Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 06:46 PM Jan 2015

Observations on the nature of the debate on gun control.

It's no secret that I have been a long time advocate of civil liberties, and 2nd Amendment rights in particular as my preferred specialization. I have noticed certain patterns of behavior that the anti-civil liberty side tends to use, and these patterns of behavior is almost universal.

First on is that they can be NO debate..NONE, with anyone who is not 100% on their side, to the truly committed gun control advocate, they are simply “right” and you are simply “wrong” in their eyes, since your not smart enough to see that they are “right” they have no time to talk to you, and your opinion will not matter, matter of fact, since your not smart, it is perfectly OK, to ridicule you and call you names... after all, your clearly stupid. Just parsing thru some threads here on DU will show a shocking level of name calling, disrespect, and very rude behavior by some very dedicated gun control advocates, that is not only allowed, it is encouraged.. Thus this is the dogma of Gun Control, no matter its record of failure, nor the silliness of some of the ideas proposed (Ghost Guns, semi automatic machine guns, etc...) no one is allowed to stray from the gospel. It very much is like a religions cult, as many of the tenants they espouse are purely matters of faith, and have no basis in reality.

If the subject was about any thing other than guns there very poor behavior and personal discipline would lead to a ban very quickly.

Also, the debate itself... This is a debate that never happens, how can you debate something taken as a matter of faith? Gun Control advocates are rather infamous for “drive by OP's”... They like to toss a very misleading OP out, than never defend it. If you look here in the gungeon, there are lots of “pro-gun control” OP's that the poster never even tries to defend. Even in the face of really good evidence that the whole premise of the post was outright wrong, deliberately misleading, or completely stupid, there will seldom be any defense by the op, other than to call the person that dared to questioned the dogma “a NRA shill”, “gun humper” or worse.. It is as if they think by calling you names they can “shame” you into joining their “cult”.

They are so terrified that someone will destroy their dogma, they never have open discussion groups, A search of Google, will find lots and lots of pro-gun forums, but practically no forums dedicated to gun control. This is for several reasons, first off, Gun Control is unpopular, secondly an open forum invites debate, where you can expect to be challenged for your ideas and beliefs. The cult of gun control, cannot stand an open and fair debate, so this must never be allowed to happen..Case in point, the DU group called : Gun Control Reform Activism. It is well known as “bansalot” and many of its residents are very proud of that, they must stifle open debate at all costs, but even here they have ran into the problem that gun control, is inherently unpopular and it just degenerated into a star chamber for the few true believers that never question the dogma.

In my final thoughts, at this point it is pointless to try to even engage the “true believers” they are so caught up the emotional rush they get from the religion of gun control and their minds are so closed that it is a profound waist of time.

127 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Observations on the nature of the debate on gun control. (Original Post) virginia mountainman Jan 2015 OP
That's happening even as we speak in the other gun group. GGJohn Jan 2015 #1
well as soon as they get a host again Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #16
what honest debate exists in this forum? samsingh Jan 2015 #59
Much more honest than in the other group. GGJohn Jan 2015 #60
Yes it is quite amazing Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #63
"And you're certainly not one to talk about honesty."????? samsingh Jan 2015 #112
"Anti-civil liberties side"....still no idea why you have this Gungeon? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #2
To irritate you. eom GGJohn Jan 2015 #4
Still no idea why you post here if it irritates you. GGJohn Jan 2015 #5
Jon Stewart said last month that samsingh Jan 2015 #11
what name calling? Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #25
Ammosexual. blueridge3210 Jan 2015 #29
Thanks Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #34
i don't think you need more than a second samsingh Jan 2015 #58
I do not know what you mean by that Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #61
here is one quote samsingh Jan 2015 #69
I am sorry but that is not name calling Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #73
both are hurtful samsingh Jan 2015 #78
I looked at the top poster. blueridge3210 Jan 2015 #66
I did not either, I am glad I am not the only one Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #67
really - here are some actual words right from the post samsingh Jan 2015 #71
Not even close Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #74
it is hurtful to me. what makes you believe you can tell me which is worse? samsingh Jan 2015 #77
Oh brother. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #95
same to the people shooting bullets who samsingh Jan 2015 #100
we just try and be polite Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #109
in the original post - the argument that gun controller advocates samsingh Jan 2015 #111
Oh there is listening sarisataka Jan 2015 #113
Guns need to be viewed like smoking stinking cigars in public, or wearing a swastika as a samsingh Jan 2015 #115
"the few true believers that never question the dogma" sarisataka Jan 2015 #116
That post was sent to a jury, and allowed to stand, n/t oneshooter Jan 2015 #117
This message was self-deleted by its author sarisataka Jan 2015 #119
I misunderstood your post sarisataka Jan 2015 #121
"Make gun owners the new PARIAH" beevul Jan 2015 #118
I think it's time... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #122
Oh, its well past time... N/T beevul Jan 2015 #123
guns are damaging to other people in the vicinity just like ciggrettes samsingh Jan 2015 #125
Nonsense. beevul Jan 2015 #126
That's utter nonsense, GGJohn Jan 2015 #127
Meanwhile, in GCRA, they want to block posters for what they post in other groups. beevul Jan 2015 #114
Here's another... sarisataka Jan 2015 #124
one quote samsingh Jan 2015 #70
"true believers". blueridge3210 Jan 2015 #72
being told that gun control is a religion is more hurtful than any of the other terms. samsingh Jan 2015 #79
"More hurtful" is in the eye of the beholder. n/t beevul Jan 2015 #80
Not that I use the term but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #81
If being told that gun control is a religion is hurtful blueridge3210 Jan 2015 #84
your gun buddies asked for a reference which i provided only samsingh Jan 2015 #87
too bad you did not answer what I actually asked Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #88
being called a profound waist (sic) of time samsingh Jan 2015 #98
You said name calling. I asked twice what names Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #103
"that's why you need guns to feel safe and snuggly" blueridge3210 Jan 2015 #96
true, it's over the top samsingh Jan 2015 #99
you can't see the name calling in the post samsingh Jan 2015 #57
no thin skin Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #62
How about names like "gun lover", "ammosexual", and "gun nut"? benEzra Jan 2015 #35
Pot calling kettle black. Call the waaambulance. pablo_marmol Jan 2015 #54
care to answer for the posts in the subthread Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #55
care to answer any of the questions Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #17
You should get rid of the "anti civil liberty" phrase. upaloopa Jan 2015 #3
Ask Fred if he thinks women should possess the civil liberty to shoot rapists. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #56
he fails to answer Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #64
If he is so embarrassed by what he believes why cling to it, especially when believing it leads to Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #65
Religion. Dogma? Neon Gods Jan 2015 #6
You're not posting in the safe have. GGJohn Jan 2015 #7
Too bad Neon Gods Jan 2015 #9
Indeed. kioa Jan 2015 #33
Welcome to DU :) We do also have a gun control forum, and it drives the gun lovers nuts Electric Monk Jan 2015 #8
No, not really Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #19
I think if you allowed posters to correct misinformation... beevul Jan 2015 #24
well at least over in the other group Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #26
The point of the GCRA Group is to keep out the bullshit that your side spews. Electric Monk Jan 2015 #27
yes, you will make a great host Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #28
Welcome to DU. This little area of DU is a microcosm of the other forums you speak of, I thought it Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #10
What the NRA doesn't realize... Neon Gods Jan 2015 #14
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #15
Ummm... Neon Gods Jan 2015 #22
Gun Control was the only issue that led to recalls (3 of them) kioa Jan 2015 #23
You mean gun owners openly broke the law? Neon Gods Jan 2015 #42
do you have a problem with civil disobedience? gejohnston Jan 2015 #43
On the courthouse steps, no less. kioa Jan 2015 #44
So how do we differ? Neon Gods Jan 2015 #46
You support taking rights away from innocent Americans. I support protecting their rights. kioa Jan 2015 #49
WTF? Neon Gods Jan 2015 #82
at lease our host allows you to post here Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #20
welcome to DU gejohnston Jan 2015 #12
Thank you for your reply Neon Gods Jan 2015 #32
You mean this CDC? Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #36
The CDC originally got its gun funding yanked because it became laughably partisan. benEzra Jan 2015 #39
but those are scary Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #40
let's see gejohnston Jan 2015 #41
I want both sides to have input to any gov. study Neon Gods Jan 2015 #45
to start with gejohnston Jan 2015 #48
So are you willing to back up your words... sarisataka Jan 2015 #13
at least we do not require a safe haven Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #18
The CDC report commissioned by Pres Obama stated: kioa Jan 2015 #21
"From my point of view, gun control advocates are willing to compromise..." beevul Jan 2015 #30
I would add that when a compromise position is prefaced with a petronius Jan 2015 #31
seems to be common Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #38
I disagree Neon Gods Jan 2015 #85
Well no, I would call that more of a tactic than a compromise worthy of the name petronius Jan 2015 #90
I would call that a pact. Neon Gods Jan 2015 #91
Good to know ... Straw Man Jan 2015 #94
Are you God? Neon Gods Jan 2015 #97
Hyperbolic much? Straw Man Jan 2015 #101
You don't know what the framers would think about the situation today Neon Gods Jan 2015 #102
actually, no gejohnston Jan 2015 #104
Talk about a myth with legs sarisataka Jan 2015 #105
Heh Neon Gods Jan 2015 #107
I will patiently wait sarisataka Jan 2015 #108
Response. Straw Man Jan 2015 #106
From the top... beevul Jan 2015 #110
I would like to hear that also Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #37
So what do you want from us? Neon Gods Jan 2015 #47
what I want? gejohnston Jan 2015 #50
Funny, I thought we were talking compromise Neon Gods Jan 2015 #51
what have we got in the past 75 years Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #52
in return? gejohnston Jan 2015 #53
No... Neon Gods Jan 2015 #83
simple. gejohnston Jan 2015 #89
My list shedevil69taz Jan 2015 #68
I like those Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #75
That is a nice list, however................... oneshooter Jan 2015 #76
Sigh, I'll bite. I do offer give-and-take. sir pball Jan 2015 #86
I don't find these suggestions unreasonable Neon Gods Jan 2015 #92
I'm am becoming a NRA Certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor. Big_Mike Jan 2015 #93
So there you are, looking in a mirror AceWheeler Jan 2015 #120

