A How-To Guide On Dealing With A ‘Gunsplainer’

[baldguy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-how-to-guide-on-dealing-with-a-gunsplainer_us_56bdef3ae4b0c3c55050d743

[Mendocino]

1. K&R

[linuxman]

2. Stick your fingers in your ears,

Go "lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!", refer to any facts you are forced to confront as "gunsplaining", make dick jokes, spit ad hominems like they're going out of style, counter relevant information with insistence that your ignorance of guns gives you a purity of ideology, and just generally act petulant and willfully ignorant?

Just guessing, based on the usual discourse around here.

[Crepuscular]

3. LoL

that about covers it, except you forgot the part about accusing people of being trolls.

[Brickbat]

6. Yep.

[Amishman]

7. painful amount of truth in your post

ignorance, childish hostility, and general blockheaded attitudes from both sides are why we can't get the basics passed. How about we actually talk it out and work through real compromises?

I want:

---safe storage laws

---improved background checks (including terror watch list)

---mandatory extensive safety and marksmanship training/testing for concealed carry permits (which have to be repeated with every renewal)

---increased criminal penalty for any crime committed using a gun

---mandatory reporting of stolen or lost guns within 24 hours



These are very freakin' reasonable requests. Since compromise is a two way street and I keep hearing that no one is willing to compromise, what do some of the gun crowd see as a fair trade for these?

[linuxman]

8. I could get behind all of that

With maybe the exception of your concealed carry proposals (depending on what you mean by extensive and how often a renewal is. For the working poor, taking off time every year and ponying up more cash to exercise a right they have trained for already seems onerous)

But yeah, I mostly agree with all of thst. Most gun owners do as well, I believe.

[Amishman]

10. thank you, that is the point i was trying to make

Very few people are even talking about basic agreeable reforms like these that actually would save lives. They aren't flashy, but they would likely do more to cut down on the overall body count than poorly thought out proposals like banning guns by name.

These is the type of laws we really need to push.

(as for the concealed carry testing, I honestly don't know exactly what I would specify for safety and training instruction. I know I'm not knowledgeable enough to make that determination. I just want those who are able to walk around with guns to have passed some form of effective training/instruction within the past year or two).

[jmg257]

12. There is hope - press conference today was for pushing Terror List ban and UBC.

[linuxman]

18. That's it in a nutshell.

There are a few posters here who'd rather make some nonsensical, "look at meeee!", virtue signaling "grab em' and melt em'", "fuck anything that will actually hapeen, I'm MAAAAD! " posts and bask in the recs that pour in than actually do or say anything productive.

They're as predictable as Christmas.

[hunter]

42. People are not allowed to smoke in our restaurants.

The social pressures against smoking in public places eventually won out.

Guns are a similar public health issue.

No, we're not going to get rid of guns, the bloody things are near indestructible, but we can make gun love socially unacceptable, and buying more guns and bullets onerous.

[linuxman]

45. If you're looking at the culture war angle,

I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

American attitudes towards guns have never been more favorable.

Gun controllers gave been trying to make guns seem repellant or unclean since the sixties, when your average gun owner wasn't remotely politically invested in them and mostly just wanted to shoot deer.

Your average gun owner now wants an ar15 for the range and a semiautomatic pistol for concealed carry. The dynamic and felling about guns changed in spite of control efforts.

Have fun with that angle, though. It's been working out for my benefit swimmingly. The controllers? Not so much...

[hunter]

47. Well, I guess I'd just better call it quits then.

Gun love is disgusting. People are quitting guns.

The fact that gun lovers are then motivated to buy even MORE guns is a measure of their dysfunction.

I'm glad I don't have imaginary enemies living in my head, or any peculiar fetish for tools of death.

[linuxman]

51. No.

But you'd better get involved in a dialogue on policy that isn't an emotional screed based on blanket bans or confiscating.

I'm glad for you too.

[sarisataka]

15. Your list is

Very similar to what I have proposed in the past.

At one time I offered all of that, and more, asking nothing in return. I was told it's a "good start". I have learned altruism and doing the right thing gets you walked on.

I would counter your very reasonable proposals by suggesting all of the United States have purchase and Carry Permits based on an objective shall issue. Full 50 state reciprocity of permits to be recognized similar to driver's licenses; the states of course may place reasonable limits as they do on vehicle use.

(Actually I would be willing to accept a lot for simply including in the same law and explicit affirmation of the right to self-defense. I have seen more and more often people speak of the "right" of self-defense.)

