Why all the hostility down here?

[JohnLocke]

Geez. Even for a person whose DU character was forged it the fiery flames known as Israeli-Palestinian Affairs (variously known as "the Sand Trap" or the "Basement"), the Gungeon still seems to be the most hostile board on the fourm. I'm not going to name any names here or anything, but it seems like there are about half a dozen regular Gungeonites who do nothing but snipe at each other (bad gun pun not intended).
Seriously, is they're anything you people agree on? Or some obscure topic where you can concede even a minor point? Or some moderate point between "guns are god" and "guns are Lucifer"? We're all progressives here, are we not?

:wow:

[freetobegay]

1. I will concede that the 2nd amendment gives me the right to bear arms!

[4morewars]

7. I thought it was....

the right to arm bears ???

[JayS]

2. Shut the heck up!!!!!!!!

:) :) :)

[JohnLocke]

3. I was expecting something like that.

The obligatory "hey, shut up" comment. ;)

[Wickerman]

18. Play Free Bird!

oh, sorry, wrong venue.

[alwynsw]

4. It's a love/hate relationship

We love to hate THEM! (and versa vice)

[Wonk]

5. It sometimes seems to me like some folks just like to fight

and, oddly enough, they tend to be the same ones who take the position that they have a right to own full auto, unlimited magazine size, and collapsible stock weapons for "plinking" :eyes:

(Flame shields engaged. Feel free to knock yourselves out explaining in great detail and poor grammar why I'm wrong ;-) )

[alwynsw]

6. Nah.

I'm just naturally lazy so I prefer easy portability and longer breaks between reloading.

[OpSomBlood]

14. I've never observed poor grammar by the pro-gun side here.

And as for your "argument," it doesn't really warrant a response. If said "full-auto, unlimited magazine, collapsible stock" weapon isn't used to commit crime, why should it's mere existence or ownership bother you?

You are perpetuating the myth that criminal intent somehow originates from the gun itself.

[mosin]

32. I try to play nice.

It sometimes seems to me like some folks just like to fight and, oddly enough, they tend to be the same ones who take the position that they have a right to own full auto, unlimited magazine size, and collapsible stock weapons for "plinking" :eyes:

I do take that position, but I always try to play nice. :grouphug: There are some reasonable people on the "other" side of the issue. (There are also two or three that aren't so reasonable.)

Feel free to knock yourselves out explaining in great detail and poor grammar why I'm wrong ;-)

I constantly strive to demonstrate excellent grammar and spelling.

[T Town Jake]

8. Well...

I actually just got here, so I'm probably not the best one to reply. But I will say that being told that my ownership of firearms is just a "code for race" and that there's no way a genuine Democrat could be pro-gun is probably not the best route to take when someone's interested in fostering civil discussion...

[billbuckhead]

11. Unregulated weapons are basically domestic terrorism

The NRA and it's fellow travelers have killed more innocent American and caused more domestic terrors than Al Queda ever thought about. We are the only socalled advanced nation with these weak gun regulations and are the only one with these very high murder rates. Japan and Ireland have vitually no guns and virtually no gun hom0cide and far less murder in general. THE PROGUN CROWD WILL TRY TO BLAME AMERICANS FOR THIS BY SAYING IT'S A CULTURAL THING, BUT THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE IS THE PROMISCUOUS AVAILIBLITY OF GUNS.

"Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a unique capacity to terrorize the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year."
<http://www.brook.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm>


Around 30,000 dead Americans dead every year directly from guns, millions terrorized, and a bill for 100 billion dollars. Damn straight, I hate the gun whores in this country.
The vast majority of Americans of both parties are for the AWB, with Dems more progun regulation. As far as race, blacks and Latinos are even more for gun regulation than whites, John Kerry made a special point in his announcement of his run for the presidency to take on the NRA.

[T Town Jake]

12. Pure unadulterated...

...BS, from beginning to end. But where does one start with a so-called "Democrat" capable of typing a statement like "Damn straight, I hate..."
Pssst...hey, bill: we're Democrats. We don't "hate" groups of people, even if we think they're seriously misguided in their views. We're the tolerant good guys, remember?
Christ, and to think THIS fellow was casting aspersions on MY Democratic credentials. Amazing.

