a thousand times, it is clear that total gun freedom is not the best thing.

Strawman. Nobody but you is arguing for "total gun freedom."

So they want to introduce reasonable restrictions to cut the slaughter of innocents.

No they don't, they want to introduce incremental legislation and rules that will facilitate total gun registration and owner licensing, which will inevitably result eventually in gun bans and confiscations. Absolutely NOTHING they've proposed would do a single thing to "cut the slaughter of innocents." And they know it.

Personally, I think they are too moderate. Nothing short of a complete ban on hand guns will cut the murder rate by an appreciable margin.

That's never going to happen, particularly given the Supreme Court's announcement that owning a handgun for self protection is a protected constitutional right.