Gun "Nuts"

Let me start by saying, I own a gun. Gun ownership by itself doesn't make someone nuts. It just seems that lots of people who are nuts like guns a little bit too much. Today, one day after a man shot and killed 13 people in upstate New York, another man shot and killed three police officers in Pittsburgh. According to the article, his friends said "he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns." Does this mean he shot the officers because he was concerned Obama was coming after his guns? No. It means AP knows how to come up with a provocative storyline. It also means the man was probably a bit of a gun "nut."

There are other countries with high gun ownership rates. It just seems that we Americans use them on each other more often. A gun is a tool. You can use it for hunting or you can use it for protection. It's a greasy hunk of metal. Yet some people seem to be obsessed by them to the point of it becoming abnormal. I suppose you could be obsessed by your tool collection, too. My father did seem to love his hammers and screwdrivers and saws. But I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have spent his hard earned money to join the National Hammer Association.

There is a reasonable argument to ban gun ownership and there's a reasonable argument to support gun ownership. There's no reasonable argument in support of owning an arsenal, for trading guns at "guns shows," for owning weapons with large magazine capacities and, in general, for treating gun ownership like just any other hobby. Background checks, gun locks, licensing and training just make good sense. Yet gun "enthusiasts" are paranoid about such things. Note: If someone is "enthusiastic" about their gun, start to worry.

When Obama was elected, gun sales skyrocketed. Why would people think they needed a gun all of a sudden, if they hadn't thought they needed one already? And if they had one already, why all of a sudden did they need more? Because there is a culture in this country that worships guns like a religion. They hold it up as holy. And they vow to defend unregulated gun ownership against any perceived threats as they would defend their children or their belief in God. And that is not normal. It's obsessive and paranoid. And obsessive paranoid people do crazy things. Which makes them nuts.

Comments

[HisXLNC]

Back when a kid could buy a gun at your local hardware store or you could order a Thompson sub-machine gun from a Sear catalog, there were a lot less nuts in general. Back when marksmanship was part of school curriculum and kids could bring their new rifles to school for show and tell, school shootings were unheard of. The only mass shooting anyone had ever heard of was at the University of Texas. And the death toll could have been much higher if it were for students returning fire with their own rifles.

It's funny how the number of gun "nuts" only increase as gun control increases.

That's because gun control fetishizes guns. Like the saying goes, "Forbidden fruits are sweetest". The more we fill people's heads with, "Guns are bad/evil/i­cky/verbot­en so you must never ever ever own or touch one", the more people will be attracted to them. Especially deranged people. As a result gang members treat guns like talismans of manhood. Lonely, rejected youth threat them as tools of vengeance. And we end up where we are now, with a serious case of helmet fire, wondering why gun control isn't working.

[djkrlsn]

Don't forget the "If I don't get it now, I won't be able to"--many guns are purchased ahead of bans or feared bans

[Ohio9]

"When Obama was elected, gun sales skyrocketed. Why would people think they needed a gun all of a sudden, if they hadn't thought they needed one already? And if they had one already, why all of a sudden did they need more?"

Because people realized they might not get a chance to get them in the future if Obama gets his way. Many people who have been putting off getting guns for financial reasons, particularly in these hard times, realized that it could be now or never, particularly in regard to those black evil looking semi-auto rifles that are rarely used in crime and functionally the same as more "traditional" looking types. I think you call them "assault weapons".

Based on Obama's record and his policy statements, it is a well founded concern.

[Ohio9]

"There's no reasonable argument in support of owning an arsenal, for trading guns at "guns shows," for owning weapons with large magazine capacities and, in general, for treating gun ownership like just any other hobby."

Why not? Gun shows are a great place to find good deals on guns, just like auto shows are for car enthusiasts. Owning an "Arsenal" (however many guns you think that is) isn't any different then owning one, as long as you use and store them all properly. As for "large capacity magazines", well they work great for the cops. Why wouldn't they work great for us? Keep in mind, unlike the cops, we don't have the authority of law, body armor, and dozens of backup officers a radio call away when we get attacked by criminals.

"Background checks, gun locks, licensing and training just make good sense."

Indeed they do (except for licensing), which is why the pro-gunner are strongly in favor of all of them (except for licensing). Who provides most firearms training in this country? It's not the gun control advocates.

[mike102]

"There's no reasonable argument in support of owning an arsenal, for trading guns at "guns shows," for owning weapons with large magazine capacities and, in general, for treating gun ownership like just any other hobby."

There's no reasonable argument for one gun owner being so presumptuous as to tell other gun owners what kinds of guns they should be allowed to have. And what's wrong with trading at gun shows?

