# Guns and the defense of liberty. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002 "2013-01-12T22:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/241 "2013-01-30T03:19:12Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > America was a free country during the first GW Bush term, when we had that assault weapons ban, and would be just as free if it were brought back. But it doesn’t feel that way to people who have gotten used to having these weapons. Without even addressing the fact that the first AWB was itself an aberration and a departure from a centuries-long tradition of private citizens owning the contemporary infantry rifles of their day, affirmed in _U.S. v. Miller_ as far back as 1939, the huge difference between cars and assault weapons is that the peril associated with the widespread availability of assault weapons is extremely small. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/242 "2013-01-30T03:25:20Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > It must be admitted that there is a fringe of anti-statists who actually disparage the Constitution because they feel it was a surrender to establish a government at all; the kind of people who wish that L. Neil Smith’s “Gallatin” alternate-universe was real. Yeah a fringe maybe that anti-statist but it wasn’t a “fringe” that was suggesting a nonsensical assault weapons ban, it was POTUS and a lot of prominent Democratic politicians. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > People get used to whatever is now allowed and consider it nearly a God-given right. > > Suppose someone was to invent something that would greatly enhance freedom to travel and individual autonomy, but the estimated death toll from the invention was one million people a year, worldwide. Anyone agreeing to such a tradeoff would be considered to an unfeeling nutcase. But now that we do have a million people a year dying in motor vehicle accidents, people would consider restrictions on freedom to drive fascistic extremism. > > America was a free country during the first GW Bush term, when we had that assault weapons ban, and would be just as free if it were brought back. But it doesn’t feel that way to people who have gotten used to having these weapons. It is exactly because the assault weapons ban would make so little difference that it is so obnoxious. It seems like an attack on gun owners purely for the sake of attacking gun owners. If you want me to give up any ground on any of my rights, you have to justify it with some tangible benefit or avoidance of harm to society. I never saw that justification for the assault weapons ban. Its not because I got used to having a “tacticool” semi-automatic rifle, its because the folks who want to restrict constitutional rights bear the burden of justifying the restriction, I don’t have to justify the exercise of the right. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/243 "2013-01-30T05:01:44Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > . . . the huge difference between cars and assault weapons is that the peril associated with the widespread availability of assault weapons is extremely small. The peril associated with trucks, compared to cars, is also extremely small, just because there are so many more cars on the roads; but what happens when something goes wrong with a fully-laden tractor-trailer going 60 mph is so disastrous and horrible that it well justifies placing trucking and truck drivers under much heavier regulation than cars and their drivers. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/244 "2013-01-30T05:32:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The peril associated with trucks, compared to cars, is also extremely small, just because there are so many more cars on the roads; but what happens when something goes wrong with a fully-laden tractor-trailer going 60 mph is so disastrous and horrible that it well justifies placing trucking and truck drivers under much heavier regulation than cars and their drivers. I should have known better than the continue the car analogy, but it’s worth pointing out that one of the big reasons we require CDLs to drive big rigs is that big rigs are much more difficult to safely operate than a typical car. This isn’t true of rifles, which are, if anything, easier to maintain safely than pistols. And when a person makes a conscious decision to start shooting innocent people, they can rack up just as horrible a body count with pistols and low-capacity magazines as they can with an AR-15 – the Virginia Tech massacre, the Binghamton massacre, the Dunblane massacre, and so many others are testament to this fact. Even so, if people were suggesting heavier regulation or some kind of licensing for “assault weapons” instead of just trying to ban them outright, this would be a different conversation. They’d still be wrong, but it would be a less inherently unreasonable idea. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/245 "2013-01-31T01:56:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It is exactly because the assault weapons ban would make so little difference that it is so obnoxious. See: [Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108854) > [@](#): > > Our estimates suggest that the U.S. policy change caused at least 239 additional deaths annually in municipios near the border during post-2004 period. The results are robust to controls for drug trafficking, policing, unauthorized immigration, and economic conditions in U.S. border ports, as well as drug eradication, military enforcement, and trends in income and education in Mexican municipios. and: [Exporting the Second Amendment: U.S. Assault Weapons and the Homicide Rate in Mexico](http://www.econ-jobs.com/research/32941-Exporting-the-Second-Amendment-US-Assault-Weapons-and-the-Homicide-Rate-in-Mexico.pdf) > [@](#): > > The baseline estimates suggest the expiration of the AWB is responsible for at least 16.4 percent of the increase in the homicide rate in Mexico between 2004 and 2008. . . . This implies that between 2005 and 2008, the expiration of the AWB has led to at least 2,684 additional homicides in Mexico. and: [Mexican President Calderon calls for assault weapon ban in U.S.](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/02/news/la-pn-mexican-president-calderon-calls-for-assault-weapon-ban-in-us-20120402) I cite Pres. Calderon not as an expert, but because giving Mexicans another good reason to resent us is by itself a significant consideration. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/246 "2013-01-31T04:43:50Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > [Exporting the Second Amendment: U.S. Assault Weapons and the Homicide Rate in Mexico](http://www.econ-jobs.com/research/32941-Exporting-the-Second-Amendment-US-Assault-Weapons-and-the-Homicide-Rate-in-Mexico.pdf) Not a single gun was taken off of the street nor were any removed from production due to the AW ban of 1994. Cosmetic features were removed to comply and production kept rolling. It didn’t make a difference because due to the very text of the law it COULDN’T make a difference. To imply that the expiration of the ban led to a 16% rise in homicides in Mexico, while the same expiration of the ban led to an average of less than 50 homicides by AWs per year in the US, is patently ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/247 "2013-01-31T15:55:50Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > See: > > [Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2108854) > > and: > > [Exporting the Second Amendment: U.S. Assault Weapons and the Homicide Rate in Mexico](http://www.econ-jobs.com/research/32941-Exporting-the-Second-Amendment-US-Assault-Weapons-and-the-Homicide-Rate-in-Mexico.pdf) > > and: > > [Mexican President Calderon calls for assault weapon ban in U.S.](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/02/news/la-pn-mexican-president-calderon-calls-for-assault-weapon-ban-in-us-20120402) > > I cite Pres. Calderon not as an expert, but because giving Mexicans another good reason to resent us is by itself a significant consideration. I think this is correlation without causation. The fact of the matter is that pre1994 assault weapons were readily available and AWB compliant semi-automatic rifles with the exact same functionality were for sale over the counter in almost every US border state. I think the increase in gun violence has more to do with teh increase in criminal activity than with the repeal of a law that every expert agrees was entirely ineffective in reducing gun violence in thye states. Why would repealing an AWB have no effect on gun violence in teh sttes but have such a dire impact on gun violence in Mexico? Isn’t it possible that the rise of violent Mexican drug cartels is the cause of this increase? Maybe Mexico needs more gun rights. The guns that most law abiding Mexicans have access to are woefully inadequate for self defense. ---
**Author:** ![eno801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@eno801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eno801)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/248 "2013-01-31T16:54:19Z")
Oh God not the Mexico Crime thing. You know when Mexico reports the guns they find used to commit crimes to US agencies it’s only a small percentage. and of that small percentage hey look they are almost all from the US. They conveniently leave out “lost” military shipments from their side. The guns that are from their south of the border and countless other ones. The reporting is skewed. Grenades yeah I see those at the gun shop everyday. They toss those puppies out like nothing over there. So you know they are getting them for cheap. They certainly ain’t paying a $200 tax stamp on each one to have it smuggled over. Most of the straw purchases that make it over are just status symbol guns for top guys. The rank and file get the cheap stuff. Also like already mentioned this coincides to when things started going down the shitter in Mexico not because of US gun laws, but because of the growing Narco trade. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/249 "2013-02-01T01:35:11Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > To imply that the expiration of the ban led to a 16% rise in homicides in Mexico, while the same expiration of the ban led to an average of less than 50 homicides by AWs per year in the US, is patently ridiculous. Did you read the link? It didn’t say that “the expiration of the ban led to a 16% rise in homicides in Mexico,” and it didn’t imply that. As for “less than 50 homicides by AWs per year in the US,” that would put it in the same range as annual homicide deaths in countries like Ireland, New Zealand, and Switzerland which have strong firearms controls\*. But even if you think 50 lives means little, I don’t see how that number can be reconciled with this: > [@](#): > > In Miami, assault weapons were used in about 4 percent of all homicides in 2004; last year [2007], the figure was 21 percent, Timoney said. The chief, who called the powerful guns “the weapon of choice among gangs here,” said the surge seems confined to certain sections of the country: South Florida, Atlanta and areas along the Texas-Mexico border. > [@eno801](#): > > . . . it’s only a small percentage. No one’s denying that. But the numbers are far higher than for US school shootings, which I’m told (and believe) most US gun owners believe is a real problem requiring action. * * * - In Switzerland, it isn’t gun control, but strong bullet control. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/250 "2013-02-01T01:46:36Z")
