Repeating trend

[leanings]

Whenever some fresh blood comes into the Gungeon with some basic misconceptions of the issue they get dogpiled. I know, I'm right there too when I happen to be around. Everybody wants to show them where they're wrong and they understandably resent being called on it en masse and words ensue and they go away mad and nobody's mind gets changed. I mean, certain people have evolved gun/gun-owner loathing to a real psychological complex and I am far beyond giving two squats about their feelings or beliefs (altho I will laugh at these folks and their past/constant/impending/inevitable failures to influence policy). But there are others, those who's views are perhaps not quite set in stone...

What could we do to change that, pro-gunners?

On edit: Maybe there aren't others. Sigh.

[OpSomBlood]

1. Well, the grabbers can start...

...by not posting stuff pulled completely out of their butts, then having the audacity to call us (many of whom are life-long firearms experts) "ignorant" and "uninformed."

If they want to be treated with respect, the least they can do is demonstrate a willingness to be informed.

[Retired AF Dem]

2. What is the old saying?

It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people wonder if you are a fool then to open it and confirm it.

[thomas82]

5. well

The key to starting a discussion or argument is to understand the subject. Some people don't understand this concept and unfortunately the waste alot of peoples time.
Tom

[CO Liberal]

15. Then Please Tell LaPierre, Nugent, and Lott/Rosh to Shut Up

Thank you.

[Redneck Socialist]

19. This'll warm yer heart CO

I saw a Nugent for president sign in some guys yard yesterday. I almost drove off the road I was laughing so hard.

[CO Liberal]

20. President of What????

The Amalgamated Brotherhood of Assholes, Local #13?????

:shrug:

[Redneck Socialist]

21. Well, the sign didn't say

so your guess is as good as any. I just hope it means that whoever put the sign up is not voting for bush.

Hmmmm, maybe we should start a "Draft the Nuge" effort. You can be campaign chair. :evilgrin:

[Bowline]

23. Nugent for President?...

State dinners sure would be interesting, eh?

[Bowline]

22. Don't those individuals enjoy the same 1st Amendment rights as you?

Why should we tell anyone to shut up?

[iverglas]

24. unless you're the gummint

what the fuck does you telling somebody to shut up have to do with the first amendment?

[Bowline]

25. I stand corrected.

You, as a private citizen, do indeed have the right to tell someone to shut up just as they have the right, an probably the inclination, to ignore you.

Please feel free to tell people to shut up. I fully support your right to do so.

[CO Liberal]

30. Free Speech Carries With it responsibility

And I believe that those assholes have been VERY irresponsible in the past. Especially Nugent and Lott/Rosh.

[library_max]

31. Backtrack the thread, Bowline - it's not that hard.

In posts 1 and 2, OpSomBlood and thegunindustry said that people who postulate ignorant nonsense about guns could help by being quiet. CO Liberal simply identified a few choice examples. If you want to complain about the First Amendment, complain to Op and TGI - except that, as iverglas noted, only a "shut up" from the government is a First Amendment issue.

[FeebMaster]

3. If someone has basic misconceptions

and are willing to be educated on the subject it rarely degenerates into a dog-pile since they are quickly informed of their misconception. Granted, it does happen occasionally but I think the majority of the dog-piling occurs with blatant trolls. The kind of people who insist assault weapons are machine guns and then, when linked to the actual text of the AWB, insist that the AWB has nothing to do with assault weapons and then continually repeat that assault weapons are machine guns.

[MrSandman]

6. Why read the AWB...

It bans, well, non-sporting guns.

And the gun industry skirted the law by, well skirting.

And this sniveling and whining by gun owners, well it proves the AWB has value.

[Bowline]

10. Ahhh yes, the old "skirting" argument.

Congress passed a law. The gun industry complied with the law in all respects. How is that "skirting" the law?

[Speak soft carry Big]

34. Why read the AWB?

Read it, because it will prevent you from coming across as ill equipped to participate in a discussion on a particular topic, as Sand has just demonstrated:

It bans, well, non-sporting guns.

Patently untrue. A pre and post ban gun are identical in core operating mechanism, so a sporting gun before the ban is still a sporting gun after. Most notably are the AR-15 variants used for all kinds of target competitions. If anything, features such as standard capacity magazines and collapsible stocks make a gun more useful for sport (ie. 3 gun target matches). Standard capacity (what the gun was intended to hold as designed) magazines require less reloading during competition, and a collapsible stock allows a 6 foot husband to share a rifle with his 5'3 wife.

