The Inconsistent Lunacy of the Gun Nuts

Building on Imani’s post, I want to flag another issue raised by the “rush the gunman” meme on the right.

Whenever people talk about restriction on guns, the gun nuts come out make dire warnings about how our rights of self-defense are threatened. This is the case even when discussing limitations on “assault weapons.” These guys are all about rate of fire, reload speed, and stopping power.

“How dare you restrict me to a .38 revolver? How can I possibly defend my home with that?”

But then, when faced with the problem of assault rifle wielding maniacs, the proper response is rushing him? This, coming from the same people who believe that a shotgun is wholly inadequate for home defense?

So what is it boys? Does self-defense require military-grade weaponry, or it is just matter of finding a “husky 12 year old” or a “janitor with a bucket”?

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






80 replies
  1. 1
    efgoldman says:

    So what is it boys?

    Expecting any kind of logic or consistency from any corner of Greater Wingnuttia is a fool’s errand.

    ETA: It assumes that their thesis, whatever the fuck it is, is somehow based in fact and truth.

  2. 2
    TooManyJens says:

    Well, I’m sure they’d rather the husky 12-year-old boys all had their own assault rifles, but since that would make those pussy liberals cry, the kids will just have to make do with their own body mass.

    It’s our fault, really.

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Eric U. says:

    The Air Force had mandatory firearms training to teach me how ill-qualified I am to try to use one. If I got a weapon so I could disable a crazed gunman, a shotgun is the only choice that would actually serve the intended purpose. The 9mm training we had was an eye-opener. You can easily get it into a state where it will not fire.

  5. 5
    jl says:

    Single person midget tanks. Then the unpatriotic unarmed will not need to be tattooed on their foreheads, they will announce themselves (after we outlaw hats for purposes of national security).

    Problem solved. You are welcome.

  6. 6
    Corner Stone says:

    I wouldn’t take a .38 revolver if you paid me.

  7. 7
    karl says:

    Apples and oranges. The best ideal world scenario is to have the right weapon for the right job, know how to use it, have easy access to it, and not be shot first; the best alternative to that is rushing the perp. After the emasculation of being weaponless in time of need, rushing restores your manhood in just seconds — so you can die at peace with yourself and the world.

  8. 8
    BGinCHI says:

    Obvious answer is “janitor with 100 hollow point buckets.”

  9. 9
    RepubAnon says:

    I recall someone selling a home defense device that made a sound like a pump action shotgun chambering a cartridge. The idea was that the sound of a shotgun being loaded would scare away the burglar – and yet the device couldn’t accidentally shoot anyone.

    My personal fear is not from evildoers bursting through my door – it’s from bullets fired by careless neighbors coming through my walls.

  10. 10
    BGinCHI says:

    @Corner Stone: You could turn it into a ploughshare and make a tidy profit.

  11. 11
    jl says:

    Am also in the process of inventing a beanie with a rotating sawed off shotgun in place of propeller. I figure a rubber squeeze bulb can be easily engineered to operate it. That will also solve all problems. There will be an exception to the hat ban for armed beanies.

  12. 12
    GregB says:

    Clearly the best way to prepare America for the day when tyrannical government forces us to respond with our own weapons is to mandate that more agents of the government(union thug teachers/administrators/janitors)become well armed.

  13. 13
    ChrisNYC says:

    They have totally skewed the dialogue. It’s not my problem or the problem of my fellow non-gun owning citizens that these nuts are riddled with paranoia and think they “need” anti tank weaponry to protect their tv. Wish wish wish that someone would point out that the right to bear arms is not the obligation to do so — “well, gun enthusiasts want assault weapons so I guess that means we all have to carry — let’s arm teachers… and students.” No, sorry, I don’t need to re-order my life to accommodate someone else’s hobby or self-defense obsession. It’s amazing how often people who carp constantly about freedom are really about not freedom.

  14. 14
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    M16s (and their variants) don’t have “stopping power.”

    An M1911 pistol, on the other hand, was designed to stop charging Moro tribesmen.

    All this is bullshit, of course. It’s counter-offense, not defense. True defense would be kevlar vests, bullet proof faceguards, deflector shields, whatever. Something that prevents the bullets from ever getting to you.

  15. 15
    Ash Can says:

    Actually, they mean that someone else needs to rush the shooter for them, while they stand by with their big-ass macho weaponry and miraculously whistle a shot past the rusher’s ear and plug the shooter while he’s being distracted by the rusher.