Also, one man's "arsenal" is another man's collection.

You didn't think you were going to get any medals because you own a gun, did you? A lot of very vocal anti-gun advocates either own guns themselves, or hire others to carry guns for them. The list would include people like Rosie O' Donnell, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein (a .357 magnum), Jesse Jackson, and Ted Kennedy.

[LewDan]

Tried to say this earlier.. I'll try again. Like your writings, generally agree.

Haven't owned a gun since shortly after leaving military 35 years ago. As one instructor taught me: "You don't wan't to scare someone into killing you. If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't threaten. -- And just carrying a gun is a threat."

Back then difference between police and military was cops wouldn't shoot unless threatened, military shot any percieved threat. That's before SWAT teams adopted military tactics and cops adopted SWAT tactics.

If you've a weapon or cops THINK you've a weapon you may be shot. To say cops at your door aren't a threat is "nuts"... cops carry weapons. If they'd seen the PA man was armed, or THOUGHT he was armed, they might have shot him and no-one would be denying self-defense. When citizen does same no-one accepts self-defense. That double standard along with military reactions make cops a VERY REAL threat. We've got... what, 25% of the world's prison population? The law is not even-handed. The law does not protect citizens. You can buy into government propaganda but calling it "nuts" won't make it so. When you call the cops you're pointing a gun at someone by proxy. You are threatening their lives. You are attacking them. HE could very well have been killed.

Don't ever try to use your gun in defense. If you're not going to shoot first, without hesitation, you could get yourself killed.

[OdinsEye]

"Don't ever try to use your gun in defense. If you're not going to shoot first, without hesitation, you could get yourself killed."

Not exactly the best advice.

[LewDan]

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't mean he should just shoot without hesitation in defense. I mean he should not use to firearms for defense. He doesn't know how.

If there's no alternative, there's no alternative.

[Janet A]

Another excellent piece of writing from you Bruce.

I never realised the sale of guns rose so dramatically on the election of Obama and have been struggling over the last few days since you posted to work out why? I can see from your comments and your article the reasoning now comes from fear - fear of greater control on restrictio­ns/qualify­ing data/reasoning for ownership, and fear of what was that, (re: comments?) invasion? Who in their right minds outside of America are going to contemplate such a thing - you're huge!

I was also lucky enough to have been able to tune into Air America this morning, and have to say I was very impressed with how you presented being a gun owner. Usually we are hit with a certain arrogance and masculine power trait of self defence even before any possible scenario has been enacted (I use masculine here to describe the reaction rather than sex of a person). Your reasoning for having one and the way you portrayed how you envisaged it ever being needed was both informative and intelligent. You also show the sensibility of wanting more restrictions put in place and a serious review of the person in charge of the gun.

Thank you for that. You instilled in me, a person fearful of guns - that there are sensible and responsible owners out there after all.

The shootings in these articles in the news are absolutely horrific and review is well overdue.

[OdinsEye]

"I never realised the sale of guns rose so dramatically on the election of Obama "

It has only been all over the news since last November.

"have been struggling over the last few days since you posted to work out why?"

Because Obama's website said he wanted to bring back the ill-conceived Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 and when he voted for a similar bill in IL they actually expanded the ban. Because Obama had previously said that he did not think the Second Amendment protected an individual right and only changed his tune after the USSC said his stance was wrong. Because despite the populations of numerous states voted for concealed carry laws, Obama said he did not support concealed carry and would support a bill banning it. Because Obama once said he wanted to ban "ammunition for assault weapons", even though there really is no such thing.

Because the DNC website said similar things.

And because when people are told that items may be restricted or eliminated in the future, people tend to hoard and stockpile. Doesn't matter if it is firearms, potatoes, or toilet paper.


And more restrictions on firearms are not really all that "sensible". In fact, there is no proof that they even work.

[Janet A]

Hi OdinsEye, nice to meet you.

First can I start off by saying I am in the UK so if it has been all over the news I might not have caught it.

You have some interesting 'Becauses', I'm not sure I disagree with too many of them.

As to hoarding - you are right but hoarding firearms is a rather extreme situation? How many guns does it take to kill a person? Bit like changing a light bulb really... now toilet paper I understand, eventually you could run out! A gun doesn't run out of being a gun, only ammunition I would have thought. Why on earth do you need more than one, how many hands do you have? That's just a crazy answer.

As to more restrictions on firearms not being sensible, or no proof that it works? Over here in 1996 we saw the most horrendous shootings by a guy called Thomas Hamilton of innocent children in a local school, a whole class of 6 year olds almost wiped out! - I live not more than 15-20 miles away, and my primary school had the same set up. In 1997, Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 was put in place... it has worked. Read about the instance here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

It could have easily happened in our school where my little girl was in the gym with me at that precise moment as a P1 - our school turned down his application too.

