This message was self-deleted by its author

[SecularMotion]

This message was self-deleted by its author (SecularMotion) on Sat Oct 24, 2015, 10:14 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[villager]

1. How many gun groups does this "discussion" board need?

Enough is enough.

[sarisataka]

2. Not all self defense

Includes guns.

[villager]

3. Sure. I imagine the folks advocating for the new group can't wait to discuss their judo moves

n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

4. Okinawan Goju-Ryu, thank you kindly. n/t

[villager]

5. And I'm sure you've been chomping at the bit in the gungeon to discuss that, instead

n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Gungeon for guns. Currently nothing for Self-Defense or martial arts in general.

Why not have a group just for that?

[villager]

8. Then start a martial arts group. Since the stated purpose for "self defense" was that the gungeon

...had become a toxic pustule even to its regular habitues now, this is just an attempt at a reboot.

Remake the gungeon then -- rename it and expand its charter.

Or just start a "martial arts" group, specifically.

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. I very well may. That said, Self Defense is a different animal and should have its own subforum.

The two are not mutually exclusive, though they do share some similarities. In the meantime, Darkangel is proposing a Self Defense group, and there are indeed many of us who'd like to talk about the subject at length.

[villager]

14. "Self defense" is currently just an attempt to reboot the gungeon. Change the actual gungeon

..and quit trying to metastasize it into new, renamed forums.

And start your own, specific "martial arts" group, to give yourself a new potential favorite topic forum...

[Decoy of Fenris]

19. Have you considered for a moment that you're just wrong?

This is something that's been batted about for a while since "Self Defense" does not fall under the purview of "RKBA". It's outside the Gungeon's SOP. Therefore, a new group with an appropriate SOP is the means in which to address this topic, according to the rules and operation of the DU.

Do you have any specific disagreement with an individual's right of self-determination and defense?

[villager]

20. Hence the discussion being floated in the gungeon?

"Have you considered for a moment....," etc....

[Decoy of Fenris]

24. So if the idea was floated in CS or the BOG, the point would be more valid? n/t

[villager]

25. Actually, yes. Given how little validity the gungeon has.

n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

27. Well, sadly, if I were to post in those forums, it'd also break SOP. So that's a no-go.

Sorry for the delay, I just had to check.

[villager]

32. If it's really going to be mostly martial arts, perhaps you can propose under "sports" for now

Then again, since it will involve weaponry, martial arts will, of course, be subsumed to gun discussions.

And we have a topic forum for that.

[Decoy of Fenris]

35. I never said it'd be all martial arts; That's just one facet.

As Sariskata (Sorry for butchering your name there, Sari.) pointed out, there's much more to self defense than just violence. Avoidance, preparation, and general awareness play far more important roles than guns or martial arts. Like most things, MA is just one facet to a much larger issue, hence the need for an independent group.

[villager]

37. And it will be one of the least important facets, once you brandish your gun discussions

And you have a topic forum for that.

Why not make that topic forum less blindered, less toxic, and more expansive?

[Decoy of Fenris]

41. Why bother? The Gungeon is fine as it is.

It's open to all viewpoints, tolerant of both sides when issues are presented civilly, and is one of the more open groups on the DU. That you dislike the subject matter is irrelevant; find me a group more inclusive and welcoming to civil dialogue on DU and I'll be surprised.

Likewise, with the Gungeon doing just fine, a Self Defense group would be a different, protected place to discuss both valid methods of self-defense as well as means of conflict avoidance.

As you can see from this thread, there are people who genuinely don't want a Self-Defense group, something I think would be in any Democrats best interest. Why they'd be opposed to this I genuinely don't know (With the exception of one person posting.)

[villager]

44. "The gungeon is fine as it is."

Except, you can't discuss "self defense" there?

People are opposed to the new/duplicate group because the given reason -- by gungeon habitues -- is that the discussion in the gungeon, "fine as it is," has become too charged and toxic (perhaps because no one there can ever actually "discuss" anything?)

So if you want to discuss martial arts, discuss martial arts in a new group.

Any weaponry -- after all, the "A" in "RKBA" must surely mean more than just "guns!," yes? -- can be discussed in the gungeon.

[Decoy of Fenris]

48. You can't discuss "Self defense" because it's not part of the SOP.

Likewise, changing the SOP to be inclusive of self defense as well would allow -far- too broad an SOP. Self Defense in what regard; Preparation, Execution, Evasion, Avoidance? What about post-incident, when referring to psychological states or counselling? All of these things fall outside the purview of RKBA, and expanding the SOP from beyond RKBA as it stands now will create a group far too diffuse in meaning to be worth a damn. By your logic, we may as well lump the Bernie group, the HRC group, the Obama group and the Kucinich group all under one banner of "Democrats" and call it a day; I'm sure that would turn out fine.

Like I mentioned, I may indeed start up a Martial Arts group if only for educational purposes. Unlikely, but I may consider it.

The A in RKBA does stand for something; "Arms". That said, coloquial usage has long ago left behind such things as swords, knives, maces, flails, bardiches, hand-and-a-half-swords, boarding axes, bolas, atl-atls and other such weaponry. Discussing them in RKBA would, again, be a violation of the RKBA SOP in common parlance.

[villager]

53. But wait -- one of the great apologias for gun proliferation is *self defense*

I've seen it bandied about over and over again in "discussion" threads there...