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
1. That's happening even as we speak in the other gun group.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:17 PM
Jan 2015

They don't want and honest debate, all they want is an echo chamber where they can enforce their gun control views with each other.
And that's why they'll never win on their version of gun control, they constantly underestimate and ridicule the opposition.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
16. well as soon as they get a host again
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:34 PM
Jan 2015

they will surely block the ones that are posting there now. You can see how upset they are that they do not yet have that power.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
60. Much more honest than in the other group.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 01:52 AM
Jan 2015

At the very least here, you can give your opposing view without being blocked, can you say the same in the other group?
And you're certainly not one to talk about honesty.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
112. "And you're certainly not one to talk about honesty."?????
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:06 PM
Jan 2015

i have no reason to waste my time not being honest.

you and a lot of gun lovers seem to say that a lot. Is it some kind of talking point? it's difficult to be dishonest when expressing a personal opinion.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
11. Jon Stewart said last month that
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:57 PM
Jan 2015

he is expected to be right 100% of the time while fox only needs to be right once.

same with gun lovers - they call names, make sweeping statements (e.g. wanting gun control must mean anti-civil liberties), and love guns like a religion. Any response from gun control advocates gets blasted with more hypocritical name calling, sweeping statements, and irrationalizations.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
25. what name calling?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:08 PM
Jan 2015

please post some examples?

would the be murderer, future murderer, child killer, baby killer, death wisher, gun humper? How many childish penis references have been made by RKBA posters?

Oh, that's right those are just some from the top of my head from the controller side. I am sure other members here can add to that list.

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
29. Ammosexual.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:28 PM
Jan 2015

Gundamentalist.

Penis extender.

Oh, did you mean from the pro-RKBA side?

...


...


...



Give me a minute..............

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
61. I do not know what you mean by that
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:00 AM
Jan 2015

a quote would be nice for clarity, do you mean "true believers"?

How does that rate with murderer, or ammosexual?

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
69. here is one quote
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:04 PM
Jan 2015


the bold is mine

at this point it is pointless to try to even engage the “true believers” they are so caught up the emotional rush they get from the religion of gun control and their minds are so closed that it is a profound waist of time
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
73. I am sorry but that is not name calling
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:36 PM
Jan 2015

How does that compare to murderer, child killer, ammosexual, gun humper, etc

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
66. I looked at the top poster.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:23 AM
Jan 2015

I didn't see any name calling. Perhaps you could point out a sample? Or is this passive-aggressive business all you bring to a discussion?

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
71. really - here are some actual words right from the post
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:05 PM
Jan 2015











the bold is mine

at this point it is pointless to try to even engage the “true believers” they are so caught up the emotional rush they get from the religion of gun control and their minds are so closed that it is a profound waist of time

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
95. Oh brother.
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 07:06 AM
Jan 2015

If you're so worried about appearances of religiosity perhaps not playing the martyr would help.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
111. in the original post - the argument that gun controller advocates
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:52 AM
Jan 2015

are on a religious mission and cannot be talked to.

this is worse than being called a name in frustration. It essentially confirms that gun supporters are not listening to gun control advocates and are not empathizing with the pain that victims feel.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
113. Oh there is listening
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:05 PM
Jan 2015

but it doesn't seem like there is any reason to join, or much empathy...

religious mission- "doing god's work"- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=5696
-"Moral Work of Gun Control"- http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627622

The name calling, etc. by gun control is a conscious effort to create shame, not simply frustration

"The Powerful Pornography of the Gun Fetish"- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023918678
"Colorado columnist: Assault rifle owners have ‘tiny penises’"- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022123321
" Kids should be taught to never touch a gun and to shun those who do"- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=48133
"Guns need to be viewed like smoking stinking cigars in public, or wearing a swastika as a fashion accessory"- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=28615
"You're not just mere gun nuts, you're ammosexuals. And before you try to deny that you have an intimate relationship with your gun, consider this: you're taking it out to dinner."- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025861647#post5

Empathy for victims- here are some statements on people who died of gun shots-
"Great. She reproduced", "arrogant, self centered, irresponsible d-bags", "forced her children to witness her own death", "K & R"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014976646

"One down", "Any sorrow the family of f-f hh may suffer could be neatly countered by the relief that he didn't shoot one of them","One less gun clown"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5063335

What did these victims have in common? They were gun owners.


And of course the suggestions as to how to handle gun owners-
"Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.
Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025861647#post2
"I don't agree with your premise that displaying a firearm is protected. It is a threat which should be dealt with as such. Harshly and with extreme prejudice." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=130691

I am sorry that "true believer" offends you. This "gun-humping", "ammosexual", "murder advocate" (all I have been called personally) tries to avoid using pejorative terms and will note that "true believer" is offensive.