[Angel Martin]

53. as one of the pro gun crowd, I agree with your list

I especially think that the requirements for concealed carry need to be more strict than for home defence

I would also like the concealed carry training integrated with how police respond to active shooters, so the concealed carriers know what the police will do and how to react, and vice versa

if a sub set of concealed carriers were additionally trained on how to describe to police the appearance, location and actions of an active shooter, and could be given a priority communication link with the police, that could help as well.

this problem isn't going away. There are millions of ARs and similar in circulation in the US already. There are millions of AKs in europe from the balkan wars (street price 300 euros). In addition, millions more AKs will be coming onto the market as Russia change their basic battle rifle.

In terms of a trade, I would like to see federal law codifying a right to self defence and concealed carry - with minimal restrictions on pistols and shotguns. I think they are safer than rifles for self defence because of limited range. There are also some dumb federal restrictions on short barrel semi auto shotguns which should go. Those are perfect for home defence and the projectiles doesn't go 2 miles if you miss.

It would also be good if some of the more restrictive states would back off on the restrictions on pistols and shotguns for concealed carry and home defence.

[hunter]

9. Yep. We're mocking gone love.

It's gross.

[lapislzi]

11. And YOUR post is contributing to the quality of discussion exactly...how?

What is the point you are trying to make?

Full disclosure: former gun owner who lived in one of the most violent countries in the world.

Just because I can't rattle off the specs of every piece of ordinance at the drop of a hat does not make me ignorant of firearms, nor does it render any of my opinions invalid.

I am not "willfully ignorant;" I merely think some nitpicky facts really aren't relevant to the discussion, and are used by pro-gun people to silence critics. The fact that I'm a woman makes it even more obvious and egregious when it's done to me, and I hate it.

[linuxman]

16. Your sex makes literally no difference to me regarding a debate.

My "contribution" is pointing out that most of the anti gunners on this site are more worried about virtue signaling and shaming people than actually bothering to listen, learn something, or have anything close to a dialogue.

There's a reason half the anti gun posts around here degenerate into a backslapping circle jerk, waxing on about boiling guns at a foundry, rather than actually proposing something realistic and effective.

As far as arguing minutiae about guns, I think I have a valid point. If I was trying to shame someone over not knowing the difference in chromoly steel barrels vs cold hammer forged chrome lined, you'd have a point. Asking people to understand the difference in semiautomatic and full auto, or to understand that 5.56 isn't a large caliber, manstomping, grizzly slaying round, rather than a smaller, weaker one than virtually every round fired at whitetail deer, or pointing out that a bolt action rifle isn't some sort of super assassin tool due to a pistol grip isn't being nitpicky. It's just asking for a basic level of intellectual curiosity and honesty.

Would you be able to take someone seriously if you were talking climate change, but they kept conflating seasonal temperature drops with the idea that it "proved" global warming wasn't happening? Of course not. You might try to explain the difference to them, but if they threw it back in your face as "weathersplaining", you might start to lose patience.

I get what you're saying, but I think most of the attempts to clarify information about guns here is done in good faith.

[lapislzi]

31. In good faith...

I also get the point you're trying to make.

I don't exactly consider myself knowledgeable about guns. I know how to shoot one, and I know that they come with a whole lot of peripheral baggage that hardly anyone explains to you when you buy one--which is why I never want to own one again.

What a lot of (understandably) distraught people who aren't knowledgeable about guns are seeing is the same TYPE (visually; remember, most people are not sophisticated about firearms) of gun that is widely believed to be a mass murder machine. This upsets them. The sporting uses of such a weapon seem moot. The fact that this kind of gun is used over and over in mass shootings is outrageous to people who would like to see some sensible restrictions put in place to keep mass murder weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Dangerous people include people with a history of domestic or other violent crime. It seems like common sense to me. Can we not agree on this small point that, in truth, will affect your right to own firearms exactly not at all?

To return to my peripheral baggage point, I've told this story on DU a few times and I apologize to those who've already read it. I lived in South Africa in the 1980s and early 1990s, on a smallholding farm far out of town. It was a dreadfully dangerous place, with no law enforcement services within a reasonable vicinity. My husband and I slept in a literal cage with a bed inside.

