Gun Nuts vs. Anti-Gun Nuts: Who is worse?

[dead0man]

In order from most tolerable to least tolerable:

Gun Control supporters only opposed to assault rifles, etc.>Gun Nuts>Gun Nuts who think they should be allowed to carry an assault rifle anywhere they go>Gun Control fanatics who oppose ownership of hand guns and would rather see a family raped and murdered than somebody defend themselves.

You forgot to put scare quotes around "assault rifles".

[Potatoe]

The ones whose political views lead to thousands of easily avoidable deaths.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Both are pretty bad. But the former are downright deranged while the latter just misunderstand things for the most part, and the former are far more numerous and influential.

[AggregateDemand]

They are both obnoxious, but at least you can count on the conspiracy militias to protect the homeland. The anti-gun lobby is basically just fill dirt for war cemeteries, and their gun restrictions rarely affect the hardened criminals.

However, in defense of the anti-gun nuts, the most pressing gun issues in the US are the grey markets that skirt the current background check regulations. Straw purchases are also a worry.

[Joshgreen]

The ones stockpiling large quantities of lethal weapons.

[dead0man]

Have any of the mass shooters owned 24 or more guns?

[Randy Bobandy]

The ones stockpiling large quantities of lethal weapons.

This.

[Mordecai]

Anti-Gun Nuts generally tend to be harmless, so Gun Nuts are worse.

[bedstuy]

If we're talking about the mainstream media, gun control advocates are somewhat misguided.  They only seem to care white, middle class people are killed and they fixate on regulations that are largely symbolic.  Assault weapons aren't the major problem for gun violence because you can't exactly tuck an M-16 into your cargo shorts.  But, why don't gun control advocates propose sweeping, effectual gun control?  That would be impossible because of the NRA stranglehold on our politics.  So, it's hard to blame "anti-gun nuts" for supporting wimpy half-measures. 

But, yeah, the real answer is gun nuts.  You people have laughable arguments for putting everyone's safety at risk from guns. 

We need guns for the proletarian uprising against the capitalists?  Seriously?  Saying we need guns to battle the robots when skynet becomes self-aware might actually be a better argument.  Yeah, tons of black kids need their heads blown off because of your dumb fantasy.  The harm from guns isn't some hypothetical thing that might happen.  It is happening to actual people.

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

[Reaganfan]

A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I am not going to give the money I earned working in a Capitalist society to a criminal, a tyrant, a person unworthy of life. Do you realize that you are defending the criminal? The criminal made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If that means that a legally armed good hearted citizen puts a bullet through the skull of a criminal who is robbing, attacking, or hurting the innocent...that's the end of story. Period. Don't you dare defend the criminals. Because then you become just like them. You're either with us or against us. There is no gray area. Period.

This is, by far, a great example of how sissy, girlie, whiny, defeatist and naive liberals are. This is a prime example as to why no matter what a so-called "wacko" conservative might say, no matter how rich a Republican is, no matter how old or how white or how close minded they are, I can never vote for a liberal. I can not vote for sissy, cowards. Weaklings.

Your mentality, had it been the ruling majority in the 1940s, would have meant that if people like you had your way, we would have had no guns, wouldn't have involved ourselves in World War II and would never have tested terrible scary weapons. You know who would have? The Third Reich, and they would have won that war because of defeatists like you.

It's the cowardly thought process that you possess and show in full true to form colors in this thread that makes the world a dangerous place. How dare you smear garbage like that. In this country. A country founded by men rising up with guns against a burdening King. You want them taken away?

This is why I vote for cowboys and war heroes, not sissy liberals, professors and draft dodgers with ugly wives.

[Joshgreen]

A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I am not going to give the money I earned working in a Capitalist society to a criminal, a tyrant, a person unworthy of life. Do you realize that you are defending the criminal? The criminal made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If that means that a legally armed good hearted citizen puts a bullet through the skull of a criminal who is robbing, attacking, or hurting the innocent...that's the end of story. Period. Don't you dare defend the criminals. Because then you become just like them. You're either with us or against us. There is no gray area. Period.