Please know I do listen to arguments that oppose my views; especially when they are advocating my execution.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
115. Guns need to be viewed like smoking stinking cigars in public, or wearing a swastika as a
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:21 PM
Jan 2015

so how is this different than 'true believer'?

"Guns need to be viewed like smoking stinking cigars in public, or wearing a swastika as a fashion accessory"-

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
116. "the few true believers that never question the dogma"
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:29 PM
Jan 2015

is the full context of the OP. It is not claiming all proponents of gun control are "true believers". Though I am sure many would disagree, I consider myself a proponent of gun control; I have different ideas of what is "reasonable" that those who would disagree.

"Guns need to be viewed like smoking stinking cigars in public, or wearing a swastika as a fashion accessory" seeks to paint all gun owners as kindred spirits to Nazis. If you care to follow the link to find the poster of that, you can easily track that poster's opinion that gun owners are "almost always white, therefore bigots"

Response to oneshooter (Reply #117)

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
121. I misunderstood your post
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:47 PM
Jan 2015

in my first reply.

Here is a hot off the press endearment in GCRA
"But guns help fulfill my slack-muscled, soft-bellied, wussy, suburban Rambo fantasies" http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627795#post3

Yet us "gun humpers" are the rude ones

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
118. "Make gun owners the new PARIAH"
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:38 PM
Jan 2015

"Just like smokers in public. This is HOW it can be done. SHUN them, and their guns. Yes, that especially includes family members."

That was an OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022694426

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
122. I think it's time...
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:41 PM
Jan 2015

...for the pro-over-control folk to accept that they aren't a majority in this party let alone the public overall.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
126. Nonsense.
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 04:33 PM
Jan 2015

This is why nobody trusts you guys.

Every once in a while you let the mask slip.

It speaks to your end goals, where guns are concerned, and says nothing about any intent to "reduce gun violence".

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
127. That's utter nonsense,
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 04:37 PM
Jan 2015

my gun, concealed, is not damaging to other people in the vicinity just like cigarettes.
Cigarettes can cause cancer by second hand smoke, since when can guns do that?
Cops with guns are more damaging than the average citizen with a gun.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
114. Meanwhile, in GCRA, they want to block posters for what they post in other groups.
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:20 PM
Jan 2015
"It essentially confirms that gun supporters are not listening to gun control advocates and are not empathizing with the pain that victims feel."


Meanwhile, in GCRA, they want to block posters for what they post in other groups. And from some of your posts, and from the posts of some of your gun control buddies, you guys don't want this group here, either.

Add it all up, and what do you get?


You guys want to do all the talking, and wish to silence all voices not in agreement with you. That's why you guys hate the nra so bad. And please, spare me the "the nra is right wing" schtick. If they were for gun control, you guys would turn a blind eye to all of it, just like you did with republicans helmke and brady of the brady bunch, so save it.

Taking all the above BEHAVIORS together, certainly paint a picture of zealotry, bordering on religion.

Maybe you should try to change those behaviors, before you go complaining that they're causing you to be labeled uncomfortably.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
70. one quote
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:04 PM
Jan 2015








the bold is mine

at this point it is pointless to try to even engage the “true believers” they are so caught up the emotional rush they get from the religion of gun control and their minds are so closed that it is a profound waist of time
 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
72. "true believers".
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:20 PM
Jan 2015

That's what you refer to as "Name Calling"? It's nothing more than a description of those pro-control persons who refuse to accept a differing opinion as valid. Compare with "Ammosexual", "Gundamentalist" and/or "Gun Humper".

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
81. Not that I use the term but...
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 04:48 PM
Jan 2015

...when ideas may be characterized as either proven or as belief, a discussion where one party refuses to debate or establish a logical path, leads the other to label the concept or system of thought a belief. As we all know, religion is based on belief.

Just my 2 cents.

 

blueridge3210

(1,401 posts)
84. If being told that gun control is a religion is hurtful
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 05:33 PM
Jan 2015

then you have bigger problems than the fact that law-abiding citizens own firearms.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
87. your gun buddies asked for a reference which i provided only
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:11 PM
Jan 2015

to have it discounted. that's the problem with gun-lovers - they only care about themselves and can't understand the obvious.

you can give insults but can't take them - that's why you need guns to feel safe and snuggly.

I don't think I was insulting in any way - but I at least understand the irony.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
88. too bad you did not answer what I actually asked
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:33 PM
Jan 2015

this is what you said .........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172158329#post11

same with gun lovers - they call names, make sweeping statements (e.g. wanting gun control must mean anti-civil liberties), and love guns like a religion. Any response from gun control advocates gets blasted with more hypocritical name calling, sweeping statements, and irrationalizations.


I just asked what names you have been called and so far you have not answered, yes you said you were insulted by a post
"religion of gun control and their minds are so closed that it is a profound waist of time"


That is an observation of behavior and you were not called names. You made the charge that firearms owners call people names multiple times, please post some of those, we have and can easily link to posts to prove that they are true.
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
103. You said name calling. I asked twice what names
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 06:46 PM
Jan 2015

We have been able to provide many examples from the pro-controller side but so far you have not done so for pro-RKBA side. You make the accusations of us and we just want you to privide the proof. Seems you can not and what you said is false.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
57. you can't see the name calling in the post
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 01:46 AM
Jan 2015

but you can imagine or recall the names you cite. very thin skin indeed.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
62. no thin skin
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:02 AM
Jan 2015

I did not bring this up you did without any examples, myself and others did provide examples of the bile from the controller side.

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
35. How about names like "gun lover", "ammosexual", and "gun nut"?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:58 PM
Jan 2015

How about irrationalizations like the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, or the intentional conflation of the lawful and responsible with the criminal and insane, or the tiresome innuendo about "target range orgasms", "stroking your guns", "gun lovers", ad nauseaum?

I've had many interesting discussions with thoughtful and respectful individuals on the gun control side in the last couple of decades, but in the last few years many have seemed to be less interested in civil discussion and more interested in demonization and "othering" of gun owners in every way possible. Go check out a gun thread in General sometime and see what I mean.

FWIW, I am a casual competitive shooter, hold an NC CHL, carry a Smith & Wesson Lady Smith (3913LS), and have a Rock River AR in my gun safe. I suppose that makes me one of those benighted "gun lovers" to you?



pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
54. Pot calling kettle black. Call the waaambulance.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:42 AM
Jan 2015

Here you are, suggesting that I "embrace my guns":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=156661

ETA: Here's your brazen lie about my gun violence study material:

but looking for biased studies paid for by gun lobbyists is your idea of 'rational discussion'.

What a hypocrite you are!

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
55. care to answer for the posts in the subthread
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:51 AM
Jan 2015

do you think we are all lying about the name calling by the controller side.

I ask you very nicely, what names have you been called, Are they worse than being called a murderer?

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
17. care to answer any of the questions
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:35 PM
Jan 2015

that have been asked of you in other threads after you accused DU members of things. It looks bad for you to make an accusation then run away and hide.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
3. You should get rid of the "anti civil liberty" phrase.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:19 PM
Jan 2015

I don't think gun control folks are anti civil liberties.
I didn't read the rest of your post because of that. I think it is not going to be a fair depiction of gun control.
Just my opinion.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
56. Ask Fred if he thinks women should possess the civil liberty to shoot rapists.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 01:26 AM
Jan 2015

I promise you, you won't get an answer.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
65. If he is so embarrassed by what he believes why cling to it, especially when believing it leads to
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:22 AM
Jan 2015

the implication that something as horrific as sexual assault is to be tolerated in the name of this supposed Greater Good?