Reluctantly, we were persuaded by our cityfolk friends to each purchase a firearm. In South Africa, you can't be granted a gun license until you've passed a proficiency course (imagine that!). The young police recruit on the firing range, who looked for all the world like Rolf from "The Sound of Music" lectured me very sternly (now THAT was some gunsplaining!) about my responsibilities to my firearm. You must know the whereabouts of your firearm at all times. If it is not locked in your safe, it should be on your person, or, at the very least, you should have a clear line of sight between you and it. If your gun is on your person or out of your safe, you must remain sober at all times. All guns are loaded. If you do not defend your firearm--and by "defend," he meant "kill the guy coming at you," it will be taken from you and used to kill you. You don't shoot to wound. If you lift it up and point it at a person, be prepared to fire it.

The responsibility, when I got down to it, was horrifying. When drunks and vagrants would cross our property, which happened often, I would huddle in my cage, hoping I wouldn't have to pick up that thing.

I'm not one of those people who wants "no guns." I want gun safety and gun responsibility from dealers, owners, and gun organizations. I'm seeing little appetite for either. Can we agree on this small thing?

[SuperDutyTX]

39. Really good post!

I don't want to interrupt your conversation, but I did want to thank you for sharing!

[lapislzi]

62. Thank you, SuperDutyTX!

I am so glad that I never had to shoot that thing. My ex (then husband) almost got himself shot by the police waving his piece around*. That was all I needed to say "bye-bye" to the gun.

*He happened to be in his underwear at the time, which might have had something to do with it, but that's a long story that needs a few beers.

[scscholar]

33. It does make a difference!

If it didn't, then why would electing Hillary be so critical now? Now?

[linuxman]

35. If you had a point, I'm afraid I missed it.

[Matrosov]

17. The point he's trying to make

..is that many people who are passionate about gun control have a difficult time making anything beyond an emotional argument and don't know the first thing about firearms. When you try to offer them advice, they can become extremely defensive and dismiss anyone who does know anything about firearms as a gun nut.

I've experienced this first hand several times whenever I've pointed out a major reason that gun control efforts have difficult time gaining traction is because too many reserve their efforts for whenever there is a mass shooting in the news and too many don't bother to educate themselves even a little bit. More than one of those posts/threads got reported for 'right wing talking points' and 'gun not babble' and the first report even begged for MIRT to get rid of me.

Even yesterday, when I made a thread explaining semi-automatic rifles, I received some nasty responses. From the people who want more gun control, not from the gun owners. This after I've argued several times the past few days that the only way to ban assault rifles is to ban semi-automatics in general. The lack of logic can be astounding. We can be our own worst enemies.

[Darb]

21. Concern noted, and dismissed.

Don't pretend that you are the majority. As soon as the confederates who control the legislature are exposed for what they are, this will change. It is not about tyranny, it is about overthrowing the government by force when you don't get your way. It is brewing right now and has been for years. Don't be an unwitting accomplice to sedition.

[G_j]

23. +100

[Matrosov]

26. I'm not the majority

I'm the minority that say the best way to end violence is to outlaw private gun ownership completely

[Darb]

27. I could live with that.

Some folks need them, out in the country and all. Hunters, sporters. Nobody needs and AR with a banana or a glock with a 13 or so round mag. Scale this shit back straight away.

[treestar]

34. What education do we need?

we understand they kill people. We get that part.

[Matrosov]

46. At least a basic understanding of firearms and firearm laws

Someone who wants to engage climate change deniers and make an argument in favor of more environmental protections needs a basic understanding of climate change and existing environmental laws. Likewise, someone who wants to engage the gun lobby and make an argument in favor of more gun control needs a basic understanding of firearms and existing firearm laws.

A good example is how people have recently called for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapon Ban from 1994 - and some have even claimed that rifles like the AR15 were outlawed between 1994 and 2004. I pointed out in the following thread why the 'ban' was useless and did nothing to keep AR15s off the streets (in that sense, reinstating it would be a waste of time and political capital), and that in order to actually ban assault rifles, we'd have to ban semi-automatic rifles altogether

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027921026

I reckon educating ourselves will help us much more against the gun lobby than just cracking jokes about their manhood

[treestar]

57. I agree the manhood jokes are silly

To somebody who is not into guns, the difference is guns that you shoot one bullet at a time and guns where you can spray bullets automatically. Then let the experts deal in the details. I saw the post explaining and that is a good thing to do. The law from 1994 does not seem to have been well written.