[Decoy of Fenris]

54. I'm failing to see your point. What's that got to do with a Self Defense group?

Realistically, the odds of actually needing a firearm for self defense are incredibly small. I'd rather not turn this into a huge Guns argument (Unlike apparently all 6 of the GCRA crew rolling around), but the long and short of it is that guns do not factor heavily into self defense at all, hence my surprise as to the vitriol being spewed here at the notion of people defending themselves.

[villager]

70. Self-defense with weapons can be discussed in RKBA. Start a martial arts group for martial arts.

What, specifically, would be left not covered?

[Decoy of Fenris]

74. Support groups, training, counselling, domestic violence issues... Want me to continue?

"Self Defense" is much more than just "Hit people with stuff."

[villager]

77. Except that it was proposed in the "shoot people with stuff" forum

There are assault survivors groups on DU already. Which is a good thing.

It would be interesting to see a proposed TOS for such a forum though, rather than just gungeon posters here defending the idea (coincidentally enough) to see where and how it was actually distinct from the gungeon.

And to see what it covered -- again, specifically -- that's not already covered somewhere else.

Except for the martial arts group you need to start up!

[Decoy of Fenris]

78. Again, I'm not particularly understanding your point.

"Shoot people with stuff" forum or not, a valid point of discussion should not be inherently disregarded solely based on who is proposing the point or from whence that point originated. Given that there is no current forum or subforum dedicated to self defense and all its associated spheres, the idea has to come from -somewhere-. Whether it comes from RKBA or the BOG or the HRC group or GCRA is irrelevant, so long as the proposal has merit and is following proper procedures. The simple fact is, many of the detractors of the potential SD group are opposed to it -solely- based on the potential participants. You can see that by glancing downthread.

It'd be an honor and a privledge, should Darkangel have me, to assist in the development of the TOS for the potential Self Defense group. If there's sufficient interest, I'm sure making the TOS itself available to DU as a whole would be no issue assuming people are willing to give the idea a chance. You have to admit though, even if every one of us Gungeonfolk proposed a "World Peace" subforum, many of the same detractors here would be shouting down the idea citing potential ulterior motives.

And as I mentioned, I'm not sure there'd be a large enough interest in ... Actually, with the rise of MMA, there may very well be enough support to start up a martial arts group... We only need what, fifteen? Twenty?

[villager]

80. Clearly, there's little point in us going round and round until a TOS is developed/proposed

Then we will see what such a group would really cover.

But no, I don't trust proposals coming from the gungeon.

That topic forum speaks for itself, in O so many ways.

[Decoy of Fenris]

82. I'd agree with that.

We've crossed swords before, Villager. You should know I'm no rabid gun nut; I'm just against the sheer lunacy of people with a hardon for guns and banning anything they find objectionable. Hell, people like you and me would be on the same side if it weren't for the "GCRA" folks.

Anyways, whenever Darkangel pops up again (Or Eleanors), I'll see if we can get something workable in relation to a TOS up and running. While I can't say I know or would guess your intent, your input would be welcome, assuming civility can be maintained on both sides.

(By the by, don't go blaming us Gungeoneers on this GD thread; Secmo was the one who decided it was all-important for DU to know about an SD group before we even had a TOS written up.)

[villager]

85. The lack of civility -- as predictable as tomorrow's sun -- finally made me trash the Gungeon.

Having known people killed by guns (usually at a one or two "remove" in my life -- friends of friends, for example -- but still too many to know personally), I already know what unregulated fawning over them can do.

So we will see how far "self defense" might get once the proposal is real. And there's always the trash button, if it just becomes the gungeon with a seemingly politer name.

[Decoy of Fenris]

88. Well, here's to hoping we can make something positive for DU.

Nothing stands to be gained by opposing a Self Defense group, and since everyone has the option to "Trash" or "Ignore" it, even if it turns south, nothing is lost by its creation.


Also, you're not the only one to lose folks to gun violence, mate. More people than I care to count have left this world by the gun. I know the feeling.

Anyways, no sense getting morose. o7 See you either downthread or when the TOS is ready.

[beevul]

207. Actually, it was first proposed in ATA. N/T

[beevul]

12. The author of the idea proposes a safe haven away from anti-self defense folks.

The author of the idea proposes a safe haven away from anti-self defense folks.

The gungeon is not a safe haven, and I doubt very much most people pro or anti gun would support changing that.

[pablo_marmol]

22. ^^ This is the obvious truth.

Why should there be any objection, or attempt to suppress a safe-haven group when the pro-restriction side of the debate has one?

Interesting, this.

[beevul]

43. I think for some...

Why should there be any objection, or attempt to suppress a safe-haven group when the pro-restriction side of the debate has one?

I think for some, that's the entire reason for objection.

GCRA was started as a vehicle from which to launch attacks on people with differing viewpoints. Attacks which could not easily be responded to. It was intended to be means of poking pro-gun folks in the eye. Anyone who thinks otherwise, can look at my only post in GCRA which I deleted after about 1 minute, after finding I posted the post in the wrong group, for which I was blocked from that group. Nothing contained within the post before or after deletion, was contrary to their stated SOP, yet I was still blocked. Does it matter to me? Not really. I never intended to post there anyway. It does however, serve quite nicely as proof positive of my assertion.