P.S. to my last post: I neglected to give a link for the Miami quotation. It’s from a _Miami Herald_ story that’s behind a paywall but also found here: [http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/mh\_011408.shtml](http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/mh_011408.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/251 "2013-02-01T04:20:20Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > P.S. to my last post: I neglected to give a link for the Miami quotation. It’s from a _Miami Herald_ story that’s behind a paywall but also found here: > [http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/mh\_011408.shtml](http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/mh_011408.shtml) If you can make a case that these criminals would not have done the same thing with semi-automatic rifles or other firearms, you might be onto something but the obvious argument is that these guys would not have been dissuaded by a lack of access to semi-automatic rifles that look tacti-cool. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/252 "2013-02-01T05:40:13Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Did you read the link? It didn’t say that “the expiration of the ban led to a 16% rise in homicides in Mexico,” and it didn’t imply that. As a matter of fact, I read all 42 pages including the charts at the end. From the conclusion (page 23): > [@](#): > > The AWB is shown to have a significant impact on the homicide rate in Mexico. The baseline results in this paper estimate that the expiration of the AWB has led to a 24.6 percent increase in the homicide rate of cartel states, and can explain at least 16.4 percent of the increase in the homicide rate nationally. Did I read that wrong? > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > As for “less than 50 homicides by AWs per year in the US,” that would put it in the same range as annual homicide deaths in countries like Ireland, New Zealand, and Switzerland which have strong firearms controls\*. But even if you think 50 lives means little, I don’t see how that number can be reconciled with this: I said nothing regarding the value of the lives lost. Take your appeal to emotion fallacy somewhere else. I took that number from the US Justice Dept and Senator Diane Feinstein herself: [However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.](http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=28d0c499-28ec-42a7-902d-ebf318d46d02) Her math shows 42 on average anually. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/253 "2013-02-01T06:30:46Z")
This thread is getting hijacked into crime-rates and stuff, which have nothing to do with “liberty” as the OP meant it. Just to get it back on track: Attention, all American gun owners: Your personal firearms have no **political** value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/254 "2013-02-01T08:48:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > This thread is getting hijacked into crime-rates and stuff, which have nothing to do with “liberty” as the OP meant it. Just to get it back on track: Attention, all American gun owners: Your personal firearms have no **political** value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country. Would you tell the same thing to the Syrians? [Cite](http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/middleeast/gallery/syria-unrest/index.html). Do they just like carrying around those heavy and awkward rifles because they look stylish? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/255 "2013-02-01T13:55:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Would you tell the same thing to the Syrians? [Cite](http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/middleeast/gallery/syria-unrest/index.html). > > Do they just like carrying around those heavy and awkward rifles because they look stylish? It’s all part of the Arab Spring fashion line for 2013 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/256 "2013-02-01T17:19:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > This thread is getting hijacked into crime-rates and stuff, which have nothing to do with “liberty” as the OP meant it. Just to get it back on track: Attention, all American gun owners: Your personal firearms have no **political** value whatsoever. Whether you have them or not will never so long as you live make any difference to the state of liberty, or equality, or democracy in this country. I don’t think anyone who is sane or rational on this issue thinks we will need a popular armed revolt in our lifetime but strange things can happen. Heck we elected Bush TWICE, if things had gone just a little bit differently and the government exercised the powers granted in the patriot act to its fullest extent, it might not sound as ridiculous as it does right now. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/257 "2013-02-01T17:26:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think anyone who is sane or rational on this issue thinks we will need a popular armed revolt in our lifetime but strange things can happen. Heck we elected Bush TWICE, if things had gone just a little bit differently and the government exercised the powers granted in the patriot act to its fullest extent, it might not sound as ridiculous as it does right now. I agree that it’s unlikely, but to suggest that firearms would be useless in the case of such a low-probability event is to ignore our recent history fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly the ongoing civil war in Syria. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/258 "2013-02-02T15:10:09Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Did you read the link? It didn’t say that “the expiration of the ban led to a 16% rise in homicides in Mexico,” and it didn’t imply that. You might have missed my reply… I read your link and quoted where it said exactly the opposite of your claim here. Thoughts? As another poster on the message board told me, when you cite a link as proof of something, the assumption is that you actually read it first. Here is the conclusion again, just in case you did miss my earlier post: > [@](#): > > The AWB is shown to have a significant impact on the homicide rate in Mexico. The baseline results in this paper estimate that the expiration of the AWB has led to a 24.6 percent increase in the homicide rate of cartel states, and can explain at least 16.4 percent of the increase in the homicide rate nationally. I don’t claim to be an epidemiologist, nor a statistician, but I can read, and I also lived through the first AW Ban so I know exactly what it did and did not do. so I would like to you tell me if I am misreading both the abstract and the conclusion. [Exporting-the-Second-Amendment-US-Assault-Weapons-and-the-Homicide-Rate-in-Mexico](http://www.econ-jobs.com/research/32941-Exporting-the-Second-Amendment-US-Assault-Weapons-and-the-Homicide-Rate-in-Mexico.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/259 "2013-02-02T18:53:41Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Would you tell the same thing to the Syrians? [Cite](http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/middleeast/gallery/syria-unrest/index.html). > > Do they just like carrying around those heavy and awkward rifles because they look stylish? No, because they are fighting a civil war. What is your point? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/260 "2013-02-02T20:46:12Z")
The RationalWiki page on [Gun nuts](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gun_nut) is insightful and relevant here: > [@](#): > > **What they are, and what they are not** > > Like mall ninjas, gun nuts rarely refer to themselves as such except in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and typically call themselves gun owners, collectors, or enthusiasts. However, there are several points separating genuine “nuts” from the average gun owner. > > **Absolutist views on gun rights** > > Nearly all gun owners, including moderates on the issue, believe in the right to keep and bear arms for sport, hunting, historical interest, and in most cases self-defense. What separates the average owner from the nut is the degree of such support. Most moderate, non-nutty gun owners accept or even support some degree of gun control, or at most grumble about it creating long lines and ammo shortages/purchase limits at gun stores. > > Many gun nuts, on the other hand, take a staunchly anti-regulatory position on the issue of gun control; restrictions on (semi)automatic weapons, “high-capacity” magazines, and “assault” features, as well as measures like waiting periods for gun purchases and permits for ownership, are seen as not only an unnecessary burden, but as a step towards authoritarianism and a threat to freedom. This is the position of groups like the Gun Owners of America and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, as well as, to a lesser extent, the more radical wing of the National Rifle Association. > > However, this in and of itself is not a clear mark; one can take staunchly anti-gun control positions without being a nut. Some of them may not even own guns themselves, instead seeing it as a civil liberties issue. > > **Intended purpose of guns** > > Another dividing line between normal gun owners and nuts is the degree to which the idea of self-defense is embraced. Most gun owners take it as a given that defense of one’s life, limb, loved ones, and property is an acceptable use for a firearm; the “castle doctrine” is rooted in this idea, as is support for concealed carry. The common refrain of responsible gun ownership is that one always hopes to never have to actually use a gun to kill another person, keeping it solely as a last resort in the event of the worst — a malicious home invasion a la the Manson Family, a spree killing, an attempted mugging or rape, etc. Even then, it is hoped that the mere sight of the gun, or the sound of it being cocked, would scare off any potential threats before things turned ugly. > > Many gun nuts do not subscribe to this idea, instead keeping guns in the expectation of having to use them against intruders, robbers, or killers. While they may offer platitudes about hoping to never use their guns, their personal, unvoiced attitudes will differ. The guns they view as defensive weapons are likely to be higher-grade than simple pump-action/break-action shotguns or .45 pistols; instead, they will argue that semi-automatic rifles are necessary to defend one’s home. Some go further and anticipate long-term societal breakdown and an oppressive police force or government as things to defend against; ironically, the latter puts them in line with the original Black Panther Party, which called for African-Americans to embrace gun ownership in order to stand up to police brutality. > > **Crankery** > > Embrace of conspiracy theories is perhaps the clearest dividing line between the average gun owner and the true nut. As noted, a popular idea among gun nuts is that gun control is a threat to freedom, and that, by extension, the only way people could support it is if they have authoritarian tendencies or have been scared by those that do. As a result, they are often more inclined to believe that killing sprees committed with easily-accessible, high-grade firearms, like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook, were false flag operations or staged hoaxes carried out by the government in order to drum up support for gun control, and that the United Nations’ proposed Arms Trade Treaty[1][2], designed to crack down on smugglers and arms traffickers, is targeted at American gun owners. Likewise, there tends to be a significant deal of cross-pollination and sympathy with the militia movement and the radical right in general. They ain’t makin’ it up about about those “false flag operation” theories, either. See [this Pit thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679081) If you believe/proclaim that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, then you are a gun nut, and probably several other kinds of nut. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=14)