This is, by far, a great example of how sissy, girlie, whiny, defeatist and naive liberals are. This is a prime example as to why no matter what a so-called "wacko" conservative might say, no matter how rich a Republican is, no matter how old or how white or how close minded they are, I can never vote for a liberal. I can not vote for sissy, cowards. Weaklings.

Your mentality, had it been the ruling majority in the 1940s, would have meant that if people like you had your way, we would have had no guns, wouldn't have involved ourselves in World War II and would never have tested terrible scary weapons. You know who would have? The Third Reich, and they would have won that war because of defeatists like you.

It's the cowardly thought process that you possess and show in full true to form colors in this thread that makes the world a dangerous place. How dare you smear garbage like that. In this country. A country founded by men rising up with guns against a burdening King. You want them taken away?

This is why I vote for cowboys and war heroes, not sissy liberals, professors and draft dodgers with ugly wives.

Conservative women are uglier than liberal women...

[Reaganfan]

A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I am not going to give the money I earned working in a Capitalist society to a criminal, a tyrant, a person unworthy of life. Do you realize that you are defending the criminal? The criminal made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If that means that a legally armed good hearted citizen puts a bullet through the skull of a criminal who is robbing, attacking, or hurting the innocent...that's the end of story. Period. Don't you dare defend the criminals. Because then you become just like them. You're either with us or against us. There is no gray area. Period.

This is, by far, a great example of how sissy, girlie, whiny, defeatist and naive liberals are. This is a prime example as to why no matter what a so-called "wacko" conservative might say, no matter how rich a Republican is, no matter how old or how white or how close minded they are, I can never vote for a liberal. I can not vote for sissy, cowards. Weaklings.

Your mentality, had it been the ruling majority in the 1940s, would have meant that if people like you had your way, we would have had no guns, wouldn't have involved ourselves in World War II and would never have tested terrible scary weapons. You know who would have? The Third Reich, and they would have won that war because of defeatists like you.

It's the cowardly thought process that you possess and show in full true to form colors in this thread that makes the world a dangerous place. How dare you smear garbage like that. In this country. A country founded by men rising up with guns against a burdening King. You want them taken away?

This is why I vote for cowboys and war heroes, not sissy liberals, professors and draft dodgers with ugly wives.

Conservative women are uglier than liberal women...

I don't mean this in a derogatory way and this isn't a direct personal attack, but how does it feel to be a man, and yet have such cowardly opinions?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Killing somebody for attempting to take a small to medium amount of money is so entirely and obviously disproportionate and unjust that only somebody whose worldviews comes from eighties action movies could genuinely consider it on every level okay. There are plenty of grey areas, Naso, and admitting this doesn't even mean that you have accept that actions are morally ambiguous. All it means is that you have to accept that people are, because people do both good and bad things throughout their lives. The difference between petty muggers and Hitler is so stark in degree as to amount to a difference in kind, and if you sincerely don't recognize or accept that then I fear for your ability to navigate any situation in life that can't be dealt with through intimidating or impressing people with shallow canards and macho posturing. If that's supposed to be what it means to 'be a man' then I'd rather be castrated.

[bedstuy]

A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I am not going to give the money I earned working in a Capitalist society to a criminal, a tyrant, a person unworthy of life. Do you realize that you are defending the criminal? The criminal made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If that means that a legally armed good hearted citizen puts a bullet through the skull of a criminal who is robbing, attacking, or hurting the innocent...that's the end of story. Period. Don't you dare defend the criminals. Because then you become just like them. You're either with us or against us. There is no gray area. Period.

This is, by far, a great example of how sissy, girlie, whiny, defeatist and naive liberals are. This is a prime example as to why no matter what a so-called "wacko" conservative might say, no matter how rich a Republican is, no matter how old or how white or how close minded they are, I can never vote for a liberal. I can not vote for sissy, cowards. Weaklings.

Your mentality, had it been the ruling majority in the 1940s, would have meant that if people like you had your way, we would have had no guns, wouldn't have involved ourselves in World War II and would never have tested terrible scary weapons. You know who would have? The Third Reich, and they would have won that war because of defeatists like you.

