I just want to say thank you.

[SheilaT]

I am, as anyone who has read my posts knows, very opposed to guns, and I've often stated my opinion here. I've even had posts hidden. But you have never banned me, unlike another group which will remain nameless, and I very much appreciate that. It shows you are quite tolerant of dissident opinions, which ultimately makes you stronger and better, even if I still disagree with many of you.

Thanks again.

SheilaT

[Electric Monk]

1. The Groups have different reasons for existing. This one is for discussions including both sides.

The other one is a safe haven designed for keeping gunthusiasts out.

Don't buy the gunners "bansalot, whaaaa, unfair!" propaganda. They have plenty of places on the internet to discuss their preciousses.

[SheilaT]

2. You guys have always been remarkably fair to me.

More of DU could be like this.

[Electric Monk]

3. I'm a host of that other Group, btw, but I post in both.

[Duckhunter935]

14. It is great you are able to

I think this group is much more entertaining than the echo chamber of the other group.

[Straw Man]

4. Reasons.

The Groups have different reasons for existing.

Yes. This one is for discussion. The other one is for propaganda.

[SheilaT]

6. And maybe that's the problem with the one I was banned from

which is not your other gun forum, btw. Maybe the one I was banned from sees itself as a propaganda mouthpiece for their subject.

[hack89]

11. But why bring your petty rudeness here?

can't you just come here in good faith to discuss gun control?

[Duckhunter935]

16. I doi not think so

EM has to prove that he can post here and rub the noses os the posters here how he likes to block us from his group. I think it is very petty but I guess it suits him to be that way.

[ileus]

15. But this is the one place where we're free to be liberal progressive 2Aer's

It's nice to have a place to call home.

[Electric Monk]

18. Free to pretend that isn't widely considered to be an oxymoron, you mean. I get your joke.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Your sort are inordinately fond of cartoons

I can see why- cribbing someone elses' work is far easier than actually writing a coherent post,
and there's no need to defend against inconvenient counter-arguments...

[Electric Monk]

20. A picture can be worth a thousand words :)

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. ...and words are difficult things, for some. But that's quite all right, there are no...

...writing requirements at DU.

[Electric Monk]

22. I can keep this up all day if I want to

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Of course you can- it's not as if GCRA requires much attention, after all

All you need do is watch for the *very* occasional post there, in order to ensure a poster
isn't blaspheming violating the rules...

[Electric Monk]

24. Funny you would use the term blaspheming...

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. It's only natural- graphic arts have often used to motivate the semi-literate and illiterate

from ancient temple art to stained-glass windows to political propaganda.

Then again, the stuff your sort like to post isn't anywhere near the level of, say, "Maus".

Spigelman has to be *read*, and thought about. Antigun cartoons are meant to
evoke an emotional reaction, and emotion underlies most gun control advocacy-
in no wise different than any other religious impulse

[Electric Monk]

27. More projection on your part. I at least know the difference between your and you're

there, their, and they're, then and than, etc. which is more than I can say about some of your gunthusiast buddies here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Does a superior grasp of grammar somehow make your arguments more valid?

If you truly believe this, I suggest holding your nose and comparing the writings of people like Samuel Johnson, Thomas Paine, and John Adams to the ...emanations... of Rush Limbaugh.

You will find that Limbaugh (at least as published) uses far more polished grammar than
Johnson, Paine, and Adams did- but only his idiot followers would dare claim that he is
anywhere near their intellectual equal...

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. One can "blaspheme" all day long here. That's why *you're* here, isn't it?

Sort of the way bars and sex workers do beaucoup business when the Baptists and/or
Republicans have a convention....

[beevul]

29. He likes cartoons so much...

[Electric Monk]

30. Indeed, I do

[beevul]

31. Thats supposed to represent murder by firearms in America?

And you guys wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Where as the one I posted?



Completely representative of reality.

What a shame you can't refute that, huh?

[Electric Monk]

32. You do know the difference between allegorical and literal, right?

Allegorical:



Literal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017113903

[beevul]

35. Would you like tartar sauce with that?

From your link:

al·le·go·ry

: a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation

I see, so you posted a picture, which uses characters and events as symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation which are unrepresentative of reality.


Thank you, its much clearer now.

[hack89]

44. That self defense cartoon is idiotic

there are four things that can happen if you use a gun for self defense:

1. shoot the gun and kill someone
2. shoot the gun and wound someone
3. shoot the gun and miss but scare someone away
4. not shoot the gun but scare someone away


Surely even you can figure that one out so it makes one wonder why you would post such a dishonest cartoon.

