Notice also the not-so-subtle attempt to lump "gun nuts"

[sirs]

You have folks with anger & desperation as part of their mental core, with the added motivation to hurt others, for whatever reason, be it robbery, rape, hatred, etc..  These are the folks that will use whatever tool they can obtain to hurt whoever it is they want to hurt.  Frequently that's a firearm, because, it can be done at a distance.  But other items can be used as well.  These are the folks who will shoot people in the back of the head, if they could, and would be xo's "bad gun nuts"

However, notice that even good gun nuts are demeaned.  They apparently piss & moan.....not sure about what, but according to the professor, that's a good gun nut.  Notice how completely different the 2 types of "nuts" are.  One that wants to inflict hurt onto others, the other law abiding "moaners"

But, it doesn't stop there....apparently there's the "useless gun nut", who's primary critique, is they're not omnipresent, and able to be in every place, where a bad gun nut is inflicting carnage.  Not sure how that makes them useless, since the parameters here is coincidence, which no one has control over.  Good & Useless gun nuts don't go looking for the bad ones.  That's not and has never been their function.  Good & Useless gun nut have no mindset that they can stop all evil acts, or prevent all manners of killing.  They are simply an added level of potential protection, that otherwise would not be there

And yet, notice how often gun nuts are used in general, as a negative, with the inferrence that they're all bad in some way.  That's why the question was posed to differentiate gun nuts from its general use by the good professor.  Since, without it, he continues to use the generic paint brush of "gun nuts", lumping the perfectly responsible legal gun owner with the one that's perfectly willign to shoot someone in the back of the head.  Not very rational now, is it

[Xavier_Onassis]

The distinction between the Good Gun Nuts and the Bad Gun Nuts is straight from the speech of the Head Honcho of Gun Nuts, Wayne La Pierre, who said, and I quote: "The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun". So he is the one that defines why it is good that damned near everyone have a gun. The positive contribution of the NRA types is to stop Bad Persons with Guns.

But since LOTS of bad persons with guns just aren't around to fulfill their useful function, there is obviously a third type of Gun Nut: the Useless Gun Nut.

In Charleston at the time of the last massacre, there were only two kinds of Gun Nut: the one Bad Gun Nut who killed all those people, and millions of Useless Gun Nuts who were absent from the scene.

I use the term "NUT" because these people refuse to recognize the basic truth: the more guns there are in the population, the more people will die from getting shot, some by Good Gun Nuts defending us from Bad Gun Nuts, some by Bad Gun Nuts shooting victims, Incompetent Gun Nuts who shoot themselves while playing with guns, Accidental Gun Nuts, like children who shoot themselves and others while playing with guns, and Suicidal Gun Nuts, who shoot themselves.

[Plane]

...........to recognize the basic truth: the more guns there are in the population, the more people will die from getting shot,.................

How can this be called a truth? ,it has been disproven by  the growth of gun availability coinciding with a decrease in violent crime.

Perhaps the improved access to guns is causing the decrease in crime , perhaps not , this is not easy to prove.

But that doubling of guns available coincides with a steep decrease in the number of violent crimes is proof positive that

the more guns there are in the population, the more people will die from getting shot,.

can't be a truth.

[sirs]

The distinction between the Good Gun Nuts and the Bad Gun Nuts is straight from the speech of the Head Honcho of Gun Nuts, Wayne La Pierre, who said, and I quote: "The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun". So he is the one that defines why it is good that damned near everyone have a gun. The positive contribution of the NRA types is to stop Bad Persons with Guns.

Like clockwork, you completely contort the context of what LaPierre was saying, mutating it into a hyperbolc notion he wants everyone to be armed.  It's right up there with the mutation of Bush's mission accomplished, and Condi's Mushroom cloud references.  He's not claiming, or even implying everyone needs to be armed.  What he's making painfully clear, is that bad guys will get them, and the most effective defense against someone wanting to do serious damage to you, is with your own.  You're trying to drag that out into an extreme position, when he never uttered such a position

But since LOTS of bad persons with guns just aren't around to fulfill their useful function, there is obviously a third type of Gun Nut: the Useless Gun Nut.