Put simply, many if not most of those who are against it, are against turnabout. Logically, it follows as being against fair play...which was the spirit of the intent behind the creation of GCRA in the first place.

[Bonobo]

182. I do Okinawan Goju-ryu

Are you Iogkf?

[Decoy of Fenris]

185. Sadly, no. I've been out of the game for a while, but if I pick it up again, I will be. :) n/t

[sarisataka]

7. Actually there are

A couple very simple but effective judo moves everyone should know. I would start even father back, with the notion of avoiding risk situations. That eliminates the need for self defense 90% of the time. Techniques of self defense are for the other 10% .

The current problem is less the means of self defense than a very small but vocal group that ridicules the notion of self defense.

[villager]

9. Good. Let's start a "martial arts" group, specifically

n/t

[REP]

59. The throw is a good basic move

As far as avoiding risk - nothing I can do about my gender. That's why I had to throw that fucker and break his arm; he thought I wouldn't fight back because I'm just a chick.

[sarisataka]

61. and anyone can do it

I recall being put heels over head by a young lady half my size. Then she did the same to the guy in class who was 6" taller and 100 pounds heavier than I. And she was a new student.

[Decoy of Fenris]

62. Throw, basic deflection, grip-breaks, all valid and useful. Good topics to discuss. n/t

[arcane1]

18. Jury results:

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Insensitive, disruptive and hurtful post. Villager is well aware "self defense" encompasses certainly a lot more than just weapons alone.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:51 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: More snarkyness that doesn't advance a discussion. This childish post should be removed and the poster permanently banned to set an example of what separates liberals discussing issues vs conservatives chest thumping and attacking each other in their "discussions".
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't get it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't know if villager is opposed to self-defense on principle or if he was just trying to jest and see it fall flat.

In any case, the gungeon is there to discuss Second Amendment issues, while it seems this group is to discuss the broader issue of SD.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[villager]

23. Well, that alert pretty much proves what the "new" forum will really be about

Same old, same old.

[Electric Monk]

34. You see right through them. I do too. They want DU to become another ar-15.com. Fuck that. nt

[villager]

39. They want to just keep renaming the gungeon to keep forcing their discussions on everyone else

n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. "Expressing opinions I disagree with" is not the same as forcing discussion on others

It's a common mistake, often made by those that also wrongly believe themselves a
member of DU's management.

[Duckhunter935]

108. Funny

It is not the members that support RKBA that violate the GD SOP and Skinner's guidance and force gun related threads in GD. We follow the rules and keep to the non safe haven of the gungeon.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. That's because we don't think we're somehow above the rules of DU...

[Duckhunter935]

169. Yes the ones that seem to complain

The loudest are the ones that post gun related posts in GD or are silent on that issue to those that do.

[sarisataka]

117. Well consider

the favorite group of the OP

Gun Control & RKBA, 247 posts in the last 90 days (60% of total posts)

[villager]

134. or the favorite group of those proposing the "new" one

n/t

[sarisataka]

138. But who was it

that dragged this very preliminary discussion into GD?

[hack89]

163. We are not the people spamming GD with gun threads. Nt

[Bradical79]

52. I would like that :-) -nt

[Hoyt]

10. Too bad more of you guys don't realize that when you strap a gun on to go

to the store, stroll in the park, go to school, etc.

[sarisataka]

31. If I strapped on

A high capacity assault can of beans it would just intimidate and scare people.

[Hoyt]

45. Can of beans or a staff are all you will likely need if you are really interested in self-defense.

Most gun toters carry for other reasons.

[virginia mountainman]

55. Interesting you talking about self defence as a 'former" robber..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[Hoyt]

60. Read it in context. Most of you gunners aren't perceptive/lucid enough to be carrying among us.

[beevul]

64. And you aren't remotely qualified to make that judgement.

In fact, I'm having trouble seeing what judgements you are qualified to make.

[Hoyt]

83. Yeah, those who need a gun in their pants to walk down the street

are so astute.

[beevul]

87. More astute than former robbers who can't remember being told in multiples...

More astute than former robbers who can't remember being told in multiples, by me, that I do not carry a gun.

[GGJohn]

101. Those are your words Hoyt,

context and all.
So, are you saying you lied about being a former robber?

[Hoyt]

131. I used it to make a point with gun nuts making an ignorant assumption why

a robber might lock a door. Once again, your love of guns and beliefs about when you should blast away, clouded your judgement.

[GGJohn]

137. So IOW, you lied.

Which leads us to this, why should we now believe a word you have to say on the issue of firearms?

[Hoyt]

142. Again, I used it to make a point with people who carry gunz and

want to be a cowboy. If you want to call that a lie, go ahead.

[GGJohn]

146. So, in context, you lied about being a robber.

Again I ask, why should we believe anything you have to say on the issue of firearms?

[Hoyt]

149. GG, go fondle you gunz.

[GGJohn]

153. Just about what I expected of you Hoyt,

when faced with a difficult question, instead of answering, you typically toss an insult and make a fool of yourself.

So predictable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. Were you lying at the time? If so, why should we believe you now? If not,...

...you thus have no credibility to begin with.

[Hoyt]

147. Used it to make a point with gun lovers, some of whom still beliece Zman is a responsible

gun owner.

[friendly_iconoclast]

151. Given that admission, why should you be believed about *anything*...

...including all that horseshit about bicycle tires, cans of beans, and fieldstripping handguns?

