You can support gun control and still be intellectually honest you know.

or maybe you can't.

At least he pointed out the flaws in the blog you linked to. You do not even bother to say anything on that topic, you just complain about people actually asking for your opinions.

...evidently.

Don't make the haughty assumption that only "ammosexuals" are impolite.

As a "Grabber/Controller," one comes to expect name calling rather than discussion now.

Come up with a gun control argument based on liberal principles that you are willing to apply consistently and proportionately on other matters of rights, privileges, laws and preventable harm, and we can actually discuss the merits of your proposal. It would be a big improvement over the factually dubious assertions, cherry-picked data, stereotyping, double standards, demonization, propaganda, logical fallacies and cut & paste that are the only things we ever see from the pro-control side.

And something I respect about you.

The difficulty, in part, comes from trying to create a brief, common name for the sides of the argument, and we're not doing well with that.

"We" as a nation, I mean.

Some people on DU think gun ownership should be a tightly-regulated privilege extended by the government. They don't want civilian ownership of firearms except for a very few, and very justifiable, reasons, and the guns to be owned also under tight regulation. These people could be reasonably called "anti-gun".

Past that , there is a broad spectrum of opinions that defy easy phrasing, so we get "hoplophobe" and "ammosexual" and others from a fairly long list of names, particularly when in an echo chamber or when things get emotional.

And making assumptions about other people's ultimate motives makes insults even easier to hurl.

I appreciate a willingness to think about the two "poles" that way.

If "my" side can "reasonably called 'anti-gun'" -- and maybe that's as accurate a sobriquet as is possible (though I'm mostly anti unchecked proliferation, anti barely-disguised-weapons-of-war-on-our-streets, etc.) -- could "your" side reasonably be called "pro-gun?"

...that makes meaningful discussion impossible.

you are the one that brought up the term and I would just like to hear what your definition of them is. I am sorry you have to get so defensive at a simple question. That may be a problem with our two differing viewpoints as it seems any question asked of your side seems to be put up as an attack, it is not. I just want some information. Fine if you do not feel comfortable providing it, but then do not post that thing either.

Meant only to stymie discussion, mire it in rhetorical tar, rather than allowing it to continue in a meaningful way.

How about my 2 Mosin Nagants? My Colt 1911? Those are all military specification. Funny that my 2 AR-15 variants are not. Those are and always have been civilian versions that are not military specification.

So I know what weapons I have and also know what military weapons of war are. You seem to be trying to include weapons that are not and have not been ever weapons of war and function identically to all semi-auto rifles no matter how scary they look or if they have wood or plastic stocks.

LOL!

I'm only just perusing this thread, but I had to post my reaction at how you ask your "simple question." So sincere. No passive aggression there!

to get clarification of a post that had a description in it that was very generic. I guess it is not allowed to ask for clarification. Thanks you so much.

Asking you to define the term YOU coined, is intellectually dishonest?

And to take offense at a request for clarification. Makes my day. Almost like they think they will not be challenged at what they post.

That's the point.

You seek confrontation and snark, not conversation. And the very idea that my own turn of phrase, in a sub-clause of a sentence while conversing amicably with Krispos was seized upon to be spun into a "gotcha" kind of sub-thread, actually underscores the very point I was making.

Actual, regular conversation is impossible in such a super-heated, thin-skinned, hyper-defensive environment.

...we both already know.

However, that's not really the topic I set out to discuss with Krispos, and since he and I have discussed and found common ground here on this discussion board, I'm gonna leave it at that.

Peace out! And such.

It forces things into a simple binary system, but each pole, as you put it, has considerable internal variation.

There are the cultural warriors as well as the regulation proponents, which is another fun topic.



FYI, I haven't been posting much because I moved a couple of months ago and still don't have internet or my desktop, so I've been posting from my phone. Long posts are hard to do!

I rarely do it. Though perhaps it would force a certain brevity and concision on me.

Congrats on the move -- hope it's a good one, that there is flourishing in the new place, etc....

Unfortunately, things are going very badly for my roommate... who is my former fiancé.

It's a long story.

Healing wishes to your roomie/Ex, if there's room for such energies to work any changes at this point...

Take care...

She's only 37, too.

Thanks for the healing vibes. She desperately needs them.

He's a writer/editor, and uses a lot of herb to cope with the good and bad days. Especially the latter.

He also moves more slowly now, though is still working, and still with a pretty resilient attitude about things... He's in his late 40's now...

