Guns. Lots of Guns.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To my point, tho, I will again stress that just because you like guns does not mean you are compensating for something. If you bothered to read, I’m talking about the “gun nut,” the “I’ll show him my shooting range test and then he’ll see my power!” types, the “let’s march in there with our guns and show them how strong we are!” types... you know... the “gun nut.” If you identify as that, then surely yes you’re using guns to compensate for insecurities or your otherwise precarious manhood, which is both a you problem and a culture problem, but I kind of doubt you do identify as that? So I’m not sure why you took it personally. What you and your wife like is mostly irrelevant.

And who here has exhibited any of these traits you've mentioned that would place them into your idea of a gun nut?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

And who here has exhibited any of these traits you've mentioned that would place them into your idea of a gun nut?

Nobody. I just thought it was interesting given there was such disgust given the connection between “gun nut” and a compensation of masculinity, despite that connection being pretty founded.

Btimbit, captain, etc. All normal nut-free gun owners. I don’t know, “gun nut” means “gun nut” to me, not “average gun owner,” so I wasn’t sure why people got upset over the image. I don’t know many people who see a hunter bagging a deer and think “THURS A NUTTER!”

EDIT: I guess my question becomes: why do ordinary vanilla gun owners take any talk about “gun nuts” (their psychology, predispositions, etc) so personally and as an insult? Don’t you think you’re categorically different from that type of person?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody. I just thought it was interesting given there was such disgust given the connection between “gun nut” and a compensation of masculinity, despite that connection being pretty founded.

Btimbit, captain, etc. All normal nut-free gun owners. I don’t know, “gun nut” means “gun nut” to me, not “average gun owner,” so I wasn’t sure why people got upset over the image. I don’t know many people who see a hunter bagging a deer and think “THURS A NUTTER!”

EDIT: I guess my question becomes: why do ordinary vanilla gun owners take any talk about “gun nuts” (their psychology, predispositions, etc) so personally and as an insult? Don’t you think you’re categorically different from that type of person?

I'm not sure Captain is a gun owner.
Either way, glad to see you're engaging with law abiding gun owners and finding out that they are normal people just like everyone else.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not a gun owner. I believe in gun control, but more importantly believe in border security, harsh enforcement of gun crime etc.


But I haven't owned a gun since I was in my 20's.



I have argued pretty strenuously against the concept of home defense using personal firearms, though I do see a reason for it in rural areas where the police are like far away.


I've argued pretty strenuously against the types of guns that people own.


I think that this current move by the Liberals will be a massive boondoggle and waste of money with little to no effect on crimes using firearms. I think its more of a cynical expensive vote grab then anything else, and stupid and short sided. I won't hid that.


I don't need to own a gun, I don't need to hunt except for my remote. I've seen what a bullet at high velocity can do to a person and its jarring and disturbing.

[2Stonedbirds]

See? Now that's reasonable, regardless of which side of the debate you are on. People can argue points and do so from a place that doesn't stem from "hurr durr smol pener".
Because that would make one an idiot.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

EDIT: I guess my question becomes: why do ordinary vanilla gun owners take any talk about “gun nuts” (their psychology, predispositions, etc) so personally and as an insult? Don’t you think you’re categorically different from that type of person?

Who would have thought ad hominem name calling that is passive aggressively applied to an entire group would have such negative blowback?
I would've never guessed either.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not sure Captain is a gun owner.
Either way, glad to see you're engaging with law abiding gun owners and finding out that they are normal people just like everyone else.

Sorry for the confusion Cap. Not paying that close of attention, so I drew a couple names of perfectly reasonable people who seem to know their way around a gun.

Originally Posted by sketchyt

Who would have thought ad hominem name calling that is passive aggressively applied to an entire group would have such negative blowback?
I would've never guessed either.

That doesn’t really answer the question of why there was a negative reaction to my post, which included none of those things, and instead referred to a specific and highly visible portion of gun owners, which I would assume regular owners just simply don’t associate themselves as.

I just find it strange. Though it does show how precarious manhood is, given that questioning the manhood of an offensive group inspires such a rich reaction from any adjacent groups, even ones who really have little in common with the group in question. Hard to argue otherwise when “yer peen is small” still gets a heated reaction from men well into and past middle age. I think most people just laugh that silliness off, don’t they?