[GGJohn]

156. I basically asked him the same question and his reply

was for me to go fondle my gunz.

[Duckhunter935]

171. that's all they have

juvenile insults and penis jokes. Now wonder they keep losing on the RKBA issue, lol.

[beevul]

157. Under water no less.

ROFL.

[Duckhunter935]

170. so you admit you lied

kind of hard to believe you at all. That and all you seem to have is insults to a DU member and can't answer a simple question.

[Hoyt]

172. "Lied" to make a point to you gunners who lay awake at night trying to think of scenarios

where you can pull your gun and shoot a few people.

[Duckhunter935]

184. yep, seems you lied and now admit it

[beevul]

191. Right. You lied. Supposedly to make a point...

Right. You lied. Supposedly to make a point to "you gunners who lay awake at night trying to think of scenarios where you can pull your gun and shoot a few people" AKA people that don't exist on DU.

You are either lying now, or you were lying then. You did lie one way or the other, and your credibility can safely and accurately be measured in negatives at this point.

[Hoyt]

204. Sometimes you just gotta try to get through to people who dream of using their gun on someone.

[beevul]

206. As if theres anyone on DU who fits that description. N/T

[GGJohn]

208. Well, this just proves my point,

you keep lying so there's no reason to believe you on anything about the issue of firearms.

[sarisataka]

56. As long as my day

Involves hobbits and Balrogs

[pablo_marmol]

15. I understand that you'd prefer there be just one 'safe haven' group ----

The one that supports your ideology.

[pintobean]

26. Who cares?

I say let them have their group, if they want it. I will probably never click on it. Anyone against it can just trash it.

[Duckhunter935]

173. I go there about once a month

to see a possible new post.

[MohRokTah]

13. Are the Gungeoneers seeking to take over DU

How many damned gungeon forums do there need to be?

[pablo_marmol]

16. See post #15 :-) NT

[villager]

17. They're probably upset that so many have their favorite topic forum on "ignore"

If it's one thing they hate, it's the inability to take over/monopolize conversations...

So this "self-defense" proposal is another attempt to get another gungeon going...

[MohRokTah]

21. Agreed.

I have little to no respect for gun humpers.

[pablo_marmol]

28. "I have little to no respect for gun humpers."

And I'm sure "gun humpers" are broken-hearted over this revelation.

[Decoy of Fenris]

29. You'll notice only one group brought up guns. It's like they have some sort of fetish for them... nt

Christ, took me forever to figure out what was wrong with that typo in the subject line.

[MohRokTah]

30. Why would I care what they think?

[pablo_marmol]

33. Good! The lack of concern is mutual!

[MohRokTah]

36. Fine, take this crap back to the Gungeon then.

Where it belongs.

[pablo_marmol]

38. Keep your hate flowing, "pardner"..........

Democrats aren't losing enough down-ballot elections!

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

[MohRokTah]

40. This thread is MEta and violates GD SOP.

It should be deleted

[Decoy of Fenris]

42. Lies. This OP is within SOP.

"Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted."

This thread is only garnering interest for a Self Defense group; only subthreads are making it Meta.

[beevul]

46. This thread was posted by someone on the anti-gun side. N/t

[Electric Monk]

49. To bring attention to the gunthusiasts proposal for a safe haven gun lovers group, of course. nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

50. And we're glad for the attention. There's a lot of folks who support the right to defend one's self.

[beevul]

57. I get that you'd rather not see one for self defense.

49. To bring attention to the gunthusiasts proposal for a safe haven gun lovers group, of course.

Except the proposal is for a protected group for all types of self defense, not just guns.

I get that you'd rather not see one for self defense, though. In fact, If I were anti-gun, knowing all the underhanded shit you guys have pulled via GCRA since its creation (Please, tell me you need some examples of the underhanded shit I refer to) , I would be against it too.

I imagine the very idea is terrifying to some of you.

[Electric Monk]

58. You are blatantly lying about your (and the other gunthusiasts) real reason for supporting it.

You love guns, you love talking about guns, and you want to be seen talking about the 'virtues' of owning guns. That's why you are here on DU. It's all you ever post about.



Note to potential jurors: I invoke the truth defense. My post is the honest truth.

[beevul]

63. Thats dangerously close to calling me a liar ElMo.

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

You are blatantly lying about your (and the other gunthusiasts) real reason for supporting it.

Turnabout:

You are blatantly lying about your (and other anti-gunners) real reason for opposing it.

You love guns, you love talking about guns, and you want to be seen talking about the 'virtues' of owning guns. That's why you are here on DU. It's all you ever post about.

Ahh yes, Zampolit ElMo, slayer of pro-gun discussions, definer of the acceptable, and blocker of posters for deleted posts.

Zampolit ElMo has spoken.

I've posted about plenty of other topics and taken part in many non-gun discussions, and been a member of DU for 12 years to your 6, so you can just stuff that little insinuation...preferably into the same dark orrifice you extracted it from.

[Electric Monk]

65. Seems like a good time for me to clean out the blocked list for GCRA....

Jenoch
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=187696
Flagged for review

VScott
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=312399
Troll

Shamash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=307746
Troll

blueridge3210
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=305066
Troll


You can see for yourself that they are currently on the GCRA blocked list
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262
until tomorrow when I'll actually remove them.

And, remember this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=8826

I'm not the one clicking the "Ban from DU" button. That'd be the Admins.