[Electric Monk]

47. Go tell EarlG, the DU Admin who wrote it, what you think of it. I dare you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017113903

[hack89]

56. Instead of hiding behind EarlG why don't you defend it?

you posted it so you must think it true, correct?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. The fact that out of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of DGUs only resulted in 230 fatalities

shows that gun owners are not eager to kill people. They just want to be left in peace.

[daleanime]

55. Read a little more carefully....

that's over 28,000 gun deaths and only 230 justified.

How is suicide 'defense'?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. Read a little more carefully

I was referring to DGUs, which does not mean suicides and murders, it means DGUs.

[daleanime]

61. Which means you don't want to include all the other deaths....

because they're not 'defensive'.


How convenient. What must not be seen must not be seen.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. You have an emotional need to be outraged, don't you?

People who are pro-RKBA are often slandered as being out looking to gleefully kill people. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands to millions of DGUs annually but only a few hundred result in a fatal shooting demonstrates the falsity of this obscene caricature.

Nobody said anything about dismissing the deaths of others. That is exclusively you distorting what I said to somehow prove something.

[Electric Monk]

63. re: "hundreds of thousands to millions of DGUs annually"

The Myth of Defensive Gun Ownership

Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.

(snip)

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.

(snip)

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

Many gun advocates will protest at this point that not all defensive gun uses are reported to the police, which is true. However, Kleck’s surveys and the NCVS reports indicate that more than 50 percent of such incidents are reported to the police. This would indicate 3,200 defensive uses on an annual basis, still well short of what surveys suggest. Further, if there actually are 50,000 defensive gun uses as NCVS’ data suggests, or more than 1 million as Kleck and Getz’s surveys claim, that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police. Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy.

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

[beevul]

67. " Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy. "

" Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy. "


That's an opinion, nothing more.

With the no knock raids and police brutality that has been going on and been documented for decades, yet has just now got the attention of the MSM and mainstream America, would YOU fill out a police report if you used a gun defensively yet fired no shots?

I know I wouldn't. Would you?

You should post a poll in GD and ask people whether they'd report it if they had a DGU where no shots were fired.

I'd be interested to see the results.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. Okay, so let's play with your 1600 number.

Why do you feel those 1600 must be relegated to helpless victim status?

[Electric Monk]

75. I don't. When did you stop beating your wife? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. If you disarm those 1600 you, by default, make them defenseless.

[daleanime]

64. No outrage...

just depressed. When I see numbers like 29,000 deaths in 1 year, I see problems that need to be worked on some how.

You see some thing that needs to be explained away and anyone worried about it needs to be discounted. No distortions on this side. There is nothing to indicate which of those deaths were 'defensive'. That was added entirely by you. Wouldn't that mean by your reasoning that out of 29,000 gun deaths 260 were 'good'?


Shouldn't I be sad?

[beevul]

65. Do you really mean that?

"When I see numbers like 29,000 deaths in 1 year, I see problems that need to be worked on some how."

Do you really mean that?


If you do, you can start by talking to pro-lots-more-control folks, and getting them to understand that suicides are a different problem than homicides, and therefore have different solutions.

Most of them want to lump them all together and just call them gun deaths or gun violence, because all they care about is attacking gun rights.

[daleanime]

70. Yes, I do mean it....

never understood the whole lying about what you believe in bit.


But I afraid that you lost me, how would that keep even a single extra person alive?

[beevul]

84. As I said.

You can start by talking to pro-lots-more-control folks, and getting them to understand that suicides are a different problem than homicides, and therefore have different solutions.

In the view of most thinking people, suicide, whether due to mental issues, or whether due to a painful illness where it is a release, is a choice. In my view, any person, organization, lobbying group, politician, or other loud voice, that ignores trying to change the choice people make where suicide is concerned, isn't really that interested in addressing it in the first place.

And if they ignore than approach yet jump right to gun control, mixing suicide numbers and homicide numbers, to me that indicates they're far less interested in solutions than they padding statistics to fight a culture war against the hated "other" - the people that believe in gun rights.

In other words, they have a solution, in search of a problem they can justify it with.

Many of us have tried to reason with those folks, but any suggestion that suicides and homicides have different causes and therefore different solutions, we are met with "suicides don't count" by the usual suspects. the ones with a solution in search of a problem.

"But I afraid that you lost me, how would that keep even a single extra person alive?"

I'll answer your question with 2 questions:

Why is attacking gun rights supporters, which number in the tens of millions and will fight tooth and nail to make sure their rights aren't infringed on and who are quite possibly the single most energized voting bloc in existence, a better solution than dealing with suicides as suicides, which doesn't effect gun rights in any way?

And how many more lives will be saved by ignoring that suicides are different, and attacking gun rights and the people that support them?

See, I GET that some folks say they want to reduce gun violence.