[Ron Fell]

Well said, Mr. T.
There is no justification for personal possession of assault weapons. And you are so right about the religious zealotry that consumes some ( a few) gun owners. It is a form of pornography with the more dire of consequences.

[OdinsEye]

Do you know what an assault weapon is?

[Thirdpower]

Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

[magic3400]

OK I'm trying to wrap my mind around the shooters logic:

1. It's a dangerous world and I need a gun to protect myself and my family.
2. I have a 2nd amendment right to own my gun.
3. The president is going to take my gun rights away.
4. People will come and take my gun so I have to buy more guns to protect the guns I already own.

Just then...knock, knock, knock - POLICE DEPARTMENT sir, we need to talk to you.

OMG...THEY'RE HERE TO TAKE MY GUNS!!! BANG-BANG-BANG....

Three police officers lay dead and dying, the man is arrested and will be in jail for the rest of his life (or get a death sentence). Now he will live in a community where 100% of the population are criminals, THEY WILL do him harm and he CAN NOT own a gun.

This is best way he figured he could keep his guns! WOW!!!

We really have to improve the schools in this country.

[LewDan]

That's as logical as thinking removing the guns would solve the problem.

[LewDan]

My comments below addressed the "nuts" part of this agument. I've been remiss not addressing the "guns."

No-one can fire more than two guns at a time, so owning a hundred makes one no more dangerous than owning two.

The #1 U.S mass murderer used planes as bombs, #2 used a truck bomb. The idea that banning guns will reduce homicides if for no other reason than knives are less lethal ignores the fact that denied guns our homocidal maniacs may well trade up not down. The makings and formula for poison gas and bombs are readilly available.

We cannot uninvent or embargo technological advances in firepower, explosives, chemistry or warfare. I suggest, therefore, that we must address root disaffections, injustices, antisocial behavior and mental illness. Gun control is a red-herring. An unproven, unsupportable, illogical, unproductive distraction from real problems. Hardly a panacea.

[Thirdpower]

Illinois Factoids 2007 according to the 2007 IL UCR.

Illinois had a population of 12.83 million w/ a murder rate of 5.9/100K (752) in comparison to 6.2/100K last year.

Chicago had 22.1% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 58.9% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 15.64/100K. A slight drop from last year in both population and murders.

Cook County had 41.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 69.5% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 9.9/100K. It also had population and murder drops.

The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita decreased 9.7 and 9.2% respectively while arrest numbers and rates increased over 6.8% from '06 to '07. 2006 however, had an 18% drop.

If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.09 .

Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 3.03 .

So Chicago still accounts for 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state with it's "Model Gun Laws". Firearm ownership is common in the rest of the state.

[Bethab]

Well...I'm not really that concerned about what the 5 or 6 people who live in the rest of Illinois are going to do.

[Kayonne Riley]

I like the author's comment: "It's apparent to me that what's really needed here is a look at the psychology of gun ownership in this nation. Is the belief that a gun alone will make us more secure from all the things we fear so ingrained in the American psyche that there's no chance to change that?"
I've never needed or wanted a gun for protection. Somehow I've made it thru life, grew up in rural Texas, then moved to the big crime-ridden city in college, and later spent many late nights on the road and in clubs playing music. Never have had a problem and I've been all over the world.
If I'm in what feels like a dangerous place, I leave, quickly. I can't imagine how a gun would make me feel any more safe. At home, I keep my doors & windows locked and having a dog that growls & barks is nice too.
Given a dangerous situation, I have way more confidence in my talking (and running) prowess than in my ability to point and shoot a gun accurately to protect myself.

[OdinsEye]

Believe it or not, but my initial advice to most people when asked what kind of firearm to own for self-defense is "Nike or New Balance".

However, that advice is not always the best for everyone. An astounding number of people actually do use firearms defensively at least once in their lifetime. Though some people never have such a problem, well, we can't all be so lucky.

If someone does opt to own a firearm for defense, I always advocate training and practice. The training is very important not from a marksmanship standpoint, but rather from a legal one as the use of lethal force laws vary a great deal from state to state and 90% of what people tell one another regarding this is very wrong.

That being said, many people own firearms for reasons other than personal defense.

[mike102]

You've never been mugged. I have.

The best advice is to avoid what are obviously dangerous places, but sometimes you can't, and you can't always get away. I'm afraid I wouldn't have been able to outrun 5 guys half my age anyway.