  16. 16
    RedKitten says:

    An excellent point, Bernard. But yeah, as efgoldman said, you’re expecting something resembling intellectual consistency from this bunch.

  17. 17
    Corner Stone says:

    I’m thinking of trying to hook up with Paula Broadwell. She seems pretty fierce and brings her own guns.
    Rawr.

  18. 18
    General Stuck says:

    I don’t think citizens in this society need a military grade firearm, and would love to see them banned. But I tell you, if we do that, I will only support it if none are grandfathered in, and all are to be collected, or bought back by the government and after a period of time make it illegal to possess one.

    I don’t want an army of wingnuts with pre owned assault rifles being the only ones with them. I am not the least bit afraid of my government, probly from knowing how it operates from working in it for years. But I don’t trust the right wing white man one iota, especially those with southern roots. They are going to rebel in some way, and already are at a loss of power status, so if we ban those guns, ban em every one.

  19. 19
    Mnemosyne says:

    @ChrisNYC:

    It’s amazing how often people who carp constantly about freedom are really about not freedom.

    I think I can see where you’re making your mistake. When you think of “freedom,” you’re thinking it should apply to everyone, so no one should be allowed to do things that infringe on the freedoms of others. When they think of freedom, they think it should apply only to them, and everyone else must be forced to adapt to what they want, or they’re not really free.

    I wish I was joking about this.

  20. 20
    sven says:

    I am more concerned about the move to allow staff members to bring guns into the school. Many people have pointed out the risk of accident but there are two other issues which I haven’t seen addressed.

    1) If a teacher is armed, are they really going to leave their classroom full of children alone during the crisis to go stalking the halls like John McClane.

    2) Most public schools practice “lock-down” drills in which all doors in the school are locked to protect students throughout the building. Knowing that the students and staff have retreated to identified spaces, local law enforcement have a much easier time identifying suspects. (Most of these shooters are young men wandering a building literally filled with young men!) Once you start sending additional (armed) individuals into unconfined areas, it makes the job of law enforcement far more difficult.

  21. 21
    aimai says:

    To me this illogic is the flip side of the larger illogic: that (for example) calling Wayne LaPierre a poopy head is eliminationist rhetoric but actively promoting the buying of semi automatic assault rifles by mentally ill people and paranoid lunatics is patriotic.

    aimai

  22. 22
    RedKitten says:

    I think I can see where you’re making your mistake. When you think of “freedom,” you’re thinking it should apply to everyone, so no one should be allowed to do things that infringe on the freedoms of others. When they think of freedom, they think it should apply only to them, and everyone else must be forced to adapt to what they want, or they’re not really free.

    Pretty much. And I’m SURE that if a large group of inner-city black guys went to the media and started speaking up about THEIR rights to protect themselves with military-grade weapons, the right-wing would be right there, supporting that idea.

  23. 23
    Whidby says:

    Possible reasons for owning a firearm include

    Self defense
    Hunting
    Collecting
    Fetishistic paraphilia
    Target shooting
    Defending against invaders or a tyrannical government

    The last reason, when an “assault rifle” would be most useful is the least likely to ever occur and is also the only reason protected directly by the constitution, at least according to Heller.

  24. 24
    Rational Subjectivist says:

    @General Stuck:

    I don’t think citizens in this society need a military grade firearm, and would love to see them banned

    The ‘you don’t need it’ part of that argument gets a lot of people upset, and I think it should. Taken alone, the principle could apply to a lot of things that people like/don’t need that are harmless. I think ‘don’t need’ should be combined with ‘and are too damned dangerous to others’ every time in order to head off objections that liberals are just anti-fun big government control freaks, etc.

    Other than that quibble I agree with you.

  25. 25
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    @Ash Can:

    Actually, they mean that someone else needs to rush the shooter for them…

    AKA: “using little kids for human shields”

    There’s something really REALLY wrong with an ideology that leads to a position like that, I just wish I could put my finger on it…

  26. 26
    Violet says:

    @sven:

    I am more concerned about the move to allow staff members to bring guns into the school.

    It’s not allow. It’s require. Even scarier.

  27. 27
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: You wouldn’t take a reliable, easily maintained, sturdy weapon that fires cheap ammo and can fuck some shit up (the actual purpose of a gun)?
    The SF still have them. Subsonic weapons that don’t throw brass, and are easily and cheaply suppressed if necessary, but are highly unlikely to penetrate drywall?
    What’s not to like?
    Unless you don’t want a gun at all, of course.