[sarisataka]

49. Consider for an analogy,

You were pushing for road safety laws. You wanted to change helmet and airbag regulations. You may not know horsepower, gear ratios or anything else how the motors work butt you would be expected to know the difference between a car, motorcycle and bicycle. It would be ridiculous to say all motorcycles need air bags and everyone inside of a car needs to wear a helmet.

It is similar with guns when people conflate semi automatic vs. Full automatic.

[treestar]

59. IMO most of us gun grabbers

would want to ban the semi and the full, but I looked at Mats. post and see the difference. Not sure if Semi's are necessarily so bad if you have to reload yourself while shooting. I could see disagreement on that. Some would want to ban them all like they did in Australia. IMO when the other side is going on about those things they are trying to get a discussion going about their favorite hobby and how much the gun restrictionists don't know about guns so they don't have to discuss why they think everyone has a right to one regardless of the carnage that can occur.

[Darb]

19. We know your whines by rote.

No need to hear them again. Gunsplainers know this: your hands are bloody.

[linuxman]

20. Thanks for making my point.

I mean that in all seriousness.

Thank you.


If anyone was unsure of what I was talking about, please see above.

[Darb]

22. In case they don't check: Your hands are bloody.

There you go. Whine away.

[linuxman]

24. You're the gift that keeps on giving.

On behalf of all DU gun owners, I just want to express my thanks for the service your hystrionic, pouting, ad hominems provide.

You're a hero to the case for gun rights that I can only dream of being.

Thank you for your service.

[Darb]

25. And you have blood on your hands.

I am a gun owner. Have been since about the age of 8. My brother and I saved our allowance and bought a 12 gauge pump gun when I was 9. When we hunted birds back then you had to plug your gun so the mag could only hold two, and one in the chamber. In other words, they gave the birds a bit of a chance. Made you either be good or reload. We obeyed the law and did't really care.

Too bad the likes of you don't see that connection. None of today's tough guy humpers sees that connection. It's all "right to keep and bear arms" ad nauseum, irrespective of the dangers of having kooks running around with ARs with banana clips. We didn't have those back then and only an asswipe would, even today. And I am related to some of those asswipes and their hands are bloody too. You and your bunch don't have a clue. There is nothing traditional at all about what is going on in the US today. It is a disgrace, and you are aiding and abetting events like Orlando by speaking out in public the way you do. There is blood on your hands.

Own it.

[oneshooter]

28. If you are a gun owner

Then your hands are also bloody.

[Darb]

29. Wrong. But I would give them up if that was the law.

All guns don't need to go away, Hunting doesn't need to go away. Shooting sports don't need to go away. Your comment is right in line with the all or nothing nonsense of the NRA, FYI.

Some guns and some mags got to go away. If you want to play with that shit, go rent it at a gun range. Can't take it home.

[Crepuscular]

36. LoL

Wow, you win a pretty big hypocrisy award for that kind of a double standard!

[Darb]

37. How hard are you going to try to be obtuse?

A single shot hunting or trap shooting shotgun is not the problem and no matter how much bloody handed obfuscation you put forth, that ain't gonna change. And I have never made the case for getting rid or limiting the availability of that, my NRA parroting obfuscating pet.

Wash you goddamned bloody hands.

[Crepuscular]

64. ....

Knock yourself out, the chances of a total ban on firearms in this country except for single shot rifles and double barrel shotguns are so minuscule as to be ridiculous. I don't have any blood on my hands, that is reserved for the actual perpetrators of violence, which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. A single shot fired by a mad man is all it takes to kill someone and the vast majority of homicides are limited to a single person being killed. You either lack the intellectual capacity to understand that or are simply tilting at windmills, most likely, both.

[Darb]

73. Again, completely obtuse. Nice hands.

Either you cannot read or you are being completely obtuse. Using misdirection and dishonesty to poison the well. Yes, your hands are bloody too. Unless you cannot read and do not understand english. Then, you shouldn't be involved in this discussion.

You are helping to block our society from keeping crazy people, terrorists, and violent asswhipes in general from getting weapons that should be limited to the military. All of you know what we are talking about but are trying to pretend you do not and trying to pretend we want to ban things that we don't. You know what has to be done. And you know that you are trying to prevent it.

Your hands are bloody.

[Crepuscular]

80. More bullshit

The types of bans you suggest would not save a single life. The vast majority of deaths in this country involving weapons do not involve the type you are ranting about. Keep patting yourself on the back, you will need the encouragement while you watch any proposals made along the lines of what you are suggesting, go down in flames.