Some will protest, "That's not what I believe!" but in the contest between an unarmed woman and a rapist that is the all but guaranteed result. Then that gets multiplied by those who are being stalked and those with violent domestic partners.

The world is a beautiful place but for too many people it has dark and ugly recesses. For some people the only chance they will ever have is a fighting chance. We shouldn't take that away from them to the advantage of their tormentors with laws that the tormentors won't abide by themselves.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
6. Religion. Dogma?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:23 PM
Jan 2015

As someone who has worked for gun control for 40 years (since '74), my experience is that the true believers in the gun rights movement are just as closed-minded as you describe us.

The true believers I've had contact with see gun ownership as not just a civil right but as a god-given human right that no one can touch or infringe. There is no way to discuss or argue with them. I can think of only maybe 5 gun owners (out of hundreds) who have treated my opinions with any respect. Also, I can't tell you how many times I've had thoroughly debunked "facts" continue to be thrown at me (like the 2 million plus defensive gun uses each year), and I've NEVER had a true believer go, "Oh, I didn't know that fact was a hoax."

From my point of view, gun control advocates are willing to compromise (we'd rather not, but we'd prefer to have some improvements than the status quo). Gun owners on the other hand reject every suggestion as either stupid, unworkable, or (usually) unconstitutional.

Also, the reason why there are no gun-control forums? Because every one I've ever joined gets swamped by hundreds of gun nuts throwing around lies and stupid facts taken out of context. Don't believe me? Check with some of the gun control groups that have Facebook pages and ask them for a file of the vile, vicious posts and threats they get almost daily. No, my friend, don't go getting holier-than-thou on gun control people. I don't know how it is here in DU, but those who support gun control here feel this is a safe haven from the gun nuts and are understandably loathe to be attacked and battered here.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
9. Too bad
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:53 PM
Jan 2015

I suppose this is an issue that an enlightening political discussion can no longer be had anywhere on the Internet, so it will have to be decided by appealing to the voters.

 

kioa

(295 posts)
33. Indeed.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:48 PM
Jan 2015

Thanks to gun controllers talking to the voters:
1) The Party lost the Senate
2) Lost seats in the House (including Gabbie's former seat)
3) Left more state legislatures in GOP control than at any time since the Great Depression
4) Left the Democratic Party in control of less state legislatures than at any time in the past one hundred and fifty four years
5) More people support gun rights now than ever before. http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/07/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total

Heckuva job, Bloomie!

I'm certain the Party has noticed your handiwork as well.
I can assure you I will point it out to them often.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
8. Welcome to DU :) We do also have a gun control forum, and it drives the gun lovers nuts
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:38 PM
Jan 2015

that they can't post their diatribes against common sense regulations there too.

You can find it here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

Gun Control Reform Activism (Group): About This Group

Statement of Purpose

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
19. No, not really
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:40 PM
Jan 2015

But I do see it is driving some of you nuts that a few have not been able to be blocked and are able to post. It must be bad to have a group where both hosts fled and right now you guys can not block people who disagree in the echo chamber.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
24. I think if you allowed posters to correct misinformation...
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:04 PM
Jan 2015

I think if you allowed posters to correct misinformation and misconceptions, there wouldn't be much of an issue.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
27. The point of the GCRA Group is to keep out the bullshit that your side spews.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:16 PM
Jan 2015

You have the rest of the internet for that, but that's still not enough for you?

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
28. yes, you will make a great host
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:20 PM
Jan 2015

block any viewpoint you do not like. I am so glad our hosts allow you to post over here for open dialog.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
10. Welcome to DU. This little area of DU is a microcosm of the other forums you speak of, I thought it
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 07:53 PM
Jan 2015

would be better also, but the influence of the NRA runs deep.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
14. What the NRA doesn't realize...
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:05 PM
Jan 2015

...is that they no longer control the movement. The NRA has created a monster and the monster now controls the NRA. The open carry radicals, the stand your ground cheerleaders, and those who insist that every gun law is unconstitutional are pushing the issue beyond what the voters in most states will accept and the NRA is now powerless to prevent the radicals from pushing it even farther to the extremes.

Response to Neon Gods (Reply #14)

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
22. Ummm...
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:44 PM
Jan 2015

Wow! All those people voted for Republicans because of (drum roll)......gun control?!!! Not the economy, not illegal immigration, not fear of the evil Obama, but gun control? Do you have any exit polls or studies supporting this?

Wait, wait, yes gun control WAS on the ballot in Washington State. Do you recall the results? Let's take a peek...well, looky here...gun control won with almost 60% of the votes. Whao, someone did get the shit knocked out of them.

Get used to it.

 

kioa

(295 posts)
23. Gun Control was the only issue that led to recalls (3 of them)
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:01 PM
Jan 2015

It is ludicrous to try and argue that gun control didn't play a major part of the debacle you & your fellow authoritarians orchestated.

I-594 passed with less than 60% in a coastal state with a 7-to-1 spending advantage, proving how the "90% support background checks" talking point is in reality.
I-594 has also been shown to be so unworkable & unenforceable that people openly broke it on the statehouse steps.

But, why argue?
You point out the election of 2014 to the party as an argument for gun control, and I will do the exact same thing in support of gun rights.

Get used to irrelevancy. You're going to be there for a loooong time.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
42. You mean gun owners openly broke the law?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:19 PM
Jan 2015

On the statehouse steps? So much for the rule of law. Really, so its come to this, certain people now believe they are above the law. And I'll bet they claim to love America and fly the Red-White-and Blue. This is the monster the NRA has created and can't control. This why the gun rights movement is in trouble. A nation can't survive if armed assholes defy the government and law enforcement is afraid to confront them (see also, Cliven Bundy) (but they're not afraid to rough up unarmed citizens selling individual cigarettes...). I think we're in trouble.

Interesting. You refer to me as an authoritarian. What is an authoritarian and why am I one and you aren't? Do you oppose every law that makes people do what they might not want to do, like obey traffic lights, not drive drunk, not steal from others, etc.?

Okay, well we both think we're right. We both think the other's side is doomed to eventual irrelevancy. I guess only time will tell.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
43. do you have a problem with civil disobedience?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:35 PM
Jan 2015

OWS openly broke various laws. How about bong owners? They are breaking the law. In fact, if it weren't for them, gangs wouldn't be able to afford guns.

As for the WA statehouse protest, maybe. Since the owner got the gun back, was it a transfer or not (the protest consisted of handing the gun to someone and them handing it back)
The new law is vague, and probably in an unconstitutional law. For example, as written each Brinks driver and armed security guard (since state law requires the company provide the firearm) should have to go through a background check at the start of each shift, and the company armorer have to go through one at the end of the shift. That is why at least two security companies and gun safety instructors are filing suit.

 

kioa

(295 posts)
44. On the courthouse steps, no less.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:49 PM
Jan 2015

And it only cost the Senate, the House & being in control of the fewest state legislatures for the past century and a half.

"Authoritarian-au·thor·i·tar·i·an
əˌTHôrəˈterēən/
adjective
1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."
Defines your viewpoint extremely well.