And the gun industry skirted the law by, well skirting.

When someone changes a TV/radio program, while still maintaining the core show, to accomodate a new law/rules (recent FCC fiasco), that is compliance. When someone changes the features of a gun, while still maintaining the core operating mechanism, to accomodate a new law/rules (AWB), that is ALSO compliance.

Neither changing a TV/radio show to keep it on the air, or changing a gun to keep it on the shelves is skirting a law.

[Redneck Socialist]

4. "nobody's mind gets changed"

Heh, If anyone in the Gungeon ever changed their mind it would signal the beginning of the Apocalypse.

Seriously though there are folks here in the gungeon that have spent practically their entire DU careers just attempting to correct the misinformation swirling around the AWB alone. Other than constantly working to educate people (as politely as humanly possible) there is little the pro-gun side can do.

[thomas82]

7. Well said

n/t

[leanings]

8. Yeah, all very true.

the level of debate in the Gungeon is just depressing.

Maybe there should be, like, "Love in the Gungeon Day" or "Gungeonstock; 24 hours of civility and maturity" someday.

[skippythwndrdog]

9. I'd like to see that.

Now you know why my post count is so low. I read much, but post relatively little because I don't want the guff.

It's odd how life only begins, in the eyes of some on this board, when one becomes a DU member and maturity only comes with a high post count. I suppose all of our real life experiences and education count for nothing until we have 1,000+ DU posts and a gold star.

I think I'll start requesting that info on the resumes of potential employees. Low DU post count and no gold star - no job!

[Wickerman]

11. unfortunate that happens

In an ideal world it wouldn't. I'm sure in your time here you have noted the Gungeon is far from an ideal world.

The Gungeon has a much higher rate of RW disruption than any other forum - per capita rate, that is. So, regrettably, folks who post no where but the gungeon, have low post counts and no donor star are going to get a close eye.

People are very passionate about guns - pro or con. I guess that contributes to the reasons why we see so much conservatives traffic in the Gungeon. I frankly don't get it. I wouldn't troll Freak Republic over an issue I was passionate about - but, hey, seems to make the world go 'round.

As far as contributions - I guess everyone has to do what they think is right. It costs a ton to run this board. If folks get enjoyment out of posting here then it would seem they should help pay the freight. But, that again is in the conscience of the individual user.

[NorthernSpy]

18. farebeaters among us

I'll donate when I've finished paying off my hospital bills. Assuming you and my conscience can hang on til then.

[library_max]

32. I hope all this focus on the mote in your neighbor's eye

doesn't distract you too much from the log in your own.

[FatSlob]

33. There is a group that throws something called "Gunstock".

Don't know anything about it, but I have heard of it.

[Remmah]

12. Two types of gun owners.

Ones that have a personal experience which has motivated them into firearm ownership and ones that are being proactive based on the experience of others.

When we were first married my wife was attending college, she was molested on campus. Cops took 45 minutes from her first call to respond. The molester got probation and counseling as a plea deal. While living in the same house, anything that wasn't nailed down outside was stolen, our vechicles were vandalized and gutted in our driveway one night as well. During that same era, every business within a block was held up at gun point. The best the cops ever did was write us up when they felt our dog was barking excessively.

I am what is known as a "convert" gun owner. I'd fired a .22 as a kid but didn't really care one way or the other. I was 30 before I ever purchased my first firearm. My wife was horrified at first but in time accepted that I was sensible and safe in my decision. We have two children now ages 10 and 12. Firearms not on duty are well secured. No firearm is ever unsupervised at our house.

I have empathy and respect for persons who do not like firearms and loathe them. Some I have found have very negative experiences that have helped develop their opinion. My wife was a strong anti-gunner when we first married, turns out her father blew his brains out when he was drunk and depressed one night. I think you can see how life's experiences make us who we are.

I believe what I believe, but they are my beliefs in life. No one has the right to get in my face and tell me to change my opinion, nor do I have the right to get in another's face to tell them to change their opinion.

[Bowline]

14. Well said.

And wholly rational too. Nicely done.

[iverglas]

16. gosh, just two?

Ones that have a personal experience which has motivated them into firearm ownership and ones that are being proactive based on the experience of others.

And yet ... all of the firearms owners *I* have known fell into an entirely different third group.