[beevul]

66. Are you removing the ones you blocked for self-deleted posts too? N/T

[Electric Monk]

67. I don't understand the question. Juries delete posts, not group hosts. nt

[beevul]

69. Posters self delete posts. You blocked me for a self deleted post, without ever seeing the content.

Playing dumb is not your strong suit.

[Electric Monk]

72. Irrelevant. Your position is clear, and totally contrary to the GCRA SOP. nt

[beevul]

76. Nice try.

This is the part you seem to be referring to:

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.

I was never a member, and never intended to be a member. Posting in GCRA and being a member are two different things.

Or is it your assertion that everyone not blocked is a member of that group, eh?

Pretty fuckin thin, even for you.

[Duckhunter935]

178. stretched past the breaking point

he will run away now that it has been pointed out and he looks very poor for doing that block for a self deleted post.

[Duckhunter935]

176. That should be embarrassing

to most people, but not that host. There was no SOP violation and he is the one that would like to block people before they even post in his dead group. How many times has he run to ATA now?

[Duckhunter935]

177. and real hosts moderate insulting posts

that are posted in their group.

[Duckhunter935]

175. well, he does think he is host

of all groups and can tell other DU members what to do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. You lot are great at finding cartoons, and poor at getting actual voters to agree with you

[Electric Monk]

104. Hilarious, coming from the Jim Webb wing of the Democratic Party. How's that working out for you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. When Mother Jones, of all media outlets, is saying the same thing I am...

...perhaps it's time to dial back on the self-righteous bloviating and engage in critical self-examination
From another post I made today:


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/gun-controls-biggest-problem-most-people-just-dont-care-very-much

David Atkins writes about the problem of getting gun control legislation passed:

There is a broadening schism in the activist community between those who focus on nuts-and-bolts electoral and legislative politics, and those who spend their energy on issue-area visibility and engagement....Election work and party involvement is increasingly seen as the unhip, uncool, morally compromised province of social climbers and "brogressives" not truly committed to the supposedly "real work" of social justice engagement by non-electoral means....

....There is certainly great value in persuasion, engagement and visibility model....But gun politics in the United States shows above all the weaknesses and limits of the engagement model. The vast majority of Americans support commonsense gun laws....Numerous organizations have engaged in countless petitions and demonstrations to shame legislators into action from a variety of perspectives, but it essentially never works...

There are lots of polls, and some of them probably show a greater intensity among those who support gun control. A lot depends on question wording. But that's sort of my point: If you get substantially different responses because of small changes in question wording or depending on which precise issues you ask about (background checks vs. assault weapons, gun locks vs. large-capacity magazines) that's a sign of low intensity.

Atkins is certainly right that Democratic legislators won't act on gun control until voters are mobilized, but that puts the cart before the horse. You can't mobilize voters on an issue they don't really care much about in the first place. In this case, I think the folks who prioritize issue-area visibility and engagement probably have the better of the argument. Until voters who favor gun control feel as strongly as those who oppose it, all the field work in the world won't do any good.


This article was discussed at some length in this very group, and real-life examples of
how gun owners succeeded where gun control control advocates failed were given:

"Mother Jones has a revelation"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172176990

By all means, do continue on with the "Women's Christian Temperance Union" approach-
I'm sure it will work as well in the future as it has in the past.

If you can honestly say that you've persuded more gun owners than you've pissed off
(or left indifferent), good on you. If not, time to reexamine your approach

[friendly_iconoclast]

141. I dunno- how's handing the Colorado state Senate to Republicans been working out?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=176675

http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26898316/gop-win-colorado-senate-democrats-vow-hold-party

GOP win Colorado Senate, Democrats vow to hold party accountable

Republicans are officially in charge of the Colorado Senate, ending a decade-long drought where they painfully watched Democrats win the majority in five straight elections...

...Gun activists then attempted to mount a recall against Sen. Evie Hudak of Jefferson County but before they turned in signatures to force an election she resigned her seat to ensure the Senate stayed in Democrat hands. A vacancy committee elected Arvada City Councilwoman Rachel Zenzinger to Hudak's seat.

In Tuesday's election, Herpin lost to Democrat Michael Merrifield and Rivera lost to Democrat Leroy Garcia, which came as no surprise to either party considering the voter registration makeup in both districts.

But Zenzinger lost to Republican Laura Woods, backed by the strident gun group Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Hudak had won re-election in 2012 so her seat wasn't even supposed to be on the ballot in 2014.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=176680

2 successful recalls, 1 resignation to dodge recall, 1 lost federal senator & the state legislature

But hey, you've got you're 1 gleaming victory.

What do you do for an encore? Post internet rumors that Democrats kick puppies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=176685

And that resignation turned out for naught, as the GOP won the seat in 2014...

...which would not have been in play until 2016 were it not for the gun control issue

Somewhere, the shade of Pyrrhus of Epirus is having a chuckle...

And all this after massively outspending the pro-recall forces around 5 to 1

If you have not yet researched the theory of 'false consensus effect', it's past
time that you did so...

[GGJohn]

109. LOL.

This is comedy gold.
You have no room to talk considering that you're frequently posting the link to your protected group.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. The Gungeon is the favorite group of the OP, who also is a host of the GCRA group

It's almost as if the ''overwhelming support for gun control" we keep getting told
about doesn't actually exist...