"Okay, well we both think we're right. We both think the other's side is doomed to eventual irrelevancy. I guess only time will tell."
Time has already told. Once in 1994 & again little more than a month ago.
I'm confident the lesson has, once again, been learned.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
46. So how do we differ?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:27 PM
Jan 2015

You don't think laws should be enforced? Or, alternatively do you assume, with no evidence, that I favor STRICT obedience to authority? Why do you assume that? Like most people I'm a libertarian on some issues and more authoritarian in others. You shouldn't label people youu know little about.

 

kioa

(295 posts)
49. You support taking rights away from innocent Americans. I support protecting their rights.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:44 PM
Jan 2015

That is how we differ.

Gun Control is, by nature, authoritarian.
Gun Control advocates, use fear-mongering in order to take advantage of the ignorant.
That's why places with more guns per capita (and thus less ignorance about guns) support gun control less.

The more people learn about guns, the less they support gun control.
Conversely, the more people learn about gun control, the less they support gun control.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
82. WTF?
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 05:15 PM
Jan 2015

So you oppose any and every gun law in America? There sbould be no laws controlling the sale or gifting of guns? 10-year-old kids should be able to buy a gun at the 7-11 if they want? Anyone who finds that unacceptable is an authoritarian? I'd call them sane.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
20. at lease our host allows you to post here
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:42 PM
Jan 2015

why don't you have the other group try it out. Open debate is very democratic.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
12. welcome to DU
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:00 PM
Jan 2015
As someone who has worked for gun control for 40 years (since '74), my experience is that the true believers in the gun rights movement are just as closed-minded as you describe us.
That is the definition of true believer.

The true believers I've had contact with see gun ownership as not just a civil right but as a god-given human right that no one can touch or infringe. There is no way to discuss or argue with them. I can think of only maybe 5 gun owners (out of hundreds) who have treated my opinions with any respect.
Do you treat theirs with respect, or just dismiss them as lies without checking facts from unbiased sources?

Also, I can't tell you how many times I've had thoroughly debunked "facts" continue to be thrown at me (like the 2 million plus defensive gun uses each year), and I've NEVER had a true believer go, "Oh, I didn't know that fact was a hoax."
That number comes from a leading criminologist (it is actually the upper range of an error margin) and received one of the American Society of Criminology's awards for that work. The "debunker" is an activist like you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

From my point of view, gun control advocates are willing to compromise (we'd rather not, but we'd prefer to have some improvements than the status quo). Gun owners on the other hand reject every suggestion as either stupid, unworkable, or (usually) unconstitutional.
Could it be because they are right? Could that be because they know what they are talking about? Do you give them the respect of listening to why they say it wouldn't work? Compromise means you give up something too, not "OK, we will take not as much now, but will come back for more tomorrow."

Also, the reason why there are no gun-control forums? Because every one I've ever joined gets swamped by hundreds of gun nuts throwing around lies and stupid facts taken out of context.
What lies for example? What stupid facts out of context? Did it ever occur to you that is what your side might be doing? Why should gun rights activists give your opinions any respect when you dismiss whatever they say out of hand, without checking facts from an unbiased source? No, David Hemenway, VPC, and Bloomberg are not unbiased sources.

Don't believe me? Check with some of the gun control groups that have Facebook pages and ask them for a file of the vile, vicious posts and threats they get almost daily. No, my friend, don't go getting holier-than-thou on gun control people. I don't know how it is here in DU, but those who support gun control here feel this is a safe haven from the gun nuts and are understandably loathe to be attacked and battered here.
In my experience, it has been the "gun nuts" that use facts, reason, and evidence. Looking at the Facebook posts of gun control groups, it is your side who makes the vile posts. The gun rights supporters here use facts, evidence, and reason to support our claims. I have seen none of that from your side. All I have seen are insults, logical fallacies, and juvenile penis references. Those do not deserve respect.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
32. Thank you for your reply
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:46 PM
Jan 2015

If by true believer you mean I believe gun sales and ownership need to be regulated, yes, I'm a true believer (because the opposite is to have no controls over ownership. But I'm open to common sense suggestions as to who should be prevented from owning a gun or how it can be accomplished, I'm open to constructive suggestions.

Do I treat gun owner's opinions with respect? Of course. I once believed all handguns should be banned, now - after discussions with gun owners - I know this is not only impossible but undesirable.

The 2 million plus defensive gun uses is an estimate, not based on facts. Please show me any one who has been able to document (law enforcement reports, news reports) even 10,000 DGUs in a single year and I would agree that one could extrapolate possibly 10 unreported incidents for every documented incident. I can't accept estimates in the millions when no one has been able document even a few thousand actual incidents. Anyway, the criminologist you refer to is Gary Kleck, right? Do you understand why I don't take him as seriously as you, don't you? Hardly non-partisan (his Wikipedia photo shows him standing in front of a display of handguns).

Lies? How about "gun control laws and policies to establish the Hitler regime and to render political opponents and especially German Jews defenseless." The theory is not supported by mainstream historiography, legal or political science scholarship, and yet I rear it all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory Okay, the link button doesn't work.

One of our biggest problems is this, neither side trusts the other's sources. Every time I cite a source, pro-gunners go, "Uh, he's one of your partisans" and I find I do the same when presented with Kleck or Lott or NRA sources. What we need is a deeper study of gun violence and it's causes by a non-partisan organization, like the Center For Disease Control? Both sides could suggest the information they believe we need to better understand what laws or controls might work and which ones would not? Personally I don't want to waste time on bad laws, but it is hard to trust much of the data now being thrown around because much of it is partisan.


 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
36. You mean this CDC?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:03 PM
Jan 2015

"What we need is a deeper study of gun violence and it's causes by a non-partisan organization, like the Center For Disease Control?"

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.


7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

benEzra

(12,148 posts)
39. The CDC originally got its gun funding yanked because it became laughably partisan.
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:07 PM
Jan 2015

But one objective data set that I'd love for gun control advocates to wrap their head around is Table 20 of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (Murder, by State and Type of Weapon). That would help curb the obsession with banning rifle handgrips and magazines that stick out, methinks.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
41. let's see
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:17 PM
Jan 2015
If by true believer you mean I believe gun sales and ownership need to be regulated, yes, I'm a true believer (because the opposite is to have no controls over ownership. But I'm open to common sense suggestions as to who should be prevented from owning a gun or how it can be accomplished, I'm open to constructive suggestions.
They are regulated. How familiar are you with current federal and state gun control laws?

Do I treat gun owner's opinions with respect? Of course. I once believed all handguns should be banned, now - after discussions with gun owners - I know this is not only impossible but undesirable.
cool.

The 2 million plus defensive gun uses is an estimate, not based on facts. Please show me any one who has been able to document (law enforcement reports, news reports) even 10,000 DGUs in a single year and I would agree that one could extrapolate possibly 10 unreported incidents for every documented incident. I can't accept estimates in the millions when no one has been able document even a few thousand actual incidents.
That is because most of the time there is no reason to generate a police report. Most of them are shots not fired. The source of 10K you are basing this from is probably David Hemenway, whose work is not peer reviewed and funded by the Joyce Foundation, the very people who asto turfs Brady Campaign and VPC. Hemenway also falsely accused Kleck's pollsters of lying rigging the poll based on no evidence.