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Silly image aside, I think you’re taking it too literally. The fact that guns are a stand-in or protectant of manhood is fairly established. Men commit the vast vast majority of gun related crimes, men own guns at significantly higher rates than women, etc.

While you may see it as sexual stereotyping, it really isn’t. The issue of “guns” goes much deeper, intertwined with our culture’s view on masculinity, what one must be to hold on to their masculinity, and the importance of power in maintaining or gaining masculinity. So, it’s actually a very important argument to be made, and it’s not just about having a small dick (the small dick is a physical stand-in for a lack of manhood/masculinity). Guns very much provide a false sense of power, right, protection, and all the other things men are supposed to have or provide. You can see it in the statistics, you can see it in the language used by “gun nuts.” It may be insulting, but it is very true, and gun ownership and worship is a symptom of a much bigger cultural problem concerning masculinity.

Of course, it doesn’t explain all gun owners. It doesn’t even try to. A “gun nut” is not your run-of-the-mill Hunter, or sport shooter, or whatever. There are plenty of people who do not use guns for violence, or as a false sense of protection, or to make up for insecurities with their own masculinity. But.... there are many more vocal folks who do. Pretending the manhood problem doesn’t exist basically ignores one of the fundamental and largest hurdles in gun obsession.

TLDR: The image is crude but accurate.

Men own more power tools, hand tools, trucks, motorcycles, BBQ's as well. But that doesn't get projected on anyone as a compensation thing. I think that's what's dumb about it. I don't identify with firearms, I have them as tools and toys and it has nothing to do with masculinity.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In Canada, shurikens (throwing stars), switch blades, metal knuckles, butterfly knives, bludeons and sand clubs are all illegal.

It would make sense that many, or most firearms would fall into the same category of things that don't serve any real practical purpose and are potentially harmful.

https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/ite...throwing-stars

These mental gymnastics that take place to indicate there is no use for a firearm have been discussed in many previous posts, there are plenty of legitimate, valid uses for firearms. Multiple. Kinder surprises are illegal in the US, does that make them useless as well?

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody. I just thought it was interesting given there was such disgust given the connection between “gun nut” and a compensation of masculinity, despite that connection being pretty founded.

Btimbit, captain, etc. All normal nut-free gun owners. I don’t know, “gun nut” means “gun nut” to me, not “average gun owner,” so I wasn’t sure why people got upset over the image. I don’t know many people who see a hunter bagging a deer and think “THURS A NUTTER!”

EDIT: I guess my question becomes: why do ordinary vanilla gun owners take any talk about “gun nuts” (their psychology, predispositions, etc) so personally and as an insult? Don’t you think you’re categorically different from that type of person?

Because it is perhaps closer to an offensive stereotype as opposed to a sub category of a larger group? Try stopping for a moment and think what is associated with the stereotype of a gun nut. Why wouldn't you get annoyed and immediately jump in to disassociate yourself from that?

Imagine it is akin to something like making a stereotype about certain extremists for the entirety of a Muslim community or something and perhaps even worse. That is my understanding of it. It's a little more than gun owners being sensitive. It is that it is a connotation so negative that gun owners immediately want to clear the air and ensure it is known they want no association with that stereotype.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Men own more power tools, hand tools, trucks, motorcycles, BBQ's as well. But that doesn't get projected on anyone as a compensation thing.

What? Where have you been?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Men own more power tools, hand tools, trucks, motorcycles, BBQ's as well. But that doesn't get projected on anyone as a compensation thing. I think that's what's dumb about it. I don't identify with firearms, I have them as tools and toys and it has nothing to do with masculinity.

I doubt very much anyone who fits the psychological profile as using a gun as a means of masculinity bolstering or replacement realises that’s part of what is appealing about it. But sure, some of the things you mentioned are also purchased because of the underlying masculinity boost, whether that’s realised or not. There’s also a very big difference between “truck” and “gun.”

Surely you can separate your own feeling about why you own a gun and realise not everyone has landed on “I’m gonna have guns” in the same way you did? You don’t think there’s anything different between yourself and the guys who march into Subway locker and loaded to show the government who’s boss? Nothing different there?

Originally Posted by Aleks

These mental gymnastics that take place to indicate there is no use for a firearm have been discussed in many previous posts, there are plenty of legitimate, valid uses for firearms. Multiple. Kinder surprises are illegal in the US, does that make them useless as well?