Which again, makes no sense.  Useless, per your twisted parameters simply means that the situation didn't warrant them having to use their weapon.  News flash....THAT'S A GOOD GOAL.  WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE OUR LIVES ARE AT GRAVE RISK, AND HAVE TO PULL OUR FIREARM.  But if the situation arises, we're at least prepared.  That's hardly useless.  It's far more common sense

Your frequent attempts to lump them altogether, demonstrates a level of intellectual dishonesty, where you're implying no difference from the responsible law abiding gun owner & the thug ready to shoot someone in the back the head

[Xavier_Onassis]

The typical reaction of the Useless Gun Nut.
You fail to realize that the guns you have put into circulation will outlive you and that you have  at best limited control over what becomes of them when you have joined the Choir Celestial.

200 million guns in the US are rather like a minefield or some other type of unexploded ordinance. There is no control over what becomes of the guns of the deceased. There should at least be a national gun registry.

The NSA has cameras, drones and all manner of surveillance, but they do nothing to monitor the many proclamations of future mayhem of guys like Roof.
If Al Qaeda ir Isis had killed nine innocent American citizens, you would be screaming for the government to DO SOMETHING.

Naturally, you would BLAME OBAMA. Alas, there is no way you can blame Obama for this one.

But of course, they were of the wrong hue for you to cry anything, and all you want is for the government to do the usual nothing.
JNothing can be done. It is the price we must pay to keep our personal arnenals (sigh!).

[sirs]

The typical reaction of the Useless Gun Nut.
You fail to realize that the guns you have put into circulation will outlive you and that you have  at best limited control over what becomes of them when you have joined the Choir Celestial.

And you fail to realize how you portray useless gun nuts as never being where they need to be to possibly help prevent loss of life, then decry how there should never allowed to be in any place to help possibly prevent the loss of life in the 1st place.  Its YOUR parameters that makes them supposedly useless

200+million guns, and yet, violent crime declines in this country (except of course for those regions with the strictest gun control)

If Al Qaeda ir Isis had killed nine innocent American citizens, you would be screaming for the government to DO SOMETHING.

That "something" would be going after the specific folks that did it, yea.  That IS a Constitutional function of the Government, vs trying to redistribute income or force everyone have health insurance. 

Naturally, you would BLAME OBAMA. Alas, there is no way you can blame Obama for this one.

And again, with the blame Obama crap?  What does Obama have to do with any of this......outside of stolking racial tension animosity.  The person to blame is the racist kid that did the killing   

But of course, they were of the wrong hue for you to cry anything, and all you want is for the government to do the usual nothing.
JNothing can be done. It is the price we must pay to keep our personal arnenals (sigh!).

What you refer to as "keep our personal arnenals", the rest of us refer to it as the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, of the United States.  That's as much a right as your personal 1st amendment arnenal

[Xavier_Onassis]

Personal arsenals. 

When the Constitution was written, guns were necessary to the poor to hunt dinner and the rich to hunt down escaped slaves.

We no longer hunt and eat wild critters, and we have no more runaway slaves.

[sirs]

And that was never the function or intention of the Constitution

[Xavier_Onassis]

Because you were there, sitting on Thomas Jefferson's right shoulder, of course.

[sirs]

No.....its because i can read, and the Constitution is clear in its wording and intentions.   Here's a hint.....NO WHERE does it reference slaves or hunting anywhere in the Bill of Rights

[Plane]

Personal arsenals. 

When the Constitution was written, guns were necessary to the poor to hunt dinner and the rich to hunt down escaped slaves.

We no longer hunt and eat wild critters, and we have no more runaway slaves.

Most pertaining, they were needed for the people to fight the government.

Since when do we no longer hunt ?

[Xavier_Onassis]

When was the last time you ate anything you hunted?

NMost Americans do not hunt for food. When this country was founded, over half the people lived in rural areas, and nearly all the meat they ate was from game they hunted: passenger pigeons were so numerous they sometimes landed on trees in such numbers, they broke all the limbs. They were hunted to extinction.  There were deer, elk, squirrels, rabbits, turkeys, pheasants and fish galore.

Rifles and shotguns were used to hunt most of these. I doubt they would be all that useful in a mass murder in a church. Walking into a church with a rifle might cause the quarry to flee.

[sirs]

Good thing that's not what the Constitution is about, in any way, shape, or form

[Xavier_Onassis]

Like you know anything about this.

[sirs]

Apparently you, a lingustics professor, are unable read.  Who da thunk that.  I, on the other hand, can read, and have read the Bill of Rights, and much of the Constitution.  NOTHING in there pertains to hunting