Anyway, the criminologist you refer to is Gary Kleck, right? Do you understand why I don't take him as seriously as you, don't you? Hardly non-partisan (his Wikipedia photo shows him standing in front of a display of handguns).
By the picture, you are assuming that those guns are part of a personal collection? Basing your opinion on that is a logical fallacy, genetic fallacy to be exact. You base it on the quality of his work. Have you read any of it by any chance? BTW, that isn't his gun collection. It is also a very old picture. He (like many criminologists that studied the issue) supported gun control (he still supports some moderate controls) until he actually studied the issue using the scientific method. I read his work, and the glowing reviews of his work (including by Marvin Wolfgang, who didn't even want cop armed). You noticed the photo but missed this:
In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991).
Yes, that was the DGU study.
Lies? How about "gun control laws and policies to establish the Hitler regime and to render political opponents and especially German Jews defenseless." The theory is not supported by mainstream historiography, legal or political science scholarship, and yet I rear it all the time.
A lie is an intentional untruth. The reality is actually more complex. While the 1933 law did loosen the gun laws imposed by the Versailles Treaty, Jews and others were not allowed to own guns.
While we are on the subject of lies: Everything that comes from MDA, like the number of school shootings

One of our biggest problems is this, neither side trusts the other's sources. Every time I cite a source, pro-gunners go, "Uh, he's one of your partisans" and I find I do the same when presented with Kleck or Lott or NRA sources.
Kleck isn't an NRA source. His work was funded by the DoJ. Granted, the NRA likes him because they like his results, and his views on concealed carry.

What we need is a deeper study of gun violence and it's causes by a non-partisan organization, like the Center For Disease Control? Both sides could suggest the information they believe we need to better understand what laws or controls might work and which ones would not? Personally I don't want to waste time on bad laws, but it is hard to trust much of the data now being thrown around because much of it is partisan.
The DoJ have been funding those studies for years. Problem is, gun control groups don't like those studies, like Kleck's (and Wright/Rossi) because they didn't get the desired results. The problem with the CDC was that their studies were not unbiased, nor were they valid peer reviewed studies. They were mostly done by MDs with no respect for the scientific method. That is why they lost the funding. Several criminologists told congress that studies CDC funded (especially Authur Kellermann's "x number of times" studies were as scientific as NRA propaganda.
Here is the real cause of most US gun violence: War on Drugs and gang warfare. Gun laws won't affect them anymore than Australia's gun laws stop biker gangs making their own machine guns, or British kindergarten teachers from being machine gunned on a London street because she walked in front of the rival gang member. The only way to cure that is to end the war on drugs, rebuild inner city infrastructure including jobs (which means get rid of stupid zoning ordinances that create the blight and food deserts), make anti-intellectualism uncool, political corruption at city hall. See Chicago (including city officials having mutually beneficial relationships with drug gangs).

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
45. I want both sides to have input to any gov. study
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:18 PM
Jan 2015

Guns are regulated? What do you mean by that? So what, there are plenty of laws on the books that are bad laws or are ineffective. Shouldn't they be revisited and revised if necessary? How can you say guns are regulated when you know anyone can easily buy what they want backdoor through private sales, Facebook, etc?

I will tentatively accept any government (CDC) study that the gun control people are allowed to have an equal input into what is studied and term defined, and are part of the study design team, and that are not influenced by politicians pulling strings (I worked for the government and know first-hand that government mangers are very sensitive to political pressure from members of Congress. My concerns: the gun lobby has ton of money and tons of influence and knows how to use both. If our positions were reversed you would (or should) be as concerned about this as I am. But bottom line: I believe laws should be designed based on evidence.

Yes, all reality is complex when facts don't go your way.

A lot of gun violence is a result of poverty, inequality, a lack of jobs, discrimination, political corruption, etc. If we can solve this we will save lives even without any further gun laws, but none of this is likely to get solved any time soon, maybe never. You use anecdotes (biker gangs making their own guns, kindergarten teachers gunned down by a gang) to give the impression that gun laws can't prevent these incidents, so passing gun laws are futile. Yeah, so why have any laws? They'll all be broken by someone, somewhere. Really? Give up because no gun law is perfect and someone somewhere will still be shot? Too many people die of gun violence in our country. No one else has this level of injuries and deaths by gun fire. You can blame this all on drugs and gang warfare.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
48. to start with
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:41 PM
Jan 2015

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Guns are regulated? What do you mean by that? So what, there are plenty of laws on the books that are bad laws or are ineffective. Shouldn't they be revisited and revised if necessary? How can you say guns are regulated when you know anyone can easily buy what they want backdoor through private sales, Facebook, etc?
Yes current gun laws are bad and ineffective. For example should a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel be regulated more tightly than, say, an AR-15 with an 17 inch barrel? Sounds stupid right? That's current law. Since the barrel is under 16 inches, it falls under the National Firearms Act, and is regulated the same as a machine gun. It and sawed off shotguns are less regulated in Canada than here. That is one example. Even complete bans are ineffective, see Chicago and our drug laws. Can't buy guns on Facebook, and chances are you would be violating the Gun Control Act. More lies the prohibition lobby told you. Perhaps you should research legal internet sales in Canada. All gun laws are ineffective for the same reason drug laws are.

I will tentatively accept any government (CDC) study that the gun control people are allowed to have an equal input into what is studied and term defined, and are part of the study design team, and that are not influenced by politicians pulling strings (I worked for the government and know first-hand that government mangers are very sensitive to political pressure from members of Congress. My concerns: the gun lobby has ton of money and tons of influence and knows how to use both. If our positions were reversed you would (or should) be as concerned about this as I am. But bottom line: I believe laws should be designed based on evidence.
Based on evidence. The evidence is that there is no evidence any gun control law affected any crime rate anywhere in the world. the gun lobby has no such money. It is the prohibition lobby that has the money with billionaires like Bloomberg (in fact many of the oligarchs), free propaganda from the MSM. Studies should be done as the DoJ has been doing it: by qualified academics and their results submitted to peer review publications, and made public including all raw data.

Yes, all reality is complex when facts don't go your way.
or if you don't understand it.

A lot of gun violence is a result of poverty, inequality, a lack of jobs, discrimination, political corruption, etc. If we can solve this we will save lives even without any further gun laws, but none of this is likely to get solved any time soon, maybe never. You use anecdotes (biker gangs making their own guns, kindergarten teachers gunned down by a gang) to give the impression that gun laws can't prevent these incidents, so passing gun laws are futile. Yeah, so why have any laws? They'll all be broken by someone, somewhere. Really? Give up because no gun law is perfect and someone somewhere will still be shot? Too many people die of gun violence in our country. No one else has this level of injuries and deaths by gun fire. You can blame this all on drugs and gang warfare.
A lot of countries have higher murder rates than we do, all with stricter gun laws. Given that we have 30K gangs with a couple of million members, yeah that is the problem. Most of our crime are criminals killing each other. That has been well known in criminology circles for over a century. The only people who follow gun laws are the people who don't commit crimes. Those are the only people who are affected. That is why gun laws don't work. Australian bikers aren't some isolated anecdote. The Hells Angels and Mongels have been at war, shooting up Sydney streets. UK has more gun violence now than when they had no gun laws at all. Then there is Mexico, USVI, PR, Brazil, etc. Gun laws in Europe were not passed to prevent crime, because their crime rates were just as low. It was the red scare in the 1920s, land lingering laws from Fascist governments, like Italy and Spain. Criminals don't get guns from gun shows or gun stores, that was found during the Wright/Rossi study (funded by the DoJ) that showed why the Gun Control Act was ineffective.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
13. So are you willing to back up your words...
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:02 PM
Jan 2015

Let's take this statement-

can't tell you how many times I've had thoroughly debunked "facts" continue to be thrown at me (like the 2 million plus defensive gun uses each year), and I've NEVER had a true believer go, "Oh, I didn't know that fact was a hoax."