  28. 28
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Whidby: and if the tyrannical government ever comes for you, I can assure you that your little 5.56mm peashooter is not going to even scratch the paint on the Bradley or the 113. Or even the Up-armored Hummer, for that matter.
    Or penetrate the plates on their individual body armor, for that matter.

    There are things that would be far more useful.
    Molotov cocktails come to mind immediately.

  29. 29
    BGinCHI says:

    @Whidby: Was that in Catch-22?

  30. 30
    efgoldman says:

    @ChrisNYC:

    I don’t need to re-order my life to accommodate someone else’s hobby or self-defense obsession fear and cowardice.

    Small correction.

  31. 31
    amk says:

    ironman suits all around, baybee. problem solved.

  32. 32
    spacewalrus says:

    They want to talk about everything but the very thing that enabled him to put 3-11 shots in 20 kids in 10 minutes. And when they bring up video games? Remind them that the games they’re talking about are the games that feature these kinds of weapons.

    Right now there mode is to shut down the debate, distract, and make sure that nothing changes. Because they don’t care and they KNOW they don’t have a good rationale for owning weapons designed for combat.

  33. 33
    Corner Stone says:

    @Soonergrunt: God no. When I “stand my ground” it won’t be with something so declasse as a .38. Can you imagine the endless ribbing I would take?

    BTW, it’s near impossible to suppress a revolver. Or so I’ve been told.

  34. 34
    Cassidy says:

    @Soonergrunt: LE and private security still use .38 because it doesn’t have the over-penetration of bigger rounds and is stupid accurate from a 6in barrel.

    @Soonergrunt: It’ll scratch the paint. We were skimping on good quality paint jobs when I left.

  35. 35
    jheartney says:

    It’s a classic tragedy of the commons. The “whackjob with an arsenal” problem is created by the “I must protect myself from the whackjobs with an arsenal” crowd. If they didn’t insist on their supposed right to have an arsenal, the whackjobs wouldn’t have arsenals either.

    I imagine these bozos must tell each other war stories about how they held off some bad guy or other with their manly sidearms and/or other giant penile substitutes. It can’t be that they are all cowering in fear of something that never actually happens, right? Right?

  36. 36
    Steeplejack says:

    @jl:

    Single person midget tanks.

    I’ve been doing some research on outsourcing that to the housecat. Still a few kinks in the system.

  37. 37
    Corner Stone says:

    These people on House Hunters want a house in Paris for $1250/US per month. With closets, crown molding, full kitchen.
    WTF is wrong with these people.

  38. 38
    efgoldman says:

    @Rational Subjectivist:

    Taken alone, the principle could apply to a lot of things that people like/don’t need that are harmless.

    Keywords, there.
    There’s nothing harmless about a weapon. Nothing at all.
    Video games? P0rn? Bad fashion choices? Those are largely harmless. AR-15s? Maybe if they are broken down. Maybe.

  39. 39
    General Stuck says:

    @Rational Subjectivist:

    I don’t think

    preceded by my own personal viewpoint in a generic sense of how we usually define what the second amendment says. By ‘need’ I meant for hunting or self defense, that I don’t object to personally, and think is a good basic stopping point for a right to own a gun. Or, I was basically responding to Bernard’s

    “How dare you restrict me to a .38 revolver? How can I possibly defend my home with that?”

    As an example of gun nut thinking out there. But we are a revolutionary country, and I think at least part of what the founders were thinking in an 18 century world, was made from their own recent experiences of rebelling against a bad government. I think it is debatable, for sure, that the second amendment does permit militia type paramilitary groups locally, BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE WELL REGULATED BY THE STATE.

    But personally, I think the extension of that language to private and personal gun ownership, really should only go so far as for self defense against common criminality, in this mostly stable country, and for hunting.

  40. 40
    ChrisNYC says:

    @Whidby: Yeah, like someone pointed out, if it ever came to pass, good luck against the US military to you on your homestead with any kind of gun. If that happens, the stuff you’ll need and likely the people will come from outside, just like they did the first time around for the US and like they do for every insurrection ever.

  41. 41
    Soonergrunt says:

    @RedKitten: One needs only to look at the gun control ordinances that were put in place in the aftermath of the Tulsa Race Riots.
    The requirement for very expensive permits could only be met by certain types of people.

  42. 42
    Whidby says:

    @Soonergrunt: no shit corporal sherlock

  43. 43
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: Where do they intend to keep their guns?

  44. 44
    jl says:

    @Steeplejack:

    Thanks. I’ve had some ‘bad cat’ days myself. Survived.