[billbuckhead]

13. You gun lovers had your chance in the primary. Dean lost, get over it

Kerry started his campaign blasting the NRA and his gun stands helped him overcome Dean who was endorsed 8 times by the NRA. Democrats are allowed to hate BTW. Especially terrorists.

From the Brookings Institute.

"Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a UNIQUE CAPACITY TO TERRORIZE the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year."

<http://www.brook.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm>

[JayS]

16. And he done blast 'em good!

Take this hard hitting statement for instance.


Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA

Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?
A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America.

Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003


He was so "on message" that he didn't even bother answering the question.


Kerry started his campaign blasting the NRA and his gun stands helped him overcome Dean who was endorsed 8 times by the NRA.

I thought Kerry had put up the pro-gun window dressing. Did I miss something? And I don't think Dean ever got an endorsement from the NRA. He did get a good rating from them numerous times though.

I love that "developed nations" quote. When are y'all going to learn how grating that statement is to those that don't consider our darker skinned brethren to be our inferiors but rather our equals?

[billbuckhead]

30. I guess Japan's world leading low gun homocide doesn't count?

I guess you haven't been to Europe or Canada lately either. Gunners blaming America, whoud have thought it.

[JayS]

33. Been to Brazil lately? Columbia? Mexico? How about Africa?

[billbuckhead]

44. Japans world leading low homocide rate doesn't count?

Americans can't wait to buy Japanese produts, maybe theres more we should copy from the Japanese.

[FeebMaster]

46. Speaking of the beacon of personal freedom that is Japan.

Apparently the Japanese government has decided to allow people to use an additional 578 characters when naming their children. I don't know about you, but I can taste the freedom.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040611/ap_on_fe_st/japan_name_game_1

[JayS]

49. What, like become an extremely homogeneous culture that...

...does not welcome intrusions from outsiders?

[slackmaster]

51. billbuckhead, pardon me for picking a nit with you

The word for killing of a person is spelled "homicide" not homocide.

[TexasMexican]

69. maybe japan doesnt have high rates of people killing...

homosexuals?

[OpSomBlood]

19. This is the second time you have made that false statement about Dean.

Howard Dean supports the AWB renewal and was never endorsed by the NRA.

Kindly replace your rhetoric with verifiable facts. Kthxbye.

[billbuckhead]

29. You deny the NRA gave Dean 8 "A" ratings ?

Dean only came over to the AWB when he was getting beat over the head about it and the Confederate flag flap. Sadly for the gun freaks who claim that there are all these progun Dems, the failed Dean campaign proved them impotent in Democratic primaries.

[Columbia]

31. Actually

"A" rating =/= endorsement

As for Dean imploding, there is a lot of evidence of some underhanded tactics during the Iowa caucus which stopped the Dean machine from rolling on.

[billbuckhead]

36. Why did you guys say Dean was really a "gungrabber"?

Face it the gun "rights" crowd is impotent in the Democratic party. Y'all couldn't deliver a single state for Dean, not even one full of pickup trucks with a Confederate flag flying over the capital.

[FeebMaster]

37. That's shocking considering

how often we all dream of gunning down minorities in the streets.

[billbuckhead]

39. A wet dream for gunners is "the Shield"

Dirty white renegade cops abusing minority communities. There's a whole genre of renegade white gunguy exploitation films like Dirty Harry, Josie Wales, etc.

[FeebMaster]

42. If you say so.

I'm not a fan of "the Shield" really, or any other cop shows for that matter.

[billbuckhead]

41. It's patheyic that the NRA can't actually endorse many national candidates

because their reputation is so unAmerican in it's extremism, bigotry and lack of good sense.

[JayS]

43. Huh? They endorse a lot of national candidates. n/t

n/t

[billbuckhead]

55. They didn't endorse Poopy Bush because it was thought it would hurt him

And now Chimpy is weighing his options about whether to doublecross the gunners over the AWB.

[OpSomBlood]

34. Dean supported the AWB long before the "Confederate flag flap"

And boy, talk about "slandering a respected Democrat." You'll find a lot more fans of Howard Dean on this site than of Dianne Feinstein.