[djkrlsn]

While I agree it is best to use common sense about where you are, but there are quite a few people for whom running is a not an option--in my case because of a bad knee and size--on the other hand I am powerful enough so self defense is an option

[propitiousmoment]

Thanks to the author for saying in a more complete way what I have been trying to articulate for a while now.

[JimMan35]

a friend of ours' son is home on leave following his return from Iraq and he says that the thing that he and all of his buddies talk about most is how Obama is going to take away our right to own guns. So they're all trying to figure out how to buy carbines and semi-automatics before that happens. He says he wants to keep himself, his home, and maybe some of his neighbors safe when the time comes. He says the military and the government are so screwed up and incompetent that another powerful country could just march into the United States and take over, so he and his little semi-automatic are going to give them as hard a time as possible. These military guys seems to think that we regular citizens have been deluded into thinking that we can't be taken over and America be destroyed right around us.

Lots of young gun nuts being created in the military. Paranoid with untreated PTSD. Nicotined and caffeined up and ready to fight anyone. And they don't have a clue what's happening in the economy or other areas of government.

Kinda scary.

[OdinsEye]

Actually those "young gun nuts" aren't all that incorrect about the capabilities of an armed populace. And I wager they have more experience than you in that regard.

//signed//
A retired combat vet

[hunt49]

But their perception that such resistance will ever be needed is what is scary. Especially given the mental health issues many of them come home with.

Thanks for your services -- did you ever experience a PTSD flashback that disconnected you with reality? I hope you never have. As a mental health professional, I've seen it. I've seen vets break their wife's leg, or hold a knife to her throat, all the while calling for their long-distant platoon members to "bring them their gun."

The idea that our government will disintegrate, we will be invaded, and we'll need to use our 30/30's to fend off the [insert latest scary gov't here] is what is disturbing. The fact that the military is a breeding ground for this idea is unfortunate.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

You said "Kinda scary."

Do you want something that you should really be scared of? Something that should really give you some endless concern?

If the Democrats under Obama's leadership do not restore the rule of law and prosecute the neocon war criminals, and if "gun control" becomes high on the agenda for the Democrats and high on the agenda of the MSM who will use it as a wedge issue in their good-cop, bad-cop routine, some people who voted for Obama and the other good-cop, anti-Republicans will vote against those who want to take away their right to be left alone and defend themselves.

When some of them are threatened with being deprived of a means of self-defense, they will vote against the politicians who are responsible for this.

Of course, we will know that the MSM is "liberal" because the bad-cop half of the MSM will tell us so. As they agitate for "gun control" while suppressing self-defen­se-in-the-­home stories and demonize all gun owners as "gun nuts," some people will know otherwise and will shift their votes from Democrats to Republicans once again.

Do you want to be really scared? Just think about more neocon-Republicans getting back into office.

[BlackJAC]

You have to remember that the target demo for recruiting is the 18-25 age range, which is pretty malleable psychologically.

[CanisLatrans]

"Because there is a culture in this country that worships guns like a religion. They hold it up as holy. And they vow to defend unregulated gun ownership against any perceived threats as they would defend their children or their belief in God. And that is not normal. It's obsessive and paranoid. And obsessive paranoid people do crazy things. Which makes them nuts."

It is not 'guns' that are regarded as holy; it is the right to said gun that is regarded as holy. Certainly as holy as any of the other rights that are guaranteed for us. Would we not all howl as loud if the rights to free speech was infringed? Wasn't that righteous indignation behind much of the opposition to the PATRIOT act? There are many out there that saw the PATRIOT act as a "reasonable speech-control measure" that only nuts would have anything to worry about.

In the context of gun owners who are nuts, we need to eliminate the barrier that prevents a gun purchase records-check from accessing mental health records. Some recent mass shootings (such as V-Tech) would have been prevented had not psychologically unstable people been prevented from owning guns that they never should have had to start with. So far "privacy concerns" prevent that access.

[BlackJAC]

And there you have it: at 4:54 PM Eastern Standard Time on April 4, 2009, a gun owner spoke about weapons ownership like we were all adults.

[OdinsEye]

He was doing good until he got to, "There's no reasonable argument ".

[BlackJAC]

There's a marked difference between having a display case filled with various rifles, shotguns and pistols in your living room and converting your three-car garage into a weapons locker for your inordinately large collection of weaponry--and no, that's not gun-grabber hyperbole, that's the guy in Little Rock that author Lee Child consults on firearm technical issues. "Sorry, Timmy, but your not-covere­d-by-insur­ance leg surgery is going to have to wait a few more months. Your father saw some .357 revolvers he just had to have, as if the 39 other .357 revolvers he already has wasn't enough." It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue, it's interventi­on/twelve-­step program time when you need that much space for that much artillery.