    Now, here is our brave new world of FREEDOM (via Young Turks segment)

    ‘Stand your ground’ cited in shooting of whiny Little Caesars Pizza customer

    Randall White, 49, was in line waiting for his pizza on Sunday when he began complaining that he wasn’t being served fast enough…. 52-year-old Michael Jock was also in line and scolded White for whining.

    The two began arguing and it eventually “became a shoving match,” police spokesperson Mike Puetz said.

    After White allegedly raised his fist, Jock pulled out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver and fired a shot into the man’s torso. A second shot also hit White in the torso. One round became lodged in the restaurant wall.

    When police arrived, Jock told them that the shooting had been justified under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which says that gun owners do not have a “duty to retreat.”

    “He felt he was in his rights,” Puetz explained. “He brought it up specifically and cited it to the officer.”

    Jock, who had a concealed-carry permit, told police that White had an object in his hand, but later abandoned that story under police questioning.

    “We determined it did not reach a level where deadly force was required,” Puetz said.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....a-customer

    Seems like a .38 special is good enough for some freedom fighters.

    I’ve decided to work on shaped directional charges that can be implanted to have 360 degree range of fire. It should be simple to engineer an automatic switch that triggers a discharge with you feel that your FREEDOM is being threatened, and you are slightly pissed off. That will solve everything.

  45. 45
    Corner Stone says:

    @Soonergrunt: They’re in freakin’ Paris! Clearly they hate having the God Given Right to defend themselves against The Other.
    They deserve what they get, the dirty commie scum.

  46. 46
  47. 47
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: Well, if you’ve got to stand your ground, you should do so with panache, you know? Nickel-plated 12GA shotgun with pistol grip for you then.
    Actually, the subsonic ammo makes the weapon a lot quieter, and even old S/W38s were pretty tightly fitted. They can be retro’ed with a rubber grommet at the cylinder/barrel interface.

    @Whidby: That’s SFC Sherlock, you grabastic afterbirth of a mongolian goat-fuck. Get it right and get at Parade Rest when you do that.

  48. 48
    Whidby says:

    @jl: America, America, God shed his grace on thee …

  49. 49
    Corner Stone says:

    @jl:

    Seems like a .38 special is good enough for some freedom fighters.

    Perfect example! It took the hero two shots at shoving range and the perpetrator is still breathing and telling his side of the story!
    F that .38 garbage. Might as well have just pistol whipped him with it.

  50. 50
    Mr Stagger Lee says:

    @Corner Stone:

    AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes.

    -Odell Robbie(Samuel L. Jackson)Jackie Brown

  51. 51
    Suffern ACE says:

    @jl: well the customer is always right. Perhaps little Caesars needs to train its staff in providing courteous service and how to shoot their unruly customers before those customers shoot other customers.

  52. 52
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Corner Stone: They have gun rights. They can be almost as good Americans there as they can here.
    But since the article implies that military calibers are not authorized for civilian use, they can’t bring their Bushmaster Babyslayer 556s with them it would seem.

    @Corner Stone: ” Might as well have just pistol whipped him with it.”
    I had a marksmanship instructor in the Army tell me about both the .38 and the .45 that “outside of about 10 meters, you’ll stand a better chance of hitting your target if you throw the damn thing, and with the .38 you’ll probably do as much damage.”

  53. 53
    Matt McIrvin says:

    I just talked to a guy lives in the far north of Canada and has a significant chance of having to defend his home from attacking grizzly bears. He’s therefore happy he can have semi-auto weapons (though they limit the magazine size to 5 rounds there). One shot will, apparently, often not stop a grizzly bear.

    I’m willing to say, OK, if you can make a case that grizzly-bear attacks are a thing in your life, a five-round semiautomatic rifle is a reasonable thing for you to have.

  54. 54
    Corner Stone says:

    @Soonergrunt: As a wise man once said:
    “I got this.”

  55. 55
    Whidby says:

    @Soonergrunt: . I didn’t peg you for the kind of kiss ass it takes to be a SFC…

    \joking

  56. 56
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Matt McIrvin: OK, I’ll buy that you might need some firepower to take down a bear, but I wouldn’t want to trust my life to a 5.56mm against a bear. Particularly with only 5 rounds in the mag. 7.62, or 300Win-mag, maybe. But 5.56/223Rem? NO.

    @Whidby: Well, somebody in personnel wasn’t paying attention the day they did the E-7 list.
    And the real ass-kissing didn’t start until you go for E-8.

  57. 57
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Soonergrunt: I think the rifle he mentioned as an example was the M14, which is 7.62.