Now I have my doubts about that number as well, though I wouldn't use the term hoax. But for purpose of debate I will claim that it is a true finding of DGUs.

You say you can debunk it, I assume with more than 'because I say so'. Please do so and give your estimate of the actual number of DGUs in a given year.
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
18. at least we do not require a safe haven
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:37 PM
Jan 2015

and dissenting views like yours are not blocked but welcomed

 

kioa

(295 posts)
21. The CDC report commissioned by Pres Obama stated:
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 08:42 PM
Jan 2015
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”

When was it that you 'debunked' the CDC?

"those who support gun control here feel this is a safe haven from the gun nuts and are understandably loathe to be attacked and battered here."
Call those that disagree with you "nuts", complain about being "attacked" in the exact same sentence.
'Self-Awareness'-You may want to look into it.

"Also, the reason why there are no gun-control forums? Because every one I've ever joined gets swamped by hundreds of gun nuts"
Gun control is remarkably unpopular, and it just keeps getting more unpopular.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/07/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
The American people increasingly support increased individual rights, whether it is marihuana legalization, pro-choice, same sex marriage or gun rights.
Deal with it.
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
30. "From my point of view, gun control advocates are willing to compromise..."
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:36 PM
Jan 2015

What has the gun control side given up in return for all the gun control it has gotten?


Somehow, I don't think the definition of the word "compromise" would fit that too well.


And, more to the point, what is the gun control side willing to give up now to get it some of what it wants? Or do you define "compromise" as the pro-gun side capitulating to some/all of your wishes and getting nothing in return for it?

petronius

(26,580 posts)
31. I would add that when a compromise position is prefaced with a
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 09:39 PM
Jan 2015

phrase like "For starters..." or "For the time being..." it's not really a compromise...

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
85. I disagree
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 05:41 PM
Jan 2015

When someone agrees to a compromise I think it's well understood both parties want more and will keep pushing for more if they can find a way to get it. So "For the time being..." seems perfectly reasonable - for both sides, wouldn't you agree?

petronius

(26,580 posts)
90. Well no, I would call that more of a tactic than a compromise worthy of the name
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 10:45 PM
Jan 2015

I would consider a compromise to be a resolution (to an issue, or portion of an issue) that all parties genuinely intend to abide by...

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
94. Good to know ...
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 04:49 AM
Jan 2015
When someone agrees to a compromise I think it's well understood both parties want more and will keep pushing for more if they can find a way to get it. So "For the time being..." seems perfectly reasonable - for both sides, wouldn't you agree?

... that you don't consider compromises to be a binding form of resolution of an issue. It indicates that the gun-control side is indeed pursuing an incremental strategy (the "slippery slope&quot , is not arguing in good faith, and should not be trusted.

Perfectly reasonable? No, not at all. If anything, it suggests to me that I should staunchly oppose any further gun control. Why compromise with someone whose ultimate goal is the complete dismantling of a right that I see as fundamental and important?

But let's hear your offer(s). What are you putting on the table? How about 50-state reciprocity for concealed carry permits? How about re-opening the NFA registry to make fully automatic firearms affordable and available for properly vetted individuals? Let's do some horse-trading.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
97. Are you God?
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 12:41 PM
Jan 2015

You see the 2A as fundamental and important. I don't. So unless you can prove to be a Deity I claim that my desires are equal to yours. We just disagree, okay? I understand how important firearms are to you. Just understand that I feel just as strongly that our nation would be much better off with stricter controls on who can possess a firearm. If I compromise it's because I'm a realist. If I compromise I will always do so with the proviso that if unintended consequences make it a bad deal I will want to revisit it, and I would expect and respect the same from your side.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
101. Hyperbolic much?
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 02:26 PM
Jan 2015
Are you God?

No. I made a strong statement of belief. What that has to do with godhead escapes me completely.

You see the 2A as fundamental and important. I don't.

The framers of the Constitution did. I would suggest that at this point you are the appellant, and the burden of proof/persuasion is on you.

Just understand that I feel just as strongly that our nation would be much better off with stricter controls on who can possess a firearm.

Stricter than what? Than the current NICS system? What exactly are you proposing? And more importantly, what are you offering?

If I compromise it's because I'm a realist. If I compromise I will always do so with the proviso that if unintended consequences make it a bad deal I will want to revisit it, and I would expect and respect the same from your side.

In other words, you want to try a bunch of stuff and see if it works. Pardon my cynicism, but my experience with gun controllers has been that they never rescind restrictions that have shown to be ineffective; they simply ask for more restrictions.

I still haven't heard your offer in the compromise. What does my "side" get out of it? If by "compromise" you mean that I give up only a little rather than giving up everything, I'll have to quibble. I don't call that a "compromise." I call it an "incremental strategy."

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
102. You don't know what the framers would think about the situation today
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 06:34 PM
Jan 2015

Firearm technology has changed drastically, we have a standing army to fight our enemies, and we have an extensive law enforcement system in place to keep the peace and apprehend criminals. Consider also that the NRA has poured millions into changing the interpretation of the 2A from a collective right to an individual right. It can obviously be changed back with a different SC. I find it hard to believe the framers would write the same 2A if they were writing it today.

No need to respond. We're talking past each other at this point.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
104. actually, no
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 07:06 PM
Jan 2015

Actually, they would because repeating firearms existed back then, and they were smart enough to know that technological advances would happen. In terms of firearms, there really hasn't been in the past, say, 100+ years. They were basically libertarians or classical liberals, and they would be appalled at the existence of a standing army, empire, and the MIC in general.

the NRA poured zero money to change the interpretation because the SCOTUS didn't have an interpretation before that. There never was a collective rights precedent. If you want to blame someone, blame the Second Amendment Foundation. Neither the NRA or the Brady Campaign wanted Heller to go to the SCOTUS because neither were confident that the court would rule in their favor.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

this is a from a guy who would probably like to repeal it
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
105. Talk about a myth with legs
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 07:18 PM
Jan 2015

the collective rights theory is positively Usain Bolt...

It can be very easily argued that the Supreme Court has always seen the Second Amendment as an individual right. In US vs Miller the court ruled on the gun in question. They found (incorrectly as there was no opposing argument) that the gun had no militia purpose therefore could be regulated.

Note they did not find that Miller was not part of the militia therefore had no right to own a gun. If the court believed in collective rights that would have been a very simple ruling.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
106. Response.
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 07:45 PM
Jan 2015
No need to respond. We're talking past each other at this point.

I interpret that to mean that you are unwilling or unable to answer my questions. And yet you portray yourself as being open to discussion and willing to compromise. Bad faith, very bad faith.
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
110. From the top...
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:29 AM
Jan 2015
"You don't know what the framers would think about the situation today"


We know that the framers knew that people owned privately owned warships back then, as well as cannons, yet penned amendment 2 anyway.

So that line of thinking is a bit of a stretch.

"Consider also that the NRA has poured millions into changing the interpretation of the 2A from a collective right to an individual right."