[hack89]

164. So you think safe havens are a bad idea?

Or are they only for views you agree with?

[Electric Monk]

166. I think worshipping guns is a bad idea

[hack89]

167. Cartoons and comedians - the intellectual foundation of DU gun control

That and the ruthless suppression of dissenting opinions.

Have you ever wondered why bansalot is a barren wasteland and gun control is a smoking wreck in America? I can understand your bitterness and frustration but why take it out on Dem gun owners? Your failures are not our fault.

[beevul]

168. Thats nice, but nobody hereabouts 'worships' guns...

I think worshipping guns is a bad idea

Thats nice, but nobody hereabouts 'worships' guns, although it is true that some hereabouts see them the same way pig-ignorant people used to see black cats, in effect ascribing evil to them:

[GGJohn]

106. One of those gun groups is a safe haven for gun control members,

any pro 2A posts gets one blocked immediately.

[Duckhunter935]

179. even a single self deleted post!

[ileus]

125. There's only one???

[Duckhunter935]

174. just one

we are not the ones spamming GD in violation of the SOP and Skinner's guidance.

[Electric Monk]

47. The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership - Guns Are More Likely To Do Harm Than Good

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_full.html

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. A great topic for a Self Defense group!

I'd like to see a group like this. Such discussions are actually off-topic for the gungeon, and it's a very topical, er...topic.

[villager]

71. Actually, it already gets discussed in DU, for those gungeoneers who venture into daylight.

Hey, I've even seen you do it, Lizzie, when you pop up in other forums!

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. Cool.

I know there's some gun discussion in Outdoors, but I guess I assumed it was about hunting...and I don't hunt.

I've certainly talked about self-defense in a good few places (hopefully not in inappropriate ones). That's my reason for owning two of my handguns (the other one is a little .22 plinker, purely for recreational target shooting), and the subject comes up a lot when the larger discussion is about gun control. General Discussion has so many of these threads following a newsworthy incident.

Of course, "newsworthy" only seems to mean "mass shooting." It's been a source of real frustration to me of late that the large majority of gun-related homicides are largely ignored.

FWIW, I spend most of my time on DU in GD. I had GD trashed , but just recently un-trashed it. Which was really stupid of me...

[villager]

81. I'm not likely to un-trash the gungeon anytime soon.

Trashing GD is an interesting idea, but then, GD is occasionally worthwhile.

Trashing GDP, for the moment, might make more sense.

And yes, I agree that the large majority of gun-related homicides don't get posted/discussed here. Not sure if that's because there are so many of them, or if that's because so many gungeoneers have skillfully engineered the idea that "local" gun homicides aren't newsworthy, and thus, can't be posted in news.

[Decoy of Fenris]

84. Jumping in on the "Local" gun homicide thing...

The reason they're banned, I would think, is because if we were allowed to post any and every local news story, homicide or not, every forum would be ridiculously cluttered. "Florida man steals sheep" "Mr. Oakley's Sandwich tasted delicious", et cetera. Imagine LBN when everyone posted any and every local news story. Put simply (and perhaps cruelly), most "news" isn't worth posting.

[villager]

86. Interesting that you concede there are so many gun homicides it would "clutter" the forums.

I'll that observation speak for itself.

[Decoy of Fenris]

91. I wasn't talking about homicides; I was talking about all local news.

In fact, I made that specific example in the post body.

[villager]

92. Perhaps then, being a national issue, we should set aside sophistry about the gun violence then?

This isn't just about posting news about county road pavings in LBN.

[Decoy of Fenris]

95. Well, that's my point, mate.

Again, sounding cruel, most "local gun stories" don't matter. Someone dies, a crime is committed. Great. For every one that's reported, a thousand, many not including guns, fly under the radar. If you allow local news stories, even if they're homicides, you're opening the door to a -world- of spam. "Man uses knife in Burger King Burglary", "Old Man Jenson Beats Wife to Death with Stick." What makes gun violence an exception?

I'd be fine with opening DU's GD to firearm discussion on both the state and local level. The question is, would DU be okay with it? Can you honestly answer "Yes"?

[villager]

96. "most 'local gun stories' don't matter"

I guess that's why we don't agree on gun policy, then.

[Decoy of Fenris]

98. It's a matter of perspective, mate. Sadly, our views can never cross.

You see it as 50 people dying by gun violence a day and see it as a tragedy.

I see it as 7000 people dying a day by all causes and see it as inevitability.

Both true. Both, perhaps, tragic, yet our reactions to them are vastly different.

[villager]

105. Well, certainly seeing it as "inevitable" keeps you from having to advocate any real solutions

...especially those involving guns.

And given that, it's true enough -- our views will never mesh.

[Decoy of Fenris]

110. Contrarily, I support full and total solutions. None of them involve guns.

"Guns" are just a symptom. I think we've been through this before, but I'll say it again; Guns, and gun violence, are a symptom of a much larger superstructure of helplessness, social stigmatization and ostracism, wealth and social inequality and an overall feeling of lack of control and a loss of hope. We could ban every gun in the continent, or wave a magic wand and remove every one of them; Murders, violence, hatred, racism, suicides and violent crime will neither stop nor slow down. The key to approaching gun violence, and by extension criminal violence as a whole, is to develop a solid and lasting infrastructure designed to support and enhance the citizenry by positive action.