Constant slurs about penis size, sexual ability, sexual performance, wanting to have sex with guns, confusing guns with sex, etc, etc, etc.

The penis / sex slurs against men are are really popular here, not just in this area, and god, the hypocrisy. If someone here said something similar about some woman's sex life, or breast size, or genitalia, the reaction would be thermonuclear.

long term member. But firearms owners her and male firearms owners it is permitted and accepted conduct.

Especially when we have discussed DGUs at great length here. You ignoring all those previous discussions to post this tripe certainly makes the messenger a valid target.

chose not to count wounding, shooting and missing, presenting a firearm or advising an assailant they were armed as "defensive gun uses"? Was he afraid the real number of DGU would make his article pointless? Kind of hard to engage in an honest debate if one side of the debate will not use honest numbers to make their point.

We all know there are more likely higher numbers of other outcomes with DGU. The OP is down to the Google cut and paste romp of opinion blog so, lol. He seems to be afraid to actually partake in a discussion of the topic as per the group SOP. At least he stopped trying to run the group thinking he was actually a host here.

And paste blog post. You, not so much. Could you bless us with your thoughts on your Google dumped blog posting?

You're whining about a post that you disagree with and attempting to derail the thread.

... you might actually accomplish something, besides being the butt of jokes.

But even a cursory review of your posts shows a mindless and trite, "cut and paste anything" mentality with little to no discussion or input on your part.

It's as intellectually bankrupt as the weasels that post an old cartoon 10 or 12 times, pretending it has some intrinsic value to the discussion or somehow represents their personal "deep thoughts" on the issue.

Then when challenged in any way, you start screeching "Meta", as if that substitutes for a POV on anything. If Skinner thought these were actually Meta posts he would have stopped them instead of suggesting you try and be more a grown up when you go whining to ATA about how mean to you everyone is.

No wonder gun control as a group is pathetic and irrelevant now.

Whining about use derailing the thread. Each of us has commented on the cut and paste blog post and how it it is so inaccurate. You are the one that has refused to comment on it as asked and changing the subject about whining and meta. Seems to me only one is whining here. The rest of want a discussion of the blog post but you are scared and refuse to.

As a person who refuses to do anything but post other people's material and an occasional poor snark, you are truly worthless on a discussion board.

From him?

or whining about the content.

It's too bad more gunners can't conduct themselves in the same manner, instead of disrupting threads.

per the SOP was a personal attack, lol

Without acknowledging the material I offered in response.

I think we all noticed that AC commented on the article...

Seems to be the case

Dr. Gary Kleck refers to the ratio we're discussing as "The Ingeniously Specious" ratio for the reason you cited.

I'd take exception to the "ingenious" part but for the fact that it fools so many people. So it is, in fact, tactical genius.

Edited to add: I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the cost/benefit ratio is moronic because the point of defensive gun use isn't to "bag a criminal", but rather to protect the victim of attack from harm/death.

makes you look kind of childish though.

Care to share your thoughts on the OP

Apparently, lol

New guy in prison goes to lunch. One guy gets up in front of the group and says page 142 and everybody laughs. Then he says page 167 and the room roars. New guys asks another prisoner, what's with the page numbers and laughing. Other prisoner says we have a joke book here that everybody has read 100 times so everybody knows the book by heart and the guy only has to reference the page to tell the joke.

New guy gets the book and finds a great joke and decides to try his hand. He gets up in front of the lunch crowd and says page 75 and nobody laughs. He goes back to his table and asks what went wrong and the other prisoner says " You just don't tell it right".



Per some discussion, if more gun owners used their guns to kill their attackers- would it be a bad thing because it would increase the number of gun deaths (and the ratio of defensive gun deaths to overall gun deaths) or would it be a good thing because it would support the oft repeated meme that all gun owners are psychopaths just itching to kill someone?

Per some other discussion, from the article "CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings."
I'm assuming that the vast majority of the accidental fatalities did not occur during defensive gun usages. This is like counting all traffic deaths against the deaths that occur during NASCAR races. One usage has virtually no bearing on the other usage, outside of a common object. Seems inappropriate to use when discussing defensive gun usage deaths. Same as including suicide deaths as suicide is not illegal in the USA and being a progressive web site we all support choice, such as abortion, suicide, and gun ownership, oops, well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Multiple edits, deleted post, bad morning typing, sorry.

There was a firearm present.

Absent the human factor the gun would do nothing.

Absent the gun factor the human could still cause injury using fists, feet, or improvised weapons. Given the number of firearms that are legally armed versus the number of criminal uses for firearms, it is clear the issue is the people and not the instrument.