What I don't get, is how some of those same people skip the logical solution to the suicide problem, which would address ALL suicides instead of just gun suicides, and jump right to gun control. In my view, anyone that truly cares about suicides, would take the path of least resistance to address them rather than attacking gun rights and the people that support them, which is the path of greatest resistance.

That doesn't indicate anything but having gun control in mind all along, and using suicides as a convenient addition to bolster the numbers they come up with, to me.


And I'm nowhere near alone in that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. I fail to see the downside to killing a rapist before he can claim a victim. YMMV

[daleanime]

71. And every one of them was a rapist baring down on their victim?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. I'm talking about the 230 number cited in the graphic.

That is all I have been referencing in the sub-thread.

Granted some of those 230 may be stalkers, muggers, robbers, drunken brawlers, home invaders, etc. but each was ruled justifiable because they posed a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury. Considering the person posing that threat was doing so by their own choice what, exactly, is the downside and what would be the upside of disarming their intended victim?

[daleanime]

73. So you are celebrate the deaths of 260 only....

does that mean the world would be a better place if that figure was lifted to 500 or a 1,000?

As long as they were justifiable?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. The flip side would be 500 to 1000 more innocent victims.

However, my original post to this sub-thread was noting the fact that only 230 people are killed out of hundreds of thousands of DGUs thus it was a celebration of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people can defend themselves without having to kill anyone.

If those people were disarmed what would you be celebrating?

[daleanime]

76. Fewer deaths would be cause for celebration....

I could care less about gun ownership if people were not dying at these rates.

And no, no rate of death is good, but what we're experiencing in the US is just nuts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. If predators die as a consequence of their actions I blame

the predator and the predator only. I see no value in forcing the innocent into becoming defenseless victims.

[daleanime]

80. So the 29,000 are acceptable....

as long as you get to kill the 260?

[gejohnston]

81. to be really blunt

if private guns were prohibited, the 20K gun suicides would become 20K suicides by rope, bridge, etc. No lives saved. Most of the other 9K are criminals killing each other in places where legal gun ownership is either rare or greatly restricted. See gangs and the black market. Just look at Mexico's gun laws, and their murder rate, plus the ease which the cartels can get machine guns. There is evidence that they are making their own M-16 knock offs (20 percent of Mexico's murders are by firearm). Australian biker gangs have been making their own machine guns for years. Partly because open bolt machine guns are the easiest to make.
It doesn't matter where you go in the world, even Japan and UK, if you can get a bag of pot or cocaine, you can get a gun. Usually from the same people.
During the past couple of weeks, we learned some things about Europe's thriving black market for guns. While anyone can buy a silencer in any French gun store (silencers are unregulated there), you can't buy select fire AKs, RPGs, and a Scorpion submachine gun, especially if you have a criminal record like those people did. They bought them out of a car trunk at the Brussels train station from a smuggler. Oh, those weapons are as tightly regulated in the US as they are in France.

I agree that losing those lives is tragic, but so are the other 18K suicides by other means, and the about 2K murders that were murdered with other weapons, including bare hands. However, I prefer solutions instead of simple answers. Those solutions are many and the problem complex, and may not even be obtainable.

[daleanime]

83. Let's be blunt...

I take it that the 18,000 non-gun suicides is every suicide not involving a firearm? That's still less then gun assisted. For all other types.

And solutions are only unobtainable when you don't want them.

Have a nice life.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. As I have repeatedly noted --

Of the ~250 justifiable shootings there are hundreds of thousands of DGUs that do not result in death.

Of the remaining 29,000 --

Is it acceptable to leave the mental illness that drives 2/3 of gun fatalities untreated? Of course not. As soon as you treat the MI the gun ceases to be a factor but all gun control advocates can do is demand the gun be removed while the MI is left untreated.

Of the remaining 1/3 of gun deaths over 60% are perpetrated by people with criminal records. They shouldn't even be allowed to own guns but gun control laws are meaningless to the career criminal set.

But the real question is: Do you find it acceptable to turn hundreds of thousands of people into defenseless victims?

[daleanime]

82. And you think that they die alone....

I do not want to live in your world.


Where the justice of 260 'clean kills' discounts the inconvenient mess of thousands of deaths.


And don't brother telling that I have no choice, I do.


I refuse to be like you.


Have a nice life.

[Fred Sanders]

53. You forgot "shoot a stranger ", " shoot yourself", "shoot a harmless German exchange student".

Your list misses a lot of things you can shoot with a gun in self defence.

[hack89]

57. So you agree the cartoon cherry picked data and is dishonest?

the German exchange student killing was premeditated murder.

[Fred Sanders]

51. I like that one, because the satire is true.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Here's how to really tell

Those with criminal intent obey the sign and "free-dumb" minded "gun-nuts" don't.