[Darb]

81. Sooner or later we will win.

In the meantime I will congratulate you on helping people like the Orlando asshole to easily and without hesitation acquire a weapon that he used to kill 49 people quite quickly, before he could be stopped. Thanks for that. and, in advance, thanks for the next one.

Not save single life huh, nice try. I have not even made a formal proposal so what the fuck are you talking about?

[Crepuscular]

84. ...

If you haven't made a proposal, how can you tell whether you will "win"? LoL.

The sadly ironic thing is that the hyperbolic squealing by you and your ilk does more to put tens of thousands more AR's and similar rifles on the street then anything the pro-gun side could say. They are flying off the shelves due to your chant of Ban! Ban! Ban!. Great strategy for reducing the numbers of guns one the street!

[Darb]

86. Too bad they are going to have to turn them in.

Sucks for those dumbasses. A fool and his money will soon part.

[Crepuscular]

87. ...

Only in your wet dreams.

Not going to happen in your lifetime but you hold onto that thought if it gives you the warm and fuzzies.

[oneshooter]

66. " I would give them up if that was the law."

But you would have to be FORCED to give them up.

If you truly believe that gun owners have blood on their hands, you would have already destroyed them.

Hypocrisy, thou name is Darb.

[Darb]

72. Stop being obtuse.

I said people who actively, publically, go out of their way to try to prevent our society from enacting sensible gun laws have blood on their hands. You are being typically obtuse, like every gun humper I know. Which makes your hands bloody. You are helping to stop sensible legislation by poisoning public opinion with your purposeful obtuseness.

Now go debate a child on whether he will give up his blankey. That'll give you a taste.

My guns are in a closet. They are not ARs, AKs, not semiauto handguns, or any other candy-ass scaredy cat bullshit gun that only Republican pricks own.

[oneshooter]

76. Your guns are in a closet!

Why aren't they secured in a metal safe that is isis bolted to a wall. You claim to be a proper gun owner yet you leave your firearms unsecured against theft.

Hypocrisy your name is Darb.

[Darb]

77. Hey red hands, nice try.

Being a typical, simple, obtuse gun worshipping propagandist is not becoming. go wash the blood from your hands. They are covered. If you can get it off, or want to.

[oneshooter]

79. So you have no excuse for leaving your guns

unsecured.
All you have is insults. Typical of your type of Hypocrisy.

Now, why are your firearms not secured against theft.

[Darb]

83. They are secured, Mr. Distracty. And they are not

the kind of scaredy cat guns that someone can go into a bar with and kill 49 people before being stopped. the kind of guns that you and your like-minded bretheren helped the Orlando shitstain to acquiring by helping to stop sensible control on weapons that kill many, many people in very short periods of time.

My Winchester Model 98 lever action 30-30 is locked up tighly. So is my Winchester 1200, 12 Ga. pump gun. did that give you a stiffy? Hope so. That is called a nomenclature rod.

[bighart]

82. No dog in this fight but

I agree that if your guns are not secured you are an irresponsible gun owner, they are in a closet is an absolutely abhorrent statement.

That being said what are proposals that you feel would be sensible gun control measures.
I do not now nor have I ever owned a gun and don't have any intention of buying one.

What I want to see happen is for legislation to be enacted that might actually have an impact on gun crime. The AWB was a useless and worthless piece of legislation and should not be considered as a starting point for conversations.

Given the fact that the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns not long guns any legislation that solely focuses on long guns will have very little impact on gun crime, the Virginia Tech shooter used hand guns not "scary" looking "assault rifles".
What I want to see is a discussion and dialog about legislation that will actually make a difference.

In my opinion both sides have blood on their hands because neither is willing to discuss this issue.
All of the name calling, penis jokes, and general dismissal of owners does nothing to advance the cause of those of us that want to see common sense gun control enacted that will actually make a difference and save lives.

[Darb]

85. Please, don't fall for that, or you might be considered

a bloody-handed wild west protectionist. They have no idea where my guns are and only want to draw attention away from the fact that they helped enable the Orlando massacre.

[bighart]

88. Your own words my friend:

"My guns are in a closet."

What exactly does that mean? If they aren't secured in a gun safe you are an irresponsible gun owner. If they are then state that so it's understood.

I want reasonable, common sense gun control.
I know the facts and figures on gun crime, by far more gun crime is committed with handguns so to actually make a real difference that is where we should start.