Yes, Kinder Surprises are also useless. What a strange thread of logic you’re on.

If someone wants to own a gun, great! But the illogical defence of them of multi-faceted essential tools is outright silly. They are used to kill things or have fun. That’s not really a list of “plenty” nor is it hard to replace them in either field, but that’s fine. You don’t need to pretend a gun is more than it is to own one.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

What? Where have you been?

Exactly.
Maybe I didn’t take ‘gun nut’ to mean what Pepsi does. But that #### happens all the time - Guys with big guns are compensating. Guys with big trucks are compensating. Guys with loud bikes are compensating. Guys who bodybuild are compensating. It’s brutal.

We wouldn’t tolerate that kind of asinine projections towards women - imagine insulting a woman’s sexuality or sense of self because of her hobbies or interests?

I say this as someone who owns no guns, trucks, loud motorbikes, and doesn’t go to the gym.

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

What? Where have you been?

Don't turn this into that and make me the bad person now. I'm sure statistically you could count it all up and its predominantly male. #### people

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I doubt very much anyone who fits the psychological profile as using a gun as a means of masculinity bolstering or replacement realises that’s part of what is appealing about it. But sure, some of the things you mentioned are also purchased because of the underlying masculinity boost, whether that’s realised or not. There’s also a very big difference between “truck” and “gun.”

Surely you can separate your own feeling about why you own a gun and realise not everyone has landed on “I’m gonna have guns” in the same way you did? You don’t think there’s anything different between yourself and the guys who march into Subway locker and loaded to show the government who’s boss? Nothing different there?



Yes, Kinder Surprises are also useless. What a strange thread of logic you’re on.

If someone wants to own a gun, great! But the illogical defence of them of multi-faceted essential tools is outright silly. They are used to kill things or have fun. That’s not really a list of “plenty” nor is it hard to replace them in either field, but that’s fine. You don’t need to pretend a gun is more than it is to own one.

You're clearly missing the entire point, and still relying on a sensational stereotype of a firearms owner to bolster your point. And you've not read the entire discussion if that is all you've gleaned from it. I've shown support for increased measures to combat crime and unlawful firearms use, but you choose to just come and parrot the "guns are bad and have one use" narrative, why not just choose to get a little harmless education and familiarization out of it. What do you have to lose? I'll tell you what I have to lose.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Men own more power tools, hand tools, trucks, motorcycles, BBQ's as well. But that doesn't get projected on anyone as a compensation thing.

Uh...they sure do?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Aleks

You're clearly missing the entire point, and still relying on a sensational stereotype of a firearms owner to bolster your point. And you've not read the entire discussion if that is all you've gleaned from it. I've shown support for increased measures to combat crime and unlawful firearms use, but you choose to just come and parrot the "guns are bad and have one use" narrative, why not just choose to get a little harmless education and familiarization out of it. What do you have to lose? I'll tell you what I have to lose.

What do you have to lose? Now I’m curious!

Really though, no, I didn’t pay attention to the entire conversation, but I made clear the context of my comments and what I was responding to. Sounds like I really missed out on a thriller of a convo.

As far as stereotypes go, I’ve done no such thing, as I’m referring to real, tangible people and science from actual professionals who study in the appropriate fields. Maybe you have me confused for someone else, because I’m not sure what’s sensational or stereotypical about what I’ve said (you’re free to point it out, though, and I can provide a real life reference to prove otherwise).

I never even said guns are bad. I also said they have two uses (not one), because I’m honestly unaware of anything beyond the two! So if I’m supposed to read the entire conversation you should at least be reading my posts. I’m sure you mean well and are just taking this personally for reasons beyond me, but you’re wildly mischaracterising what I’m saying.

So, go ahead, harmless education time: what use does a gun have beyond killing or recreation/fun?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, go ahead, harmless education time: what use does a gun have beyond killing or recreation/fun?

That’s a loaded question.

[PaperBagger'14]

A flimsy point could be made for protection in rural areas and an even flimsier one could be for the biathlon.

Guns can also be used for food via killing as you mentioned. I personally dont own any guns and probably wont, but I do have family members who go deer hunting every year and have the meat butchered. The hunting aspect also helps with population control (think back to open season on wild boar in Sundre quite a few years ago).

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

this is a pretty boring circle jerk