Amendment 2 was never viewed as a "collective" right, except by few crackpot anti-gun loons who never bothered to read the preamble to the bill of rights, and the few who foolishly buy into their thinking.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
47. So what do you want from us?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:33 PM
Jan 2015

And what would you be willing to give in return? Seems like the pro-gun side has won most of what it wants up to this point.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
50. what I want?
Mon Jan 5, 2015, 11:46 PM
Jan 2015

silencers be regulated like they are in France, Norway, UK, and New Zealand. Short barreled rifles and shotguns be moved from Title 2 to Title 1.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
52. what have we got in the past 75 years
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:00 AM
Jan 2015

for all of the controls that we have agreed to?

That is a better question?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
53. in return?
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 12:05 AM
Jan 2015

my bad.
I think having an opt out identifier on your DL that shows you would pass a NICS check or not and provide incentives for private sales to take advantage. Or, create an app where anyone can put in data to NICS for private sellers to use. Current law forbids anyone other than licensed dealers (including pawn shops) and LE from doing background checks. Oh, and make incentives for using it. I think that would be reasonable. I would also give up forced national CCW resiprosity (which I don't think is actually constitutional anyway. I think it would violate the 10A)
Most of my views can only be done on the state level.

BTW, do you know what I was asking for?

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
83. No...
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 05:30 PM
Jan 2015

...I don't know what exactly your wants were, but with my buddy Google I could figure it out, and if you could document how that would benefit gun owners without endangering the public I think the two of us could strike a deal. Unfortunately we don't run the country so it's moot.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
89. simple.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 10:22 PM
Jan 2015

For a silencer here you jump though the hoops required under the National Firearms Act (see below). In those countries, you walk in the gun store buy it and walk out. They are actually required on some ranges in France and hunting areas in Finland and Norway (may be true of other countries as well, but those two countries take noise pollution seriously). They are not used in crime and are louder than the movies portray. Besides, anyone who knows how a car muffler works knows that a 2 liter soda bottle and duct tape. Some states in the US prohibit their use for hunting as an anti poaching measure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

SBRs and SBSs are defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_firearms_regulated
Long story short, a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel is regulated more strictly than an AR-15 (which is Title I, regulated by the Gun Control Act) on the federal level. No other country I know of does this. Take this shotgun on Canada Ammo for example:
https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/dominion-arms-outlaw-double-barrel-shotgun-12/
In the US, it is regulated the same as a machine gun, even though it holds only two rounds. As you can see, it is "unrestricted" in Canada. That means someone can buy it on line and have it delivered to their house (after typing in your PAL number at check out, and Canada Ammo verifies it) it doesn't have to be registered (unless you are in Quebec). Also, any 12 year old with a minors permit can possess it without supervision and buy ammunition for it.
In case you are wondering what a "prohibited" license is, a good example is a grandfathered machine gun. Although Canada has had licensing and registration of handguns since the 1930s, machine guns were not that much different than hunting rifles (other than registration) until 1977.

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)
68. My list
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 10:49 AM
Jan 2015
Things I want:

Honorably discharged military members be able to carry concealed in any place they live in the U.S.

May issue concealed carry laws re-written to make them shall issue with reasonable objective criteria for obtaining a permit.

"assault weapon" bans repealed

Things I would be willing to "give up" (in actuality would like to see):

Increased penalties for illegally carrying or attempting to even buy , and straw purchasing

NCIS access available and required for private sales

Proficiency tests required before being able to purchase (if you want to buy a semi automatic handgun you should have to demonstrate the ability to locate the safety features, safely unload, and disassemble/reassemble)

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
76. That is a nice list, however...................
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 02:19 PM
Jan 2015

it does not meet the anti's idea of "compromise". They actually have to give up something in order to get what they want.

And that is not fair.

sir pball

(4,726 posts)
86. Sigh, I'll bite. I do offer give-and-take.
Tue Jan 6, 2015, 07:38 PM
Jan 2015

I actually personally support nationwide FOIDs (shall-issue after completion of a safety course, something the NRA used to do quite well until they were coopted by the RWNJs) and mandatory FFL transfers, recorded on a 4473 and filed away in the bound book. The former provides a quick and easy check as to whether a person own firearms (if one has a CCW they can't object, it's already a de facto FOID), and the latter gives every firearm an unbroken chain of custody to the last legal owner. Those two measures alone would make a not-insignificant dent in gun crime. I'm fine with 10-round magazine limits too, much to the chagrin of pro-gunners...when I carried I had 9; if you're going to be skilled enough with the iron to fight with it, you should be quick in the reload, too. You're gonna run out at some point..

Beyond that, I can see reasonable theft reporting requirements, e.g. within a timeframe of the discovery of the loss, not any of this "within x time of the actual theft" - it's been openly espoused on here as a means to inconvenience gun owners, "if you want to spend more than 24 hours away from home you shouldn't own guns." Ditto safe storage; I'm not sure exactly what I'd support as a legal requirement but I'm 100% for it (all my weapons are currently in safes, locked in a storage unit in a state where they're all legal).

Mental health issues are a stickier wicket; I favor expanding California's 5150 involuntary hold system nationwide. Anybody who's unstable should be evaluated regardless; combined with an FOID system it would be trivial to determine if somebody who shouldn't have firearms does.

From you? Drop the silly AWB nonsense, it's both ineffective and counterproductive - frankly if it hadn't come up again last year we might have had UBCs by now. Nationwide CCW with some extra training on top of the FOID, since despite protestations from both sides it has no effect on crime rates either way, and maybe reopening the NFA registry. That's it.

If any of the above terms are unknown to you, I respectfully suggest you Google them - they're all specific firearms law terms and concepts that any advocate on either side should be knowledgeable about.

Neon Gods

(222 posts)
92. I don't find these suggestions unreasonable
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 12:49 AM
Jan 2015

The problem right now is two-fold. 1. The NRA cannot compromise even if they wanted to. 2. The gun control groups are experiencing a rejuvination especially since the Newtown shooting, but also because of stand your ground laws and open carry nuts whose in your face tactics which are scaring a lot of people, moms especially. This means a lot of the new gun control supporters are angry and don't understand just how stacked the odds are against any new gun laws. To keep their support there will be a lot of harsh rhetoric involved. This may sound harsh but the only way the NRA will ever compromise is if the gun control groups gain enough support to force them to compromise. Anyway, this is how I see it. Thanks for taking my request seriously.

Big_Mike

(509 posts)
93. I'm am becoming a NRA Certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor.
Wed Jan 7, 2015, 03:24 AM
Jan 2015

The training materials that I have seen so far are strictly about safety and the weapon to be covered in the material. So, as far as I can tell, the safety course is still non-politicized. I also strongly believe in the Eddie Eagle Program that is presented to school children (K-3) that teaches:

IF YOU SEE A GUN:

1. STOP!
2. Don't touch.
3. Leave the area.
4. Tell an adult.

I don't think anyone can complain about that particular program of instruction. They have presented it to (according to the web site) over 26 million kids in all 50 states.

In my experience, there have been pretty strong firewalls between safety courses and the political bit, run by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Affairs (NRA-ILA).

AceWheeler

(55 posts)
120. So there you are, looking in a mirror
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:44 PM
Jan 2015

...and projecting what you see onto others. FYI, that's the classic straw man argument. It's what extremists on both ends of ANY continuum tend to do. Do yourself a favor. Stop, and while you're at it, that includes stop reacting to extremists on the opposite end of the gun control continuum.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Observations on the natur...