[Just reading posts]

91. Only Republicans own semiautomatic handguns? Really?

Link, please?

[linuxman]

30. I don't hunt.

And if you're still trying to be awarded " most helpful anti gunner of the day", don't strain yourself. You already earned it.

I've never shot an animal in my life, nor would I want to. I'm glad you satisfied you and your brother's blood lust as a child, but there's no need to project that onto me. I'm the peaceful type. I'm the one advocating for common sense ACHIEVABLE gun legislation. You're the one sabotaging anything from ever being accompished by attacking the ones advocating for workable legislation. Blood on my hands indeed.

You're past the point of reason, and further discussion seems a waste of time. Go ahead and have the last word though. I'll get you started: "something, something, blood on your hands."

Heard you the first time. I'm a changed man.

[Darb]

32. I'll take the last word.

I've had enough of listening to the bullshit of the gun humpers and their apologist. Get up in my kitchen and you will receive no quarter.

It is past time we pretended to be able to make deals with those who want violent revolution if it suits them. You are kidding yourself. I care not, any longer for your kid gloves approach to confederates. Coddle them all you want to, at your peril. It is not hunting deer that they want. They don't want ARs for that.

Find another accomplice in the delay of reason. I am not your guy.

[jmg257]

44. "deals with those who want violent revolution if it suits them"

Sorry to interfere in the back and forth, but interesting and thoughtful observation.

I'm aware of the "militia movements" and all that, but have not given much thought to the offensive nature.

Cheers.

[Darb]

52. Bank on it.

All this stocking up on ARs and AKs ain't about some sort of tyranny. It is about our democracy, and how they will end it when they lose control. Believe it.

[jack_krass]

89. 'blah Gun humper blah.blah'. Translation: Ive lost the argument and have nothing else useful to say.

[Adrahil]

68. I'll just say this.

If you don't have a basic technical understanding of guns and how they work, get used to failure.

There was a segment on NPR this afternoon where a law professor focused on gun control noted that many gun control advocates have almost no technical knowledge of firearms, and waste their political capital promoting useless policies.

[Darb]

70. I know plenty about these toys.

This nomenclature handjob is nothing but obfuscation by the fascists. If you think this is about self defense you are a sucker. It is about over-throwing the democratically elected government when they get fed up enough. It is about killing the "other" when they have been fed enough propaganda to believe anything. It's offense, not defense that the gun humpers are stockpiling weapons for.

[Adrahil]

78. I'm not advocating ANYTHING except attacking this from a useful position

Banning grips bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, and flash hiders is just plain ole stupid. NONE of those things are an effective method of limiting the lethality of a rifle.

I favor EFFECTIVE gun control. Limit magazine capacity. Strengthen the process. Heck, I'd even potentially favor moving these devices to Class III status.

[SuperDutyTX]

38. Really good post!

It's interesting; I grew up where the democrats (for the most part) had a reputation of really trying to understand an issue, and rendering an informed decision. In general, I still believe that to be true, but on the topic of firearms a subset tend to to adopt some kind of self–righteous ignorance, and immediately shout down any attempt by friendly folks to help them understand the issue (even if not attempting to sway their decision either way).

It's truly bizarre; it's one of the few issues where the mindset of a few on the left, strongly imitates that of the right (on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc). I saw a post the other day that said something to the effect of "Several DUers are sounding identical to old white GOP guys talking about abortion, espousing how a woman can 'shut that down' naturally if required'". It's a striking similarity to some of the ignorance I've seen from people, even though I'm probably very closely aligned with.

I've seen it these past few days; people understandably have very strong emotions following a mass shooting, and are calling for the banning of AR15s and "Weapons of War". People knowledgeable about firearms on this forum have tried to explain that while they say they want to ban the AR15 and "Weapons of War", they more than likely really mean want to ban all semi-auto's; even that slight tip/correction is met with insults and claims that someone is just espousing NRA talking points, and all the while the gun knowledgeable person was just trying to help them, and is actually advocating for something significantly more "comprehensive" than just AR15s.

On the flip side, I have seen pro-gun people absolutely try to use less important technical terms to discredit folks. Clip vs. Magazine etc. I suspect it's hard for anyone unfamiliar with firearms to tell when it's a legitimate/helpful correction, or when someone is just trying avoid having a meaningful conversation.

Either way, this whole issue really is a mess, I would advocate for anyone that's passionate about an issue to take the time to learn as much as they can; gaining knowledge about something is rarely a bad thing.