[Electric Monk]

36. How to tell... what you think of liberals?

Charlie Hebdo could've had better locks, or one of those two door airlock type entrances where they need to get buzzed in by someone inside. That could've saved more lives than if they had been packing heat as well.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017238188 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026085132 for more on this discussion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. No argument here

BTW, I'm not anti-gun-control but I differ with some folks over what level of restrictions are appropriate and efficacious.
Neither do I begrudge you your protected group.

I'll reiterate for the record: "Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

Have a nice night.

[NYC_SKP]

46. Or, Charlie Hebdo could have found more productive things to do than insult an entire religion.

Same as it ever was, lack of security didn't kill Hebdo, people killed Hebdo.

So, when are you going to declare blocked member amnesty at your safe haven group?

[Electric Monk]

49. If only she hadn't worn that dress and walked alone in that neighborhood at night...

[NYC_SKP]

50. Wow. Your mind went THERE?

So, you're equating asshole smarmy hack journalists who chose to insult people to a fully innocent woman who gets raped?

[Electric Monk]

54. No, yours did, for blaming Charlie Hebdo for the terrorist attack against them. nt

[NaturalHigh]

38. Have you read the Democratic Party's platform...

regarding the right to keep and bear arms? The party is officially in favor of it. But then you already knew that.

[Electric Monk]

41. It's more nuanced than what you posted.

Last edited Fri Jan 16, 2015, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Emphasis mine.

[NaturalHigh]

42. I agree with part (not all) of it.

Yes, the party supports some limits on gun ownership, but it's hardly the total ban that anti-RKBA fanatics are clamoring for. There is plenty of room for common sense.

[Fred Sanders]

58. They always leave the good parts out of any link and abhor nuance and completeness.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. ...

http://m.

[beevul]

66. If true, doesn't that make the gun banners Sauron?

And weren't all the good guys in that movie, ya know, the one with the precious and his allies, fighting to make sure that Sauron didn't get his way?

[Dont call me Shirley]

77. Sauron was the imperialist weapon maker, seeking the precious gold.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Your very welcome to hang around!

[petronius]

7. It's not my place to say "you're welcome!", as I have no input whatsoever in

blocking decisions here*, but I will say that IMO you are welcome here. And I'll join you in thanking everyone here who, like yourself, contributes to open and candid discussion in GC&RKBA and DU as a whole, without subterfuge, or intent to antagonize or disrupt. We don't have to agree with each other to appreciate the chance to share and debate disparate perspectives (even if that includes a bit of invective from time to time)...


* When we first migrated to DU3 and started setting up the hosting system, my opinion was that the GC&RKBA host should never block and rarely lock. I still think that, and feel like Krispos has done an excellent job of moderate moderating.

[SheilaT]

8. I couldn't figure out how to locate

the moderator here to thank that person directly, but I think an open thread like this might be better.

[krispos42]

10. I'm the Host of this Group

And that is a very nice sentiment you just expressed.

Thank you very much. It put a smile on my face.

[NaturalHigh]

40. For what it's worth...

I think you do a great job too. You certainly have more patience than I have.

[NYC_SKP]

9. I think we all are grateful to krispos42 for his light-handed hosting philosophy.

On a Democratic and Progressive board, we should welcome all points of view, provided they are shared in a respectful manner.

It's nice to see you posting, and thank you for the support!

[ileus]

12. We all get hides here and there....this is the one place for progressive 2A discussion.

This place isn't your usual echo chamber.

[Duckhunter935]

13. That is one of the great things about this group

allowing the open discussion and allowing all viewpoints. From my experience the RKBA posters try and be civil and polite in their postings. I am glad you are able to post here even if we may not agree on the issues. That is not the case in the other group as we all know and EM is proud to state over and over again. I think our host does an excellent job.

[Veganstein]

17. That's why I came to this forum.

Most every other place where gun issues are discussed, the pro-gun side will shout down dissenting views, while anti-gun sites will completely ban pro-gun posters, or even anti's who express a readiness to compromise.

This group, and one other site that I found through this one - discussionist - give both sides a fair shake. You'll find I strongly disagree with you on this, but that's exactly why I want to share ideas and learn more.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Bravo...

...for being pro-discussion.

[NaturalHigh]

39. Echo chambers are boring...

and largely useless. I'm glad that discussion is allowed here.

[SheilaT]

43. Oh, I love it!

That big debate in the middle of this thread, complete with cartoons, is EXACTLY what makes this forum so special. And to think it happened in *my* thank you thread!

[NYC_SKP]

45. Yes! We believe that open debate is the most productive and revealing way to discuss matters.

And I absolutely LOVE all of the quirky personalities on all sides of the issues, even people with whom I strongly disagree.

Good job, SheilaT!