How dare you post utter tripe such as this?
You are fostering stupidity and ignorance. You perpetuate myth and intolerance. You malign and libel entire groups of people. You, in a mere 13 posts, have trotted out every single disingenous and deceitful argument ever crafted by the most hysterical of the gun-control crowd.
If anyone’s ever wondered why some gun owners are so vociferous about protecting their rights, it’s contemptible assholes
like lissener that are the reason.
Wasn’t there a rule against Moderators pitting users? After the horrors of a few months back?
I’m a gun rights kinda guy and I didn’t see anything out of hand in there. And trust me, I was ready to find something.
Ed Zotti implied once that either there was one or there would be one shortly, in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195801&highlight=persephone
So logically either such a rule was never implemented or it was implemented but is currently being ignored.
lissener’s argument seems to follow that every SDMB user should be banned because a few yahoos show up and post “OMG 1 h8tes Teh N1gg3rs!!!11” every once in a while.
I skimmed the thread, looking just at lissener’s posts and the posts he was directly responding to, and I didn’t see anything especially offensive. lissener doesn’t like guns, and thinks they should be outlawed. I don’t much agree with the guy, but it’d be hard to have gun control debates if someone wasn’t holding that position. I didn’t see anything he said in that thread that couldn’t have been dealt with in that thread. Which, interestingly enough, UncleBeer didn’t seem to have bothered doing.
What exactly is your beef, Mr. Beer, other than some damned liberal daring to hold a viewpoint you disagree with?
I think it’s pretty clear Uncle Beer is posting as a member and not a moderator. Personally, I think any policy that limits what a moderator can say AS A POSTER is silly. Just my 2 cents.
Gun control is obviously a reeeealllly hot button with UncleBeer, and I suspect he started the pit thread so the argument could be brought here and include swearing, because I read it, and while I found zealots on both sides of the argument, I found nothing overly offensive or different from the fifty fivethousand other gun threads we’ve had here.
Yeah, i must say that i didn’t see the necessity for the pitting; if lissener’s points are as contemptible, disingenuous and deceitful as you suggest, then it should have been pretty easy to address them, and counter them, in the thread.
I find many people’s strongly-held positions rather illogical, disingenuous, and even deceitful at times. But it’s usually such positions that are the easiest to tear down with a reasoned argument. It’s when i disagree with a position that is logical, genuine and honest that i have more trouble.
Disclaimer: i tend to support gun control, probably a legacy of my Australian upbringing and my social democratic politics. But i would not Pit an opponent of gun control for simply making arguments that thousands of others have made in the past. It’s an emotional issue for many people.
Clearly, you do not belong to the subset of gun rights supporters who regard any attack upon the motivations for gun ownership as a personal affront and a reprehensible assault on human rights. Me, I’m not seeing anything remotely Pit-worthy in lissener’s posts from that thread.
And put me down as also curious about the apparent discrepancy between Ed’s statement of board policy and the existence of Uncle Beer’s OP. Not that I have any philosophical objection to mods pitting members, but rules, as they say, is rules.
You folks don’t find this horribly offensive? It’s not only said once, it’s repeated.
The little asshole is actually accusing handgun owners of condoning killings. If you people don’t find accusations of this nature offensive, I would humbly suggest there’s something wrong with your moral barometers.
I also take offense at this statement. There’s an obvious intent to liken gun owners to ignorant rednecks and white trash. I won’t even comment on the bigotry implicit in such a statement.
This a unsubstantiated fabrication. And a lie, to boot. Danger on the streets is not caused by guns - it is caused by people with violent intent - be they armed, or unarmed. Guns aren’t dangerous until someone with violent intent operates them. Pretty fucking simple concept. To make any other claim is both disingenuous and deceitful.
Here’s that red goo again. Despite the fact that gun owners and the NRA probably do more in the way of public education than any gun control outfit to see that firearms are safely used and stored. Which frankly, they should.
Again, a statement that is downright offensive. Lissener has pretty much labeled gun owners as the witting participants of all gun deaths.
Fallacy. Accepts as given there is a problem. This is yet to be proven.
And since you’re feeling left out, minty, I got one for you, too.
Fetishists? Why is it the gun-control crowd always feels free to toss around such derogatory and childish terms? You guys