[billbuckhead]

40. Here's proof Dean was against the AWB

Kerry criticizes Dean's gun views
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
11/01/2003 Colo, Ia. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who was in Iowa on Friday to bag some pheasants, blasted rival Howard Dean's opposition to gun control as extreme and unfriendly to traditional Democratic philosophy.

Dean responded that his opposition to gun control legislation while serving as Vermont governor in the 1990s is consistent with his support today for federal laws banning the weapons.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said Dean's opposition to an assault weapons ban in 1992, recorded in a National Rifle Association endorsement questionnaire, contradicts his position as a presidential candidate supporting a federal assault weapons ban.

Kerry supported the 1994 bill that outlawed the sale and ownership of assault weapons, which Dean says he now supports.

----------------------snip------------------------
<http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html>

[JayS]

47. Here is proof that Kerry is full of it.

***********

Dean responded, "I come from a rural state with a very low homicide rate. We had five homicides one year. It's a state where hunting is a part of our life. I understand that's not the traditional Democratic position." Dean said "when you're running for governor, they ask you what you would do in your state." Dean aides said the opposition to restrictions on assault weapons that Dean expressed on the signed 1992 NRA questionnaire applied only to a state ban, defined broadly enough to also apply to shotguns commonly used by hunters in Vermont.

Source: Associated Press in Minneapolis Star-Tribune Oct 31, 2003

*********

In response to a question on where he stands on gun control, he said he supports the assault weapons ban and Brady bill, but that gun control means different things in different regions and should be left up to the states.
When you say 'gun control' in New York, they think it's taking away Uzis on the street, he said. "When you say 'gun control' in Wyoming, it means they're going to take away the squirrel rifle that your grandfather gave you."

Source: Lincoln Anderson, The Villager Apr 10, 2003

**************

Q: What's your position on guns?
A: I support the assault weapons ban. I do not support the elimination of liability for gun owners. I support background checks. And I support background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows. I come from a rural state where people hunt. We have the lowest homicide rate in America. So my attitude is, let's have those federal laws and enforce them. And then let every state make additional gun control as they see fit.

Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003

**************

[OpSomBlood]

48. I disagree with him on the AWB, but otherwise he is my favorite politician

Dean is really a great guy. Too bad the DNC and the media decided to torpedo him.

[Hrumph]

38. It wasn't Dean's position on guns

that killed him. It was the fact that he couldn't open his mouth without comming off like a complete frickin psychotic.


"AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

[TexasMexican]

45. The Media

made and broke Dean.

[billbuckhead]

50. Where were all those "millions" of NRA voters in the primary?

The unregulated gun crowd dubiously brags about winning Tennessee and West Virginia, but when the chips were down they couldn't put Dean over the top in one state outside Vermont, not even in rural states like Iowa, Oklahoma and New Hampshire.

[FeebMaster]

53. Maybe they were sitting at home thinking

damn every one of them supports the AWB and closing the "gun show loophole" why bother?

[billbuckhead]

54. So, Dean had 8 NRA "A's" and gave stump speeches reaching out to gunners

Kerry savaged Dean over this and in the end, you gunners left Dean twisting in the wind. I wouldn't want y'all watching my back.

[Columbia]

56. You haven't spent much time in Campaign 2004 have you?

"I wouldn't want y'all watching my back."

I don't know if you would want Kerry watching yours either, because many DU'ers believe that Kerry stabbed Dean in the back with some questionable tactics in the Iowa caucus.

[FeebMaster]

58. To get an A from the NRA you literally have to do nothing.

Of course once you start yapping on camera about assault weapons and gun show loopholes, well, voters aren't that stupid.

[billbuckhead]

59. Yeah, like a sleeping sentry.

Like a watchdog that doesn't bark.

[FeebMaster]

60. I don't follow. (nt)

[JayS]

15. Thank you for making our point. n/t

n/t

[Union Thug]

64. Huh?

...ummm... First, I don't think most of us believe that 'unregulated guns' is the right way to go. How many here want Howitzers in the hands of the masses? Probably not many. I, frankly, resent the implication of your post.

Secondly, I'm not sure that most libs that support the right to gun ownership also support the NRA (although I'd love to see some stats). There are many, including myself,that would like to see a gun owner's association run by and for those of us on the Left. Being a gun owner does not equate with membership in or support the the activities and positions of the NRA.