It's the cowardly thought process that you possess and show in full true to form colors in this thread that makes the world a dangerous place. How dare you smear garbage like that. In this country. A country founded by men rising up with guns against a burdening King. You want them taken away?

This is why I vote for cowboys and war heroes, not sissy liberals, professors and draft dodgers with ugly wives.

This is legitimately hilarious.  Good job!

[RedSLC]

A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I am not going to give the money I earned working in a Capitalist society to a criminal, a tyrant, a person unworthy of life. Do you realize that you are defending the criminal? The criminal made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. If that means that a legally armed good hearted citizen puts a bullet through the skull of a criminal who is robbing, attacking, or hurting the innocent...that's the end of story. Period. Don't you dare defend the criminals. Because then you become just like them. You're either with us or against us. There is no gray area. Period.

This is, by far, a great example of how sissy, girlie, whiny, defeatist and naive liberals are. This is a prime example as to why no matter what a so-called "wacko" conservative might say, no matter how rich a Republican is, no matter how old or how white or how close minded they are, I can never vote for a liberal. I can not vote for sissy, cowards. Weaklings.

Your mentality, had it been the ruling majority in the 1940s, would have meant that if people like you had your way, we would have had no guns, wouldn't have involved ourselves in World War II and would never have tested terrible scary weapons. You know who would have? The Third Reich, and they would have won that war because of defeatists like you.

It's the cowardly thought process that you possess and show in full true to form colors in this thread that makes the world a dangerous place. How dare you smear garbage like that. In this country. A country founded by men rising up with guns against a burdening King. You want them taken away?

This is why I vote for cowboys and war heroes, not sissy liberals, professors and draft dodgers with ugly wives.

Your post is filled to the top with logical fallacies, strawmen characterizations, misinterpretations, non sequiters, rambling, and general hackishness.

0/10. Try again.

[Reaganfan]

The difference between petty muggers and Hitler is so stark in degree as to amount to a difference in kind, and if you sincerely don't recognize or accept that then I fear for your ability to navigate any situation in life that can't be dealt with through intimidating or impressing people with shallow canards and macho posturing. If that's supposed to be what it means to 'be a man' then I'd rather be castrated.

You're missing my point.

Man walks down the street and is attacked by a guy. I feel sympathy for the man and want a harsh punishment for the attacker.

Man walks down the street to buy Meth and is attacked by the guy. The attacker still deserves harsh punishment, but the man dealing in drugs is no longer innocent, thus the sympathy is gone.

See?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The difference between petty muggers and Hitler is so stark in degree as to amount to a difference in kind, and if you sincerely don't recognize or accept that then I fear for your ability to navigate any situation in life that can't be dealt with through intimidating or impressing people with shallow canards and macho posturing. If that's supposed to be what it means to 'be a man' then I'd rather be castrated.

You're missing my point.

Man walks down the street and is attacked by a guy. I feel sympathy for the man and want a harsh punishment for the attacker.

Man walks down the street to buy Meth and is attacked by the guy. The attacker still deserves harsh punishment, but the man dealing in drugs is no longer innocent, thus the sympathy is gone.

See?

No. I don't see. I can understand not liking the second man, but not having any sympathy for him makes it sound like you have a personality disorder. (It's also not the point that you appeared to have originally been trying to make.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

lolnaso

[IceSpear]

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I strongly disagree. If someone breaks in your house to rob you, what will you have to defend yourself and your family?

As for the mugging scenario, provided that the mugger was threatening the mugged (muggee?) with a deadly weapon, I would not shed a single tear over them getting shot in self defense. They knew the risks when they chose a life of crime, it's their own fault and they got what's coming to them when they decided to mess with the wrong person.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Anti Gun nuts are worse

[bedstuy]

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I strongly disagree. If someone breaks in your house to rob you, what will you have to defend yourself and your family?