I've tried speaking about this at length yet sadly, few "GCRA" folks have any interest. I do my part when I'm not working, such as I can, but there's only so much one man can do. We need a progressive movement, but the divide between the RKBA and GCRA extremists is so vast that I feel any possible solution is permanently out of reach.

Please don't ever make the mistake of assuming I don't work towards solutions. I've spent more time doing volunteer work to that end than I have actually working for money.

[villager]

114. Yes. Address everything *but* the guns.

I know.

[Decoy of Fenris]

116. Because they're not the problem. They're a symptom. Realizing that is the first step to progress. nt

[Electric Monk]

126. and cigarettes don't cause cancer, people choosing to smoke them does

[Decoy of Fenris]

129. Oh, Elmo... How I wish I could see the world through your innocent, wide eyes. :) n/t

[villager]

136. At least I don't see it through your condescending ones!

[Decoy of Fenris]

139. Come now, Villager. I respond like for like. You were civil to me, I was civil back.

That's how this works; Be civil, get civil. Be disrespectful, get a lack of respect. Did you and I not come to a mutual agreement that, though our views clashed, we could at least be civil about it?

[villager]

181. "Elmo" is like for like? (Or was that not directed at me?)

That appeared condescending, and reminded me of why I trashed the whole gungeon as a forum.

Unless that was a reply intended for "ELectric MOnk?"

I assumed it was a Muppet designation directed at me -- i.e., my presumed "naivete" about guns, since that's how it always plays out in the gungeon.

Let me know who the reply was aimed at.

If that was a misunderstanding on my part, due to the coincidence of the nickname mimicking condescending moments from gungeon chats past, then -- aside from what it teaches us about how easily these things derail -- you have my apologies.

[Decoy of Fenris]

190. Elmo is short for Electronic Monk.

Shorthand is fairly common. I've been called just Decoy or Fen, I've called others by many other shorthands in the same vein. I thought it was reasonably common practice around here...

Anyways, no need for an apology. Things get heated, and Elmo jumped in out of nowhere; Logically, given our subthread, were our positions reversed, I might make the same mistake.

[Electric Monk]

192. Calling me Elmo is clearly intended to be rude. If you want shorthand use EM. nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

194. If you ask it, then it will be so, E.M. n/t

[villager]

193. An instructive mistake on my part then, but I appreciate the acknowledgement

...and it shows, as noted, the quick derailment these things are prone to...

[Decoy of Fenris]

195. Everyone makes mistakes, mate.

And as EM has requested I stop using the moniker, hopefully this won't be an issue again.

[Lizzie Poppet]

148. I wasn't (just) talking about on DU...

Ordinary (all too damn ordinary) "solo shootings" or whatever we want to call them don't seem categorically newsworthy anywhere. I understand an individual instance not being newsworthy, but the entire category seems to be ignored in favor of astronomically-rarer mass shootings.

It might interest you to know that not only have I not trashed the Gun Control Reform Activism group, but I'm actually still welcome there! I try to honestly participate in discussions about reasonable controls and how they might be advanced. I think the perspective of a gun owner who supports certain measures is valuable there. An "art of the possible" sort of thing...

[villager]

187. Lizzie, you are one of the few gunners not on my own ignore list -- because you actually do discuss

There were times past when i thought all you brought to the DU table was the usual/expected snark. But then there was one thread where you laid out rather sensible background checks, etc., that you do support.

And while obviously in my ideal world I'd supersede your list, it was, in fact, a pretty good list.

I don't know why solo shootings are "inconvenient truths" for the news forums here.

As for trashing the other gun forum group, how do you know when to respond (and be welcome there) if... it's trashed?

[Iggo]

51. Just let me know when it's up and going...

...so I can Trash it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

73. San Diego's a nice little town. But is it worth a whole forum?

?itok=8KDQcQ5u

[randome]

75. SD stands for 'Spasmodic dysphonia'.

Jesus, some people just have to mock others' medical conditions, don't they?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[GGJohn]

113. Off topic,

but I LOL'd at your sig line, it's perfect.

[randome]

140. Oh, golly shucks!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[hack89]

89. Why do you care so much?

afraid it will make banasalot look bad in comparison?

[Decoy of Fenris]

93. He may actually find the idea has merit. Gods know he's giving us great publicity. n/t

[beevul]

99. Thats not the fear.

The fear is, an SOP which is craftily written and interpreted, like theirs is. They just assume their tactics will be turned against them, and so it terrifies them.

[pintobean]

94. X-posting from the gungeon to GD?

You're crossing the streams.

[Decoy of Fenris]

97. A nifty little workaround to "No guns in GD", ne?

While we appreciate the publicity, we don't even have a TOS written yet.

[Electric Monk]

107. Thanks for conceding that it really is just about guns, with self-defence simply a pretence. nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

111. Simple. SecMo cross-posts, the GCRA loonies swarm and make it about guns.

A new tactic, but hardly unexpected. Gods know the Kastle Krew gotta get some air some time or another; the mold and dust must be stifling in there.

[pintobean]

132. So...

The anti gun folks, who have their own safe haven, don't want the self defense folks to have their own safe haven. Not a surprise, Monk.

[beevul]

143. Hammer, nail, head, and all that.

The anti gun folks, who have their own safe haven, don't want the self defense folks to have their own safe haven. Not a surprise, Monk.

That is EXACTLY whats going on.