Queue the posts saying I have blood on my hands, I'm a gunsplainer, and I'm on somebody's ignore list LOL.

[linuxman]

40. You pretty much nailed my thoughts on the matter,

Though in better words than I could have used.

Thanks.

[Darb]

71. Cool story bro.

It's a crock though. Go play with your toys. don;t shoot yourself.

[Eleanors38]

48. No, it's NRLalalalala!

[Dem2]

4. Hah, very good

[underpants]

5. Thanks. Got lots of those on Facebook.

[Orrex]

13. And on DU.

And on my Ignore list.

[jmg257]

14. "Take em everywhere...the mall, the movies, the bouncy house at my nephew's b-day party"

[Bonx]

41. A how-to guide for reasonable discourse on discussion forums.

try to know what you are talking about, be respectful to others, and use logic and reason.
If you just want to deliver a petulant soliloquy or emotional rant, save it for your blog if you don't want contrary opinions.

[hunter]

43. Because gun lovers are so reasonable...

[Eleanors38]

50. Because banners are so-o-o-o openly liberal about free thought.

[hunter]

56. If I was always talking nerve gas, poisons, bombs, etc., defending that hobby on the internet...

... people would be a bit concerned.

Why should gun lovers get a pass?

Ooooh, I think this nerve gas formula is just right for personal defense, it does a great job on the rats in my backyard and the antidote doesn't make me puke. Winner!

If you haven't noticed, I think the second amendment is 18th century bullshit, just as slavery was.

In the history of this nation the "militia" is traditionally used against the oppressed -- rebellious slaves, striking workers, Indians. It's a pretty handy thing for the guys running the show to have a bunch of armed yahoos at their disposal who buy their own weapons and lack certain critical thinking skills. If, occasionally, some yahoo massacres a mess of innocent people, well that's just a cost of the dirty business.


I

[Eleanors38]

58. "certain critical thinking skills" have been a mockery for controller/banners for years.

In fact, like journalists, they celebrate that very lack.

Read your history: Existing gun laws -- esp. those where local LEOs, panels, etc. are empowered with "yay" or "nay" on allowing a "right" -- are based on Jim Crow legislation. NYC's "Sullivan Laws" went one better, and were passed when the Irish gangs got into power, and didn't want competition from the Italians. A lotta anti-Italian agitprop went into their passage. But they had good tutors from "down under."

[hunter]

61. Go ahead, tell me more about gangs...

... that's the world I live in, that's the world I raised my kids in.

[Marengo]

75. Why would you raise your kids in such an environment?

[hunter]

92. Because my wife and I have spent the last quarter century trying to make the world a better place...

Duh.

I certainly don't sit around with imaginary bad guys living in my head, imagining I'm going to have to shoot them someday. What a fucking sad and pathetic waste of mental energy.

What does your imaginary bad guy look like?

Who would Jesus shoot?

[Marengo]

93. I don't believe keeping your kids in the dangerous environment you seem to boast...

About is in anyway honorable. Your first responsibility is to to your children's safety and welfare.

[hunter]

95. I grew up in an affluent Ivory Soap 99% pure white community...

... a city with an extremely low crime rate, among the lowest in the United States.

As a skinny squeaky autistic spectrum kid, nicknamed queerbait by the bullies, I was frequently beaten bloody throughout middle and high school. The advice I got from a few asshole teachers and administrators was to "be a man."

Fuck that.

I quit high school for college and the physical violence against me stopped. More or less.

Do you really think I'd want to raise my children in the sort of place I grew up in? All my siblings fled. So did my parents once they'd retired.

Anyways, I'm so fucking manly now, I don't need a gun.

Nah, that's not it at all. I'm Fabulous.

[Marengo]

96. Where there bullets wizzing about the neighborhood? My experience is not disimilar to yours...

I grew up in a 100% white & mixed rural farming and affluent suburban community. Not the most enlightened or educated of populations, but there is far worse as I learned. My custodial parent decided political work was more important, so I was transported from our 100 acres to the middle of what for all practical purposes a ghetto. Living amongst the lumpen urban proles lost its charm very quickly, the "work" being futile and result of the exposure dangerous. I fled as soon as possible to the service, and then on. Now, as a parent, I've returned to a community similar to that which I grew up in. Fairly affluent safe, and stable. Why? Because, I grew up.