An older, smaller, weaker person can use a firearm to ward off a stronger, larger, healthier assailant. Hemenway has no credibility on this issue given the crap research he has done in the past. One must always judge the situation; there may be circumstances where attempting to use a firearm are not advised, but a blanket statement to that effect is fundamentally flawed.

The bibliography for that study lists some of Hemenway's papers and still came up with conclusions that are the opposite of Hemenway's. Of course the people the CDC used were experts on firearm violence, which may have something to do with the difference. But Secular would know that if he'd bothered to read the study.

to rate a reply?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=171982

It's not how many bad guys are killed, but how many good guys aren't. Why even mention 'innocent' in the subject line if it's not a key part of the posting? We have to assume that the 300 gun incidents prevented violence to some innocent parties.

Do you think a more thought provoking metric would have been 1,000 innocent guns owners prevented their own death-injury by the use, lethal or otherwise, of a gun? Then we could debate are saving those 1,000 innocent lives worth the 30,000 other innocent deaths. Then the debate would swing to it's next metric of how to weigh the suicides and crook on crook deaths, etc, but with a new counter weight, ie, the 1,000 saved innocent gun users. Of course, the 1,000 figure would bring a whole new point of contention into the discussion.

Now that would have been interesting, but just saying firearms are present doesn't really lead to any meaningful analysis or discussion as that position doesn't seem to differentiate between a woman shooting a home invader coming at her with an axe and a gang banger shooting a rival gang banger. Perhaps this is a key difference between some of the opposing positions between pro and anti gun folks?

Last edited Sun Jul 19, 2015, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

#19

On Sun Jul 19, 2015, 11:43 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Apparently the only opinion Secular has
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=171944

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wow. What an over-the-top, disgusting rant of a personal attack on the OP author. Those who can't argue, name-call.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 19, 2015, 11:50 PM, and the Jury voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Obvious personal attack
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Most alerts that I've seen for 'personal attacks' were so mild they weren't worth hiding. This one on the other hand...
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ad hominem attacks have no place here
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A post filled to the brim with extremely disruptive and OTT personal attacks - Truely, a post made of nothing but.

Voting to hide.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Seems like some petty mean name calling to my eyes.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

#69

On Sun Jul 19, 2015, 08:09 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

The alerter got it wrong. SM has no"Origional Posts" only cut and paste with no comment. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=172020

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Similar to the previously hidden post, this comment is a attack against another member.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jul 19, 2015, 08:14 PM, and voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

I'd use BASH for such a script. I guess I'm old school.

without any shots being fired?

But handguns certainly are used in defense. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/07/18/police-2-armed-robbery-suspects-fatally-shot-by-victim-in-montebello/

In this day and age there's hardly any excuse for not having the means to protect yourself and your family on you.

does the article omit these uses?

are gang members and/or drug dealers killing each other innocent? I say no. That is the majority of those murders. When people become soldiers in gangs, they accept all that goes with it.

Gang activity and criminal affiliations aren't harmless.

There's a delta in the lethality of firearms used in self defense, and used in crimes.

If I shoot someone in self defense, I shoot them until they are no longer a threat. Im using deadly force, but I'm not trying to exterminate them. I'm just trying to stop whatever behavior they were engaged in that cause me to fear for my life or the life of others.

Criminal malfeasance with a firearm is, apparently, often for the purposes of *killing* the target.

There is also the seconds/minutes after a GDU/murder with an inherent difference. If I shoot someone in self defense, I'm on the phone with 911 in seconds. That means I'm putting life saving medical care in motion FOR the person I shot, right away.

If I get shot in the head by some fuck that broke into my house in the middle of the night, it could be days before I'm discovered. Some home invader or mugger or whatever, he's not calling EMS for me.

I'm thinking, and I welcome more study on it, but I'm thinking there's a difference in lethality even when shots hit their mark, between a DGU and an attempted/actual murder.

No one has to die in order for a firearm to be successfully used in self-defense. In fact, no one even has to be shot.

Next.

Two people in my family used a firearm for self defense and in both cases the bad guy ran when he realized his victim was armed.

It is also possible to shoot a person several times and if they get care in time, they survive.

Using the number of criminals killed by civilians to argue against carrying guns is somewhat deceitful when the fact is that in many cases of legitimate self defense involving a firearm, nobody dies.

It is similar to only counting muggings when the bad guy kills his victim.

Not really, but I bet I made a few look.