It's obvious that when guns are involved in crimes, the potential for fatal injury increases. Duh. I think that our first order of business is not to ban guns, but rather to address the conditions which give rise to criminal activity - such as poverty, for example.

[JayS]

9. I've seen many agreements reached down here between...

...open minded individuals from all over the spectrum. After some discussion it is often found that all parties want the same outcomes but differ on how to reach them. Oftentimes, they want the exact same things but are using different words to say the same things.

Then there is always a poster or two that wants to do nothing but keep the flames going and open minds in the closed position.

[billbuckhead]

57. There are thousands of lurkers here and I'm just educating them

My meme about Hitler giving the "assault" rifle it's name even made the Atlanta Journal editorial page.

I get e-mails from other many other DU'ers who are frustrated about the tragedy that is America's relationship with guns but don't want to mudwrestle with the pig. Gun violence is a needless daily event in the life of this nation and it will change one way or another.

[JayS]

61. Actually, you are providing the entertainment. n/t

n/t

[OpSomBlood]

63. Actually, the term "assault rifle" refers to machine guns.

So your "pro-AWB, anti-Nazi" schtick is pretty lame when used in reference to semi-automatic weapons which are completely unrelated to the assault rifles developed by Germany in WW2.

[Liberal Classic]

10. Basement meets the dungeon?

Sounds like a party to me.

LOL

[iverglas]

17. getting two birds stoned*

(* Ricky, mangling the language as he fires off a couple of warning shots while trying to get the pot to market, i.e. to the prison guards in the next town over, before the cops get it ...)




Or some obscure topic where you can concede even a minor point? Or some moderate point between "guns are god" and "guns are Lucifer"?

You see, I'd never say that anyone here would say "guns are god", or even that anyone here was "pro-gun" -- which simply makes no bloody sense, any more than does saying someone is "anti-gun" ... which stops no one from saying that I, for instance, am "anti-gun".

But back to our two birds: bad grammar and what the problem is. From another post in this thread:

But I will say that being told that my ownership of firearms is just a "code for race" and that there's no way a genuine Democrat could be pro-gun is probably not the best route to take when someone's interested in fostering civil discussion...

"Code for race"? Wot the hell does that mean? Bad grammar issue, settled.

Main issue: Why all the hostility down here?

Gee. I wonder whether it might have anything to do with incessant allegations that people have said things they have not said. I know of no one who has said that ownership of firearms is "code for rac<ism?>".

I certainly have heard it said that no genuine Democrat could oppose firearms control measures advocated by leading Democrats and other progressives and opposed by leading Bush administration figures and assorted other extreme right-wing / racist / misogynist elements in the U.S.

(Me, of course, I offer no opinion and remain on the sidelines on that issue, content to point out when Democrats and Democratic policy positions are being misrepresented ... and perhaps inquire as to just what it is that makes people who do that Democrats, or democrats.)

You do know that firing in self-defence really isn't properly called "sniping", right?

[T Town Jake]

35. Hilarious, Iver...

...but if you'd taken five seconds to troll through some of the other threads you'd have seen exactly where I got the "code for race" bit. You did notice the quotation marks I'd placed for your reading convenience, didn't you? Within the context of that sentence that quotation was grammatically perfect, but I don't really think it's my "bad grammar" you where aiming at...(if you'll pardon the pun, of course).

[iverglas]

67. okay then

but if you'd taken five seconds to troll through some of the other threads you'd have seen exactly where I got the "code for race" bit.

But you'll have to tell me how to "troll" through those other threads ... without getting tombstoned!

I don't really think it's my "bad grammar" you where aiming at...(if you'll pardon the pun, of course).

The pun ... would be something to do with that "where" there?

heh hah har.

[Liberal Classic]

68. I believe this should be illustrative of my point...

That there are as many positions as there are people, and we should be respectful of others on this forum.

You wrote:
I know of no one who has said that ownership of firearms is "code for rac<ism?>".

I don't want to mischaracterize your positions. Please correct me if I am out of line.

