Hacker News Reader

Comment by collegeburner | Hacker News Reader

Uhh that's not what it means the way I've ever heard it used, sorry if you got that tho. How I've heard it and use it, it's for 2 groups:

1. People who don't care about stopping gun-grabbers as long as they can keep their .30-30 henry or remington 870 or whatever, because "nobody needs one of them plastic guns, they're for killing people!"

2. People who are generally ignorant/out-of-date/willfully uneducated. The "muh 2 world wars, stopping power, I use a .45 cause they don't make a 46" boomer-tier stuff. The "22 is the deadliest caliber because it tumbles around inside!" people.

Edit: yeah, as 'nataz pointed out it's from Elmer Fudd. I'll tell you that most of the racist people I've met in the gun scene are fudds. The ones you'd call "fanatical" don't give a shit who you are as long as you're pro-gun and/or anti-govt.

View on HN

His example for comparison was rather distasteful, but you did reinforce his point. It's name calling with the intent to insult. And while many people present valid information and construct good arguments while doing that, casually insulting your opponent, or worse uninvolved bystanders is bad manners.

You can just say 'racist', or 'person who relies on outdated ballistics information'. No need to have one derogatory term to lump the two in together and then sling in around casually.

People say that 22lr is the 'deadliest caliber' because it is the caliber that has ended the most lives in the United States, that being because it is by far the most common. The original source for that was a study done in ~1970 but there have been others to back it up since.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that _no one_ ever has said that .22lr is more lethal than any other caliber, but it is the exact opposite sentiment of "I use a .45 cause they don't make a .46" so it's not likely to be a person from that group saying it.

He was referring to a common myth that 22LR will "bounce around" inside the body without exciting, and thereby cause more lethal damage than other calibers.

I've read this theory many, many times on gun forums and comment sections.

People say that about 22LR? I’ve heard it said about .223 but never 22LR, weird.

Yes, I think I was being distasteful. I apologize.

Your #1 is exactly what I am referring to.

Ok then I'll disagree with your implication that anybody who cares about more than old hunting arms is "extremist/fanatical". I have no problem with having a term to refer to people who only care about their rights to own their arms. Also what did you mean by "n*-lover" and how do you think it relates to ppl who want more than hunting guns to remain legal? Tbh that makes it sound like you're flaim-bating.

There is a dismissiveness from the extremists toward those who own guns but believe in regulating guns. As though if you claim to be one of us you can't also be nuanced and believe the "other side" have merit as well.

Bump stocks. I think they should remain illegal. I'm a fudd.

Fully automatic, military weapons should probably remain heavily regulated. I'm a fudd.

This is what I'm describing.

Dick Metcalf as editor of Guns and Ammo magazine suggested in an editorial that maybe some gun regulation is a good thing. He was out after that.

Curious, which gun de-regulation measures were publicly supported by gun control advocates?

Or for that matter, what "reasonable" abortion restrictions were supported by pro-abortion advocates? Somehow all the abortion restrictions turn out to be unreasonable, and all the gun control restrictions are always reasonable.

I don't follow these debates too closely but put them in the "culture war" bucket, rather than the "public policy" bucket.

The object is to defeat your enemy, not to make optimal public policy. Facts and figures are recruited to make the other side look bad and worthy of contempt, not to determine which policy is most effective.

I think everyone agrees that you shouldn’t abort at 8 months..

Nope, do you remember the "partial birth abortion debate"?

The pro-abortion side basically argues that if you can find a doctor that says you need it, you should be able to get it even at 9 months. And they also insist that psychological harm to the mother is enough of a reason to get it, it doesn't need to be risk of physical injury. And that you can go to as many doctors as you want until you find one that will agree. Many abortion clinics have such doctors on staff to meet the legal requirements of medical consultation.

Or about the "post-birth" abortion debate, in which an abortion is botched and the baby delivered? The pro-abortion side wanted to allow the child to be left on a table and not provided with life sustaining care (or even food/milk) to die in the hospital.

The anti-abortion side insists this is infanticide, which gets the other side really angry, since they are not the ones killing the child, they are just refusing to provide care and letting the infant die on its own.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307

Interestingly, in the ancient world, people would leave new borns on the side of the road if they didn't want or couldn't care for them. There are lots of stories about these castaway infants - Moses being put into a basket and sent down the river are an example of this genre. Also in Venice (my favorite city) there was a scaffetta, shaped like a lion's mouth, where you could slip an unwanted infant, and it would be raised in one of the Catholic orphanages. Vivaldi was a conductor for a girls' school in such an orphanage -- the Four Seasons was first performed by orphaned and abandoned girls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ospedale_della_Pietà

Of course the majority of normal people believe in some regulation and some rights. They view these issues as complex and morally ambiguous. But not activists, and certainly not activists in a culture war.

Yeah, fair description. Still think your calling us "extremists" is comparable or worse tho. It's more that "one of us" is more "people who think the government has no business regulating guns" than "people who own guns".

I disagree, bump stocks are largely a gimmick and automatics are "military weapons" because they've been so limited for the populace. I don't see the problem with "fudd" to describe people who care only about their guns.

Gun owners that think we should regulate AR-15's, probably don't in fact own an AR-15. So "caring only about their own guns" doesn't point out any sort of hypocrisy.

"Extremists" is not the word I wanted to use, but I didn't know a better one.

No regulation on any guns at all. Period.

I don't know a good name for that take on gun ownership.

> Gun owners that think we should regulate AR-15's, probably don't in fact own an AR-15. So "caring only about their own guns" doesn't point out any sort of hypocrisy.

Nahh it's perfectly fair because there are gun owners who don't own an AR but think they shouldn't be banned. Same as how I don't wanna buy a hooker but still think prostitution should be legal. Or same idea as "I don't agree with what you're saying but will defend your right to say it."

Not sure why you can't just say "gun rights advocate" cause that's what it is. Saying it's extreme is just as much a value judgement as "fudd". And for somebody who fit the stuff I described above, I don't know any good name other than "fudd" for that take on gun ownership.

FWIW, I fit that definition, and I’m fine with the “extremist” label.

From where I stand it points out that the mainstream opinion is far from mine, but doesn’t imply which is more rational/correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com