  58. 58
    Steeplejack says:

    @ChrisNYC:

    [. . .] if it ever came to pass, good luck against the US military to you on your homestead with any kind of gun.

    Hell, good luck against the average (over-militarized) police department SWAT team.

  59. 59
    A moocher says:

    @Matt McIrvin: this strikes me as very unlikely. I know many Canadian bear biologists and I have never head any discussion of a need for defense against grizzly bears.

  60. 60
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Matt McIrvin: That’ll work. M14 and M21 both have a special place in my heart.
    So does the updated unit, the M39

  61. 61
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    This, this, this.

    Their definition of “freedom” is solipsistic.

  62. 62
    PhoenixRising says:

    I recall someone selling a home defense device that made a sound like a pump action shotgun chambering a cartridge

    This is what we have to back up the Great Dane. Neither of these home defense devices can be discharged by the kids or mistaken for an asthma inhaler or left on the seat of the truck & stolen to be used in a crime later, so I think we have this whole ‘home security’ thing iced.

  63. 63
    Corner Stone says:

    @Matt McIrvin: How big, or should I say tiny, would you estimate his pen!s is?

  64. 64
    Corner Stone says:

    @A moocher:

    I know many Canadian bear biologists

    I have been giggling about this for some number of minutes now.

  65. 65
    JoyceH says:

    This business of expecting kids to rush the gunman, sacrificing themselves for the group – someone said that’s expecting six year olds to behave in a way that when an armed and trained adult behaves so, they give him the Medal of Honor.

  66. 66
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    Which is why Ronald Reagan, of all people, signed a highly restrictive gun control law in California AFTER the Black Panthers paraded in Sacramento brandishing longarms.

    The 2nd Amendment is just fine in theory until the “wrong” sort of people start exercising it.

  67. 67
    Corner Stone says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I’m not sure at all that any of us actually exist. Isn’t it more likely we’re all in Hell, divorced from the light of His love?

  68. 68
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Corner Stone:

    I think we’re all on a box in someone’s living room, and that someone is laughing his ass off, rolling on the floor, and scaring that cat-like creature over on the windowsill.

  69. 69
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    It’s entirely asymmetrical and absurd, but the conceit is that Home Protection Man is smarter, faster, more moral and endowed by the deity with greater powers than Home Invader Man. And has a bigger pen1s, too.

  70. 70
    toschek says:

    my question is how does a Bushmaster protect you from a drone strike or tear gas canisters or an LRAD. I’ll take my answer offline, because it is a real stumper.

  71. 71
    toschek says:

    my question is how does a Bushmaster protect you from a drone strike or tear gas canisters or an LRAD. I’ll take my answer offline, because it is a real stumper.

  72. 72
    toschek says:

    sorry for the double post, damn smartphone.

  73. 73
    Ronzoni Rigatoni says:

    @Corner Stone: “I wouldn’t take a .38 revolver if you paid me.” I dunno. I never had to clear a jammed revolver. The 9mm? Many times.

  74. 74
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    @A moocher: “I know many Canadian bear biologists and I have never head any discussion of a need for defense against grizzly bears.”

    Well, no. They just get the students to rush the grizzly, and then they can make their escape while the bear is eating. It’s simple!

  75. 75
    Eamonn says:

    @Snarki, child of Loki:
    I know a bird biologist who was working on a small island in James Bay where they had to carry 12 Gauge shotguns outside the electrified perimeter because of polar bears. Unfortunately, the john was also outside the perimeter so someone had to provide cover if you tried to take a shit in the dark. Said no one ever had to use the things and the only time they shot them was when they got a delivery of surplus watermelons in their food shipment and used them for target practice when they got old.

  76. 76
    Rasputin's Evil Twin says:

    An old Sgt Major told me if you want home defense, a shotgun is the thing. “We didn’t call them ‘trench brooms’ for nothing. He was Very Old Army (enlisted in 1933) and had no patience for bozos with assault weapons. I tend to believe him over the guys who fap to Guns & Ammo.

  77. 77
  78. 78
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Rasputin’s Evil Twin: At close range, NOTHING beats a shotgun.
    Except maybe a flamethrower. And those are somewhat difficult to come by.

  79. 79
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Corner Stone: Dunno, but at the very least he seems to have nothing but contempt for American Tactical Teds, possibly as part of the general Canadian identity package.

  80. 80
    polyorchnid octopunch says:

    Well, I guess the writers figure they are neither husky, nor janitors, so they’re safe from having to do the rush.

    Hey, if the GOP had their way, the janitors would be husky twelve year olds!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments are closed.