May I assume that you do not yourself personally believe that the ownership of firearms (or the general advocacy that there exists a right to own firearms in the U.S.) is tantamount to racism? I am aware that you find it a troubling public policy for many reasons, of course, but this is not one of them. In reading your posts I find that you generally make public saftey arguments against private weapon ownership.

Alright, please read this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=64294&mesg_id=64337&page=

In which billbuckhead wrote this:

The gun rights message is code for race and everyone knows it.

I will let Billbuckhead elaborate at lenght what this statement means to him. It could be that he was being flippant, or sarcastic and I missed it, or something. However, in readins some of his posts it seems to me that at least one person in Justice/Public Safety does believe that the general advocacy that there exists a right to own firearms *is* racism or racist.

Now, before we go off on a tangent, please remember the first line of this post.

The purpose of my post is not to increase the gulf between us. To the contrary, what I want to show is that there are many different possible positions on this issue, and any other.

Consider that here the two of you are generally advocating the positions, yet you have arrived from different directions.

It is this diversity of opinion that makes electronic fora stimulating.

In order to keep the forum useful and interesting, I have been asking that people try to be civil. There is no reason to treat others on this forum with disrespect. I'm pretty sure that you agree, Iverglass, you write pretty respectful posts in my opinion. I don't always agree with them, of course, just as you don't always agree with mine. All the same we are able to disagree on this issue and agree on others.

[slackmaster]

20. It's a battle of words

We're all progressives here, are we not?

That depends on what you mean by "progressive", or at a deeper level what in your estimation constitutes "progress".

Some people seem to think that progress necessarily entails ever-increasing restrictions on individual liberty and personal choice. I disagree with that viewpoint. I see preservation and dissemination of freedom and justice to all people as progress. I would consider getting rid of George W. Bush to be progress.

In regard to the sniping and hostility, every individual is responsible for his or her behavior. Some normal, reasonable people act like poopy-heads when they think they are hiding safely behind a posting handle.

[Liberal Classic]

21. Since I have insomnia I'll take a stab at a serious answer

I make no warranty that my post will have good grammar or spelling.

I chalk the general tone of hostility to a couple of reasons:

One, a general lack of respect for other posters in the board. Calling someone a gun-grabber or a gun-fetishist, for example. Both sides are pretty bad about tweaking the noses and poking of the eyes of the other side, rather like some over-politicized Three Stooges. As time goes on the general tone of debate degrades into the petty carping that characterizes so many posts. There are a lot of posts that, while complying with the letter of the rules, violate the spirit of the rules.

Two, inconsistent moderation of the forum. Now before someone flags this post as an attack on the moderators let me qualify my statements. The problem is not that moderators are being unfair to one side or the other, the problem is that the moderation is sporadic and the rules of this forum are unclear. I realize moderators are just participants in the forum just like the rest of us, and are donating their time out of the goodness of their hearts. I do not impugn the morals or character or goodwill of the moderators. (Is this enough brown-nosing?) But it is incumbent upon the moderators that the rules are promulgated and that they are carried out.

The problem as I see it is that if the rules are unclear, it let's people think they can get away with being an ass. It's a viscious cycle.

Here are the relevant rules, as they stand now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/attacks.html

I shouldn't have to play net nanny, but read those links again. This means YOU. Think about what you post, and how many times you've gotten away with breaking them.

That having been said, I don't desire to see whole chunks of thread read "Deleted Deleted Deleted." I have no desire to see anyone tombstoned. I've never tried to get anyone banned. I don't even hit the alert button. I mean that sincerely. I'd rather we behaved like rational and intelligent adults. I'd rather that the moderators did not have to walk behind every thread with a stick and a paper bag. (If you have a dog you know what I mean, for scooping feces.) I've been reading DU for over three years. I'm no newbie, I'm no disruptor, and I'm no troll. I've seen posters come and go, and I've seen threads that look like swiss cheese (not unlike Israeli/Palestinian Conflict section) and I've seen the flamewars.

I've sunk a few barbs of my own, as well. Neither side is innocent in baiting the other.

But I'd rather people treated each other with some modicum of respect and professionalism. Is this too much to ask? One of the drawback of double-blind anonymity is that it tends to bring out both the best and the worst in people. Something about a lack consequences for actions brings out the true author. I have been posting in electronic fora for over twenty years now, I read Usenet since before the Great Renaming, and was on CompuServe political fora before that. It is the same over and over again.