[Electric Monk]

150. You already have thehighroad.org, ar-15.com, nationalgunforum.com, firearmstalk.com, etc. nt

[beevul]

155. I do?

Are those sites dedicated to self defense armed and otherwise? No.

And...

Didn't you guys already have bradycampaign.com, vpc.org, csgv.org, ceasefire.org, and bloombergs handful of gun hating groups, before you guys made GCRA?

It didn't seem to hinder you guys at all, but I await your carefully crafted response saying how even though that's no different, that "that's different".

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. All of which are explicitly about guns, not general self-defense, and also tend to regard even...

...progun DUers as being one step removed from Leon Trotsky.

It's just as easy for a member to trash a group as it is for a host to block a poster.
Not wanting to discuss self-defense is one thing- trying to prevent others from doing so
is another thing entirely.

[beevul]

165. Hammer, nail, head.

Not wanting to discuss self-defense is one thing- trying to prevent others from doing so
is another thing entirely.

Exactly.

Incidentally:

trying to prevent others from doing so (discussion) is another thing entirely

That seems to be a trend with a certain bunch, both within the context of your words, and without.

[pintobean]

158. They strenuously object

[IDemo]

102. I'm up for an SSD group

Lighter and faster than Bruce Lee.

[Decoy of Fenris]

103. I was hoping that was the joke you were going for. :P n/tB

[johnp3907]

189. SSD?

Those guys ROCKED!
""

[B Calm]

115. No more gun groups!

[JI7]

119. i guess if he wants more paranoid wingnuts

[sarisataka]

120. Is self defense limited

to only paranoid wingnuts?

[JI7]

121. when it's mostly gun nuts and needing a forum for it

That's usually the case

[sarisataka]

122. That sounds like yes /nt

[Decoy of Fenris]

123. So does anyone have any actual objection of substance to a Self Defense Group?

Ignoring the gun-fetishists who made this about guns, is there any serious objection to the formation of a Self Defense group, or is most of the outcry here from the "OMGGUNZ" crowd?

[JI7]

130. self defense from what ?

[Decoy of Fenris]

133. Domestic Violence, Rape, Robbery, Theft, Home Invasions, Assault, Battery, et cetera.

You know, the several-hundred-per-day incidents of criminal activity.

[JI7]

159. aren't those crimes ?

[Decoy of Fenris]

160. Of course. Does that invalidate the need for effective defense against them? n/t

[JI7]

161. i just think of people like george zimmerman

[Decoy of Fenris]

183. And I think of people like Taja DeJesus. Different priorities, I guess. n/t

[JI7]

186. so it is about victim blaming as the other poster said

[Decoy of Fenris]

188. Wanting people to be able to defend themselves is blaming the victim?

[JI7]

196. people know they have a right to defend themselves. it's the zimmerman

types who are the real threat that tend to be into these things and end up killing someone innocent

[Decoy of Fenris]

197. Yet very few who know they have that right exercise it successfully.

Simply knowing something does no good; Thousands of domestic violence victims know they can defend themselves, but don't, or fail doing so.

[JI7]

199. yup victim blaming

[Decoy of Fenris]

201. If that's victim blaming, so be it. Everyone has a right to life and self defense. n/t

[ileus]

124. Sounds like a great idea.

personal safety is something everyone that's not behind bars should be interested in.

[Electric Monk]

128. Exclusively to gunthusiasts. The only pro voices here are gungeon regulars. Guns guns guns. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

152. Personally, I'd be more interested in non-gun threads in such a group.

I'm already pretty well informed on the topic of self-defense with firearms. I also know about general self-defense principles (and might have something to contribute, particularly in female-centric discussions). I know far less about martial arts, for example.

[pintobean]

180. Wrong again.

And you know it.

[beevul]

198. Multiple posts in this thread prove you wrong.

You could start with 135 and 180, but there are a number of others.

[tammywammy]

135. Agreed.

[NobodyHere]

200. People behind bars shouldn't concerned with safety?

wtf?

[beevul]

205. People behind bars are not responsible for their own safety like the rest of us are.

They're in custody of law enforcement.

[ileus]

211. They're in a cell with plenty of guards keeping them safe.

They shouldn't have to watch to carefully or worry about being aware of their surroundings.

[leftyladyfrommo]

144. I thought you meant Social Democrat.

Guess not.

[mentalsolstice]

154. Self defense or a forum to "blame the victim?"

I often see pro self defense arguments devolve into blaming the victim. No victim of a criminal act should feel they are to blame or could have prevented the action because....they should have had a gun, they should have enrolled in self protection training, they should have known the right karate move, they should have dressed less provocative, they should have not been walking alone at night, etc.

And is Darkangel going to host this group? Okaydokey!

[madinmaryland]

202. Huh? If you want that type of discussion there is a web site discussion board that is for you...

www.freerepublic.com and www.nra.org

Neither of which belongs on a DEMOCRATIC discussion board.

[Decoy of Fenris]

203. Universal right to life and self defense isn't Democratic? Hm... n/t

[GGJohn]

209. So you decide what belongs on a DEMOCRATIC discussion board?

I guess you better let the Admins know that.

[hack89]

210. So real Democrats don't own guns? Really. Nt

[Electric Monk]

212. Most gunthusiasts aren't Dems, and most Dems aren't gunthusiasts. That's a fact.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/