They lived in small towns surrounded by large expanses of wildlife habitat, and they owned firearms for the purpose of hunting, and for absolutely no other purpose whatsoever. Often, their parents and grandparents before them had owned firearms for that same purpose and for no other purpose whatsoever, and some of their children will undoubtedly own firearms for that purpose and no other purpose whatsoever.

And these folks, and many others like them -- along with those who live outside the towns and use their firearms for rural purposes like pest and predator control -- account for the vast majority of firearms owners in Canada. (And I know not a single person in either of your two groups; not one.)

I suppose you could say that this -- the experience of living in an environment where hunting is common, or of living in an environment where pest and predator control is needed -- was "a personal experience which has motivated them into firearm ownership", but I really just don't think that this was what you were talking about.

I have empathy and respect for persons who do not like firearms and loathe them.

I dunno. To me, they're just inanimate objects. So are cars, and so is toxic waste. What I sometimes don't "like" are the reasons for which people have them, and (as expressed in) the ways in which they use them.

My wife was a strong anti-gunner when we first married, turns out her father blew his brains out when he was drunk and depressed one night. I think you can see how life's experiences make us who we are.

Amazing, eh? That someone might not want a particular object around when she has direct experience from which she learned that they have a tendency to get used in rather unpleasant ways. It might, indeed, take a very real, very good reason to have them around, to overcome the knowledge that having them around can result in such unpleasant things. Or it might just take a decision to take the path of least resistance, set aside one's own concerns and go along.

I believe what I believe, but they are my beliefs in life. No one has the right to get in my face and tell me to change my opinion, nor do I have the right to get in another's face to tell them to change their opinion.

Me, I seldom give a shit about anybody's opinion. I don't care what anybody's "opinion" about access to firearms is; what I care about is who has access to firearms, what firearms they have access to, and what controls there are on their use of those firearms.

I can't imagine getting "in another's face to tell them to change their opinion". I often do, of course, expect people who voluntarily spout their opinions in public to offer up something to demonstrate the value of them.

[CO Liberal]

17. And a Third Group

The non-thinkers who simply do whatever assholes like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent tell them to do.

[iverglas]

13. let's have it

I mean, certain people have evolved gun/gun-owner loathing to a real psychological complex

Now, I'm not going to ask you which ones have evolved this to that -- if you were to come out from behind that veil of insinuation and name names, you'd be breaking the rules by calling an individual unbalanced, I suppose.

So let's just stop at the "gun/gun-owner loathing". If there are some who have evolved that loathing to a "real psychological complex", then there are obviously some, possibly a larger group, who have that loathing. And to name *them*, without specifying whether they are also unbalanced, would be no rule violation.

So let's have it. Who are these "gun/gun-owner loathers"?

It seems to me to be simple common sense to identify them, since they're the ones you are excluding from your target audience. Then we might have a little better idea of exactly who this currently nebulous target audience consists of. So far, it seems to consist of "present company excluded", but I'd hate to assume that I was in the excluded group, for instance, only to find that I was wrong once again.

But there are others, those who's views are perhaps not quite set in stone... ... On edit: Maybe there aren't others.

Hmm, maybe I should assume.

If I'm assuming correctly, I'll have to ask that you substantiate your allegation about moi. If I'm not assuming correctly, you need to say so.

[CarinKaryn]

26. You think your attitude could be part of the problem?

a real psychological complex and I am far beyond giving two squats about their feelings or beliefs (altho I will laugh at these folks
geeze, you drop into a conversation with an attitude like that and you are sincerly wondering why there is a problem? Yeah right.

[slackmaster]

27. I think only the most arrogant of the ignorant get dog piled

IMO most pro-RKBA people are pretty patient until a willfully clueless person starts to get too haughty.

Case in point (locked thread, not meaning to rekindle the fire): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1894330&mesg_id=1894330&page=

Several of us were very patient with Merlin until he started insulting us. He remains unrepentant and ignorant to this day AFAIK.

[iverglas]

28. damn, that's patience??

I had a look, and I saw you claiming that an analogy was "apples and oranges" (haven't we been through this quite exhaustively?? is there some excuse for continuing to trot it out like this??) and claiming that someone's hypothetical conclusion from a hypothetical state of affairs was "argumentum ad hominem". Yes, that must be "patience".

I know. I shouldn't single you out. There was enough genuine illogic and ad personam argument in that thread, among your colleagues, to go around very amply.

[slackmaster]

29. I made NO personal attacks in that thread

None. Merlin called me "insane" repeatedly.

Merlin's behavior was inexcusable.