[hunter]

98. "Lumpen urban proles?"

So that's what the imaginary bad guys living in your head look like?

Are they black or Mexican?

Or maybe you're going to zap me with a hoary old gun fetishist favorite: "Well I'm a black Mexican gay woman with a gun in my purse!"

In your dreams, maybe.

Piss on guns.

[Marengo]

99. A majority being white, clever boy, and nothing imaginary about the danger. I won't regale you...

With lurid descriptions of the random physical violence I experinced. The term, in the classic Marxist sense, is race neutral despite your attempt to characterize it as otherwise.

[hunter]

100. Oh please, I know you want to tell... so badly.

You're just itching to tell us a lurid gun story about some gun heroics.

And yes, thank you, I am a clever boy.



Piss on guns.

[Marengo]

103. Back to the subject at hand, is your neighborhood as dangerous as you...

Seem to portray it?

[hunter]

104. About the same homicide rate as Venezuela.

I don't think I've ever felt unsafe anywhere in the U.S.A..

My wife and I met as teachers in Los Angeles. Not the best schools, not the worst. I don't feel insecure in the rougher urban neighborhoods of Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago... Ordinary people inhabit all these places, just struggling to get by.

I don't avoid places, I avoid situations.

The police here are severely understaffed and if you call 911 they are not likely to show up unless someone is dead, bleeding, or on fire. Vandalism? Home burglary? Car accident without injuries? Forget it. They'll ask you if you want to file a report on the internet, or tell you to come down to the station to file in person. Waiting at the police station is a trip, a fascinating study in humanity. The police clerks sit behind bullet proof glass.

Our police are also a bit trigger happy, occasionally killing harmless mentally ill people, or people in domestic disputes where nobody is armed or beating the crap out of anyone else. So everyone knows to think twice before calling the police, and to describe the situation very carefully. The police are also quick to shoot anyone non-cop who is holding a gun or anything that looks like a gun.

Most of my neighbors are Mexican American. (What a coincidence, so's my wife!) Maybe 40% speak Spanish at home. Friday and Saturday nights that's the music we hear.

Our next door neighbor has a pit bull. She's a fairly sweet thing, but not a golden retriever. I won't claim our dogs are any better, all of them rescued from death row at our local animal shelter.

[Bonx]

54. Some are, some aren't. They aren't a monolith.

But that's obvious to any reasonable person.

[krispos42]

67. As are the "fuck the NRA" people.

Sorry, but the idea that we can quantify the "deadly-ness" of any particular model of gun and set some kind of legal limit on them is ridiculous.

"The deadlyness limit in California is 8.3, but your pistol measures 9.2 so you can't sell it here; it's too deadly."


Really?

Equally foolish is the notion that we can somehow lock gun technology back to 1925.

[hunter]

69. Tell me about the guns you love.

I know you want to.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who wants to step into that shit.

We need to make gun love socially unacceptable, just as we made drunk driving unacceptable, and smoking in public places unacceptable.

I don't give a fuck about what guns people are fondling in their closet, I just want them to know there is nothing positive about their fetish, nothing romantic, and the second amendment is 18th century bullshit just as slavery was bullshit.

Piss on guns.

[Darb]

55. Was that gunsplaining or mansplaining?

I cannot tell. It is hard to differentiate. "know what you are talking about" screams gunsplainer. "emotional rant" screams mansplainer.

So how are you condescending exactly?

[Eleanors38]

60. All this splaining, I keep thinking of those damned splined Hotchkiss axles I had to deal...

with when I was repairing cars. AMCs, Jeeps had 'em on the rear axles. Pain in the butt.

[Bonx]

63. You can call it what you want, but I don't see any value in either of those labels.

[Darb]

74. Because you are obtuse.

Purposefully or by birth.

[Bonx]

94. Or because I am right.

And not a fan of poorly conceived homemade words used to annoy people.

[JonathanRackham]

65. Licensed and trained to carry a firearm?

In the military? When did that start?

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. You still talk to gunner trash?

I'd no sooner engage gunner trash than I would a racist piece of shit. That there's so much overlap helps cover two groups of despicable jerks.

[Dem2]

97. People driven by fear

That's what the overlap is about - and I've been surprised how many are "men's rights" activists and to a lesser extent white nationalists.

[Rex]

102. Awwww you hurt some gun humpers fee fees, why are they so thin skinned?

Gun humpers are such sad little people, thankfully they only make up all of 5 people on DU.