As for the mugging scenario, provided that the mugger was threatening the mugged (muggee?) with a deadly weapon, I would not shed a single tear over them getting shot in self defense. They knew the risks when they chose a life of crime, it's their own fault and they got what's coming to them when they decided to mess with the wrong person.

Hmmm.  It's not that simple though.  It's about balancing out the risks.

I have three locked doors between me and said crazy guy with a gun.  And, I can call the cops and they'll be at my apartment in a few minutes.  That seems like a good amount of safety.  The other thing is, what good does it do some junky to murder me?  None.  If they want money, that's fine.  Risky your life and escalating things isn't worth it at all.  I've had close friends murdered, I hate violent criminals with a passion.  But, it's a matter of being smart.  And, honestly, if you think you're willing to kill someone because they want to steal your laptop, you're either a studio gangster or a violent idiot.

And, at the end of the day, if someone really wants to kill you, they probably will.  It's not worth going through life paranoid and constantly strapped for the small chance you can shoot first.  Plus, just in an ultimate sense, you have a societal balancing of the risks.  Guns reduce the safety of a community, in terms of accidents, suicides, stray bullets and violent crime.  If you know gun crime like I do, you would realize it's rare that you're going to have a chance to pull out a gun before they do, especially if you're not a trained law enforcement person.  People have these Clint Eastwood fantasies, but that's what happens in movies, not real life. 

I think this all comes down to machismo.  "They messed with the wrong guy," that's just bravado.  I'm for self-defense as a last resort, sure.  Most criminals are dumb kids and drug addicts.  They're human beings who made mistakes.  You don't just cavalierly blow their brains out.  That might seem like a tough guy thing to do, but it's really the pathetic, cowardly George Zimmerman attitude that gets people killed. 

[IceSpear]

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I strongly disagree. If someone breaks in your house to rob you, what will you have to defend yourself and your family?

As for the mugging scenario, provided that the mugger was threatening the mugged (muggee?) with a deadly weapon, I would not shed a single tear over them getting shot in self defense. They knew the risks when they chose a life of crime, it's their own fault and they got what's coming to them when they decided to mess with the wrong person.

Hmmm.  It's not that simple though.  It's about balancing out the risks.

I have three locked doors between me and said crazy guy with a gun.  And, I can call the cops and they'll be at my apartment in a few minutes.  That seems like a good amount of safety.  The other thing is, what good does it do some junky to murder me?  None.  If they want money, that's fine.  Risky your life and escalating things isn't worth it at all.  I've had close friends murdered, I hate violent criminals with a passion.  But, it's a matter of being smart.  And, honestly, if you think you're willing to kill someone because they want to steal your laptop, you're either a studio gangster or a violent idiot.

And, at the end of the day, if someone really wants to kill you, they probably will.  It's not worth going through life paranoid and constantly strapped for the small chance you can shoot first.  Plus, just in an ultimate sense, you have a societal balancing of the risks.  Guns reduce the safety of a community, in terms of accidents, suicides, stray bullets and violent crime.  If you know gun crime like I do, you would realize it's rare that you're going to have a chance to pull out a gun before they do, especially if you're not a trained law enforcement person.  People have these Clint Eastwood fantasies, but that's what happens in movies, not real life. 

I think this all comes down to machismo.  "They messed with the wrong guy," that's just bravado.  I'm for self-defense as a last resort, sure.  Most criminals are dumb kids and drug addicts.  They're human beings who made mistakes.  You don't just cavalierly blow their brains out.  That might seem like a tough guy thing to do, but it's really the pathetic, cowardly George Zimmerman attitude that gets people killed. 

Locked doors can easily be kicked through in a matter of seconds. And you're assuming that junkies are operating with a logical mindset. They aren't. They might kill you because you can identify them, they're scared that you might interfere with their goal, as a reflex due to being trigger happy, or because the voices in their head told them to. In addition, what if you're a woman? Sure, as a man maybe all they'll want is your laptop, but a woman should simply let herself be raped to avoid "escalating the situation"? I don't think so.