The moderators can bring out the clue stick, but they can't improve the quality of posts. The most they can do is throw out the bathwater and hope the wee barin isn't tossed along with it.

I'd like to ask the readers of this forum to try to be civil. Such a thing is not too much to ask. I have a thick skin, and have no problem with totally unmoderated fora, but I happen to prefer some moderation.

I'd hate to see Justice/Public Saftey succumb to the tragedy of the unmanaged commons.

[TX-RAT]

22. Well said.

[Liberal Classic]

23. Thank you.

I think this new medication is on is keeping me awake, though insomnia is not listed as one of the side effects. I've even tried downloading and compiling software, and that won't put me to sleep.

[JayS]

24. Put on a tape of Lieberman giving a speech. Works for me. :) n/t

n/t

[TX-RAT]

25. Try 3 fingers of Crown Royal and an old Ronald Reagan movie

Works every time.

[Liberal Classic]

26. I think I have some alcohol in the house

*goes to look for a drink*

Kind of an early start? Or late start...

ON EDIT:

Red wine, compiling gcc 3.3.3-r6 and a picture of Lieberman on my desk top.


You are getting sleepy...

[TX-RAT]

27. It's after noon some where.

[NorthernSpy]

28. quite content in the dungeon

I like it here just the way it is -- can't think of a thing I'd change. It's the best forum at DU, and nothing at all like that other board you mention (which truly is a vision of hell; the Dungeon is a nonstop love-in compared with IP).


Mary

[Free_Thinker]

52. Progressives

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- -Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[happyslug]

62. Caused by Deep Seated world views

On the one side you have people who believe it is up to them, and themselves alone to protect themselves and their love ones. These tend to view gun control with suspicion because it Denies them the best way to fulfill that psychological need.

On the other side you have people who believe it is the duty of Society as a whole to provide the same protection AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY OF SOCIETY TO PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION (OR ENHANCE THAT ABILITY TO PROVIDE THAT PROTECTION) MUST BE BANNED (OR IF IT ENHANCES THAT ABILITY BE DONE).

Notice the difference is one's world view. Should you have the ability to protect yourself EVEN IF THAT ABILITY MAY CAUSE HARM TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE? On the other hand Should Society's ability to protect its members come at the price of a few members of Society suffering? I.e. Should people be able to own guns even through some of those guns may end up hurting people, OR should Society restrict gun ownership to the extent that some of that society's members will be harmed by not being able to protect themselves (Based on the idea that the restriction will prevent more harm that the harm caused by the Restrictions)?

Notice these are WORLD-VIEWS. What I mean by that is how one looks at one's place in Society and what is one's role in that Society. Given the above you can see that these two world views are NOT compatible. Each is the nightmare of the other. Furthermore these views are NOT compromise-able is that you can NOT have BOTH, they are mutually exclusive. Thus the heat in the debate. When you have two mutual exclusive position, compromise and agreement are harm to reach, may even be impossible (Much like the Israeli-Palestinian Debate).

This mutually exclusive views of how society should be is the cause of the conflict in the Gun Dungeon.

[Union Thug]

65. I'm not sure it's so simple...

... Maybe i'm a statistical burp, but I don't own guns for self protection. I collect a subset of firearms out of personal interest in a particular time and place. Sure, I enjoy shooting them every so often, but, as they are kept locked in a big wooden cabinet, they are hardly useful for defense purposes. For that, I have a baseball bat.

[T Town Jake]

66. I got curious...

...about the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum after you said the tone in the Gungeon was even worse, and browsed through several threads over there today. Yowser! I don't see how it's even close - the Gungeon is a virtual tupperware tea party compared to that forum, unless we're looking at different things. I hadn't planned to post over there because it's really not my area of primary concern, but after reading some of the back and forth in the threads I wasn't about to post so much as a smiley face for fear of getting caught in the crossfire. I've never seen so many deleted threads, posts that had to be re-edited for content, and just out and out rancor. I'd sure hate to be a Mod over there - it'd practically be a full time job.
Sorry, but I think this place is a lot more tranquil than Israel/Palestinian Affairs. EOM.