rrneck
rrneck's JournalWell if you want others to feel the way you do
about guns at least you're taking the right approach. You won't be able to legislate, which is to say force, people to dislike them. That sort of thing has been tried before and it didn't work. You can't make people feel a certain way about something, you have to inspire them to embrace your ideology.
But your ideology also has to somehow be applicable to the realities of living in the world. That's why humans have them. So here is the reality that lies at the bottom of every ideology that relates to guns: self defense. What solution does your ideology offer an actual person if they are assaulted by a larger and stronger aggressor? At that horrible moment, what comfort does it give? What advice does it offer? What is your solution to that problem?
If you can't produce a solution to that problem, you will get what we have right now. We liberals have an image as out of touch, arrogant, elitist, academic occupants of an upper class ivory tower that cares little for the concerns of everyday working people, whether they own guns or not. Conservatives have hung that millstone around our necks and it has allowed them to strip away millions of people to vote against their economic interest.
I'm an artist with an MFA and my work is about corporate power, the destruction of the commons, and the way ego and ideology influence interpersonal and societal relationships. There is no way in hell I would ever vote for a Republican. Ever. I never post in the most political groups here because there's no point, my mind is long since made up and I don't need to to told how right I am about it. My stated position on this board is that it is wrong to kill, every time, for any reason. And you just called me creepy. Here's a tip. Insulting people is no way to win them over to your cause.
Converts to what?
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but your best chance at a convert is right here. Do you think you'll have better luck at AR15.com?
If your anti gun group isn't protected, it will become indistinguishable from the gungeon. The same anti gun bunch I described above will flock there, and the gunnies will follow in in hot persuit. Most of the gun threads that appeared in GD were by anti gunners, and it didn't take long from the pro gun people to show up.
Reexamine what you have said to me so far. (C&P is too much trouble on a phone). You're already using the terminology of faith. That is not the stuff of robust discussion.
I prefer crowds to herds.
There are any number or sources where one might learn how to influence a group of people. The particuar issue is of no importance. The mechanics are all the same. And if you want a lesson in practical application the gungeon is just a click away. All the "gunnies" there are doing exactly what you want to do in real-time. DU is simply not a gun friendly place. Anyone that can be pro gun and survive here for more that a hundred posts probably has some pretty good ideas.
You are proposing an echo chamber where ideas won't really be tested. That's just fine for group support, but without the resistance of contrary opinions you won't come up with anything except mutual admiration. Without the crucible of differing opinions ideas ossify into egotistical indulgences.
There is a process that seems to hold true for anti gun posters here. They run through all the usual tropes about types of guns, statistics, studies, and comparisons to other countries. When they can't make those work, it becomes an article of faith based on personal preference. They just don't like CCW, high cap mags, black rifles or whatever and express their displeasure in the most derogatory terms they can get away with. Then there are others who post purely partisan rah rah drivel in some sort of hypothalamic grunt for their personal pleasure or in an effort to build a posse. They're learning how to influence people too.
I think the idea of an anti gun protected group is just fine. But don't expect any intellectual revelations from it.
Well,
Reloading time does not affect lethiality. Here's a video that shows how quickly one can reload with practice. I can manage it in about two or three seconds, and I haven't been to the range in forever.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1020598
You may find the entire sub thread informative.
An alert on a hundred round purchase? For most shooters, a day at the range is two or three times that. For avid and competitive shooters it's a factor of ten. A one hundred round red flag would produce an ocean of useless data for preventing crime. And that's not to mention how easy it is to load your own. Although it would be a nice data mining opportunity for someone like Dick Cheney.
A lot of people don't know a lot about guns. And that's fine. But that lack of knowledge makes them susceptible to polls like these that snooker them into thinking workable policy is being discussed. And those polls get trotted out by people and used as a fallacious argumentum ad populum for their own ideological ends.
How many average Americans would have approved of deregulating the home lending market in 2006?
The problem might be
that guns are about as regulated as they can get. But it's such a wedge issue, fueled by special interests on both sides, that partisan emotion feeds on itself.
Nope.
Here's an later post from another thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1006389
Guns are not toys. I dislike the argument that a gun is just a device to launch a projectile. I find killing people discomfiting and there is nothing in what I wrote that indicates willingness to do so. But it is graphic, and the reality of a guns purpose should be discomfiting.
The purpose of a firearm gives it tremendous symbolic power. That symbolic power colors how we perceive everything around it. My post was written that way to show how complex people can be. A lefty peacenik artist can own a gun and shoot it well, and not sacrifice his humanity or compassion doing it.
But this is just the internet and I'm not Shakespeare. It's hard to understand people under such circumstances. That's why we have conversations.
Does taking something seriously
mean accepting its inevitability or embracing it as our own? And if we embrace it, what are we embracing? How close do we hold it?
Science and religion don't take anything seriously. That's what human beings do. I just hate it when people anthropomorphize ideology. You can't outsource empathy and understanding. People take each other seriously by finding common ground in shared humanity.
But they're starting right. All you have to do is make a place where we can put aside ideology and pay attention to each other. You'd be surprised how much of others you'd find in yourself if you just look. It makes it a lot easier to take them seriously.
Looks like I need more coffee.
Any of 'em.
They're all the same if the first thing they do is blame some other SIG for some tragedy.
You know, that Brevik guy killed all those kids in Norway on 7/22 last year. I wonder if there is a connection?
I'd be willing to bet that tapping people's emotions is worth more money than oil. Tribal instinct is the source of the biggest revenue stream in history. More blood has been spent and money made off the affection we feel for each other than any other natural resource. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that we find out that poor idiot that shot up that theatre had some ideology manufacturer bleeding him until he sacrificed his own identity to some screwy cause. And now he's a monster and little more than red meat for a whole new pack of dogs.
And we all join in on the side of one acronym or another, tromping and shouting because we bought a concept designed to be loved but not embraced.
It seems to me
that there are three ways to regulate a firearm:
1. Caliber
2. Capacity.
3. Rate of fire
Caliber:
That's the size of the bullet. Anything over .50 cal is heavily regulated as a destructive device. When it comes to getting shot by anything smaller there is really no difference. There is no such thing as a benign bullet.
Capacity:
That's those famous high capacity magazines. You can limit them I guess, but even a rusty operater like me can switch mags in under two or three seconds. Guns that accept magazines are designed to be reloaded quickly.
Rate of fire:
Full auto means continuous fire as long as you hold the trigger down. Those are very expensive and highly regulated. Semi auto means one shot per trigger pull. People have been buying over a million of them a month. A semi auto firearm is a standard gun these days. Again, rusty as I am I can empty a Colt 1911 (seven rounds) in under two seconds. It's almost a distinction without a difference.
The number of guns is not the problem. There is no way to regulate them any more than they are now. The distinctions between "civilian sporting arms" and "military hardware" are almost non existent and not much more useful from a public safety standpoint. I haven't seen a single public policy proposal that couldn't be sidestepped by someone intent on doing harm before the ink is dry. Not one.
LOL! Yep, I missed it. My dumb ass. Sorry about that.
I'm saying it's just a television show that is designed to make rich people richer. They don't care who's right or wrong. They don't care who shoots who. They don't care about the issue at all. They only care about making money by telling people what they want to hear. And all too many people on the left lap that shit up like manna from heaven not because it's right or wrong, but because it sounds good. It's just another example of disaster capitalism feeding on the fears of the 99%.
Haven't you noticed how many discussions at DU are little more than "my dad can beat up your dad" with think tanks, lobbying groups, talking heads, and other assorted ideology manufacturers as the "dads"? Acronyms for various groups get flung about like rocks as if any of them gave a shit about anything but making money. I don't care who says what. I think they're all full of shit. I don't trust any of them as far as I can piss on them. Democrats will continue to shoot themselves in the foot until they start acting like citizens instead of bourgeoisie consumers.
As for Obama and gun policy: I don't think he will touch it with a ten foot pole. That pole may shrink to nine feet if he gets reelected. Gun policy is a chip in a much larger policy game that may get traded, but it's so hot I doubt he will have any inclination to use it no matter how he feels about guns. If I thought it would straighten out the rest of this mess, I'd trade it in a minute. But I know that won't happen because the people we need to get in the Democratic big tent will bring a shit load of guns with them, and if we ask them to check them at the door, they'll go to the red tent down the road.
As far as TPaine7 goes, he's one of the most thoughtful posters in the gungeon and an asset to DU. I have found in my experience here that when I disagree with the biggest "antis", I can shut them down with a sentence or two (or in the case of this thread, an image of my phone). But when I disagree with a "gunnie" I have to give it some thought. That's because this is a safe haven for every liberal political trope in the book, which is why I got in a pissing contest with Warren in the first place. He thought I said something bad about liberals and took a shot at me by calling me a racist. That kind of petty bullshit is SOP for the gungeon. You want to be pro gun here, you need to have your shit together, and TPaine7 does.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Nov 29, 2008, 02:55 PMNumber of posts: 17,671