So you prefer to let them continue mugging people without consequence then? And the George Zimmerman thing isn't even comparable. He was clearly escalating the situation in an unreasonable manner (ex: shooting him when they were in a fist fight). As I said in my initial post, if threatened with a deadly weapon, then deadly force is justified.

[bedstuy]

We need guns to protect ourselves?  Also a canard.  There is practically no chance any individual will be in a situation where they need a gun to protect themselves.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods most of my life and had people point guns at me and mug me a few times.  A bit of cash and the chore of cancelling your credit cards is not worth shooting someone or escalating a situation like that.  But, I suppose the only real self-defense is common-sense and that gun nuts do not have.

I strongly disagree. If someone breaks in your house to rob you, what will you have to defend yourself and your family?

As for the mugging scenario, provided that the mugger was threatening the mugged (muggee?) with a deadly weapon, I would not shed a single tear over them getting shot in self defense. They knew the risks when they chose a life of crime, it's their own fault and they got what's coming to them when they decided to mess with the wrong person.

Hmmm.  It's not that simple though.  It's about balancing out the risks.

I have three locked doors between me and said crazy guy with a gun.  And, I can call the cops and they'll be at my apartment in a few minutes.  That seems like a good amount of safety.  The other thing is, what good does it do some junky to murder me?  None.  If they want money, that's fine.  Risky your life and escalating things isn't worth it at all.  I've had close friends murdered, I hate violent criminals with a passion.  But, it's a matter of being smart.  And, honestly, if you think you're willing to kill someone because they want to steal your laptop, you're either a studio gangster or a violent idiot.

And, at the end of the day, if someone really wants to kill you, they probably will.  It's not worth going through life paranoid and constantly strapped for the small chance you can shoot first.  Plus, just in an ultimate sense, you have a societal balancing of the risks.  Guns reduce the safety of a community, in terms of accidents, suicides, stray bullets and violent crime.  If you know gun crime like I do, you would realize it's rare that you're going to have a chance to pull out a gun before they do, especially if you're not a trained law enforcement person.  People have these Clint Eastwood fantasies, but that's what happens in movies, not real life. 

I think this all comes down to machismo.  "They messed with the wrong guy," that's just bravado.  I'm for self-defense as a last resort, sure.  Most criminals are dumb kids and drug addicts.  They're human beings who made mistakes.  You don't just cavalierly blow their brains out.  That might seem like a tough guy thing to do, but it's really the pathetic, cowardly George Zimmerman attitude that gets people killed. 

Locked doors can easily be kicked through in a matter of seconds. And you're assuming that junkies are operating with a logical mindset. They aren't. They might kill you because you can identify them, they're scared that you might interfere with their goal, as a reflex due to being trigger happy, or because the voices in their head told them to. In addition, what if you're a woman? Sure, as a man maybe all they'll want is your laptop, but a woman should simply let herself be raped to avoid "escalating the situation"? I don't think so.

So you prefer to let them continue mugging people without consequence then? And the George Zimmerman thing isn't even comparable. He was clearly escalating the situation in an unreasonable manner (ex: shooting him when they were in a fist fight). As I said in my initial post, if threatened with a deadly weapon, then deadly force is justified.

That's an interesting idea, but that is not the law.  You could go to jail for the rest of your life if you kill someone, so it's best to use the legal definition of self-defense.

But, the larger issue is that you're not being rational.  Are there situations where the best solution is killing someone in self-dense?  Yes, obviously.  But, it's a balance between that possibility and the danger posed by guns.  We have on one side, most gun violence where self-defense would be useless, accidents, suicides, stray bullets, etc.  On the other side, we have this hypothetical home invasion scenario that hardly ever happens.  Just read the newspaper, how many people get killed in home invasions?  Hardly any.  How many people get killed by being an innocent bystander who didn't even see the gun before they were shot?  Many.  The safety balance is on the side of fewer guns.  This is evidenced by the fact that in Western Europe the homicide rate is far, far lower than in the US.

[Oakvale]

This thread, summarised by oakvale for your benefit:

wow

many macho

so man

wow

[Marnetmar]

Gun nuts, and this is coming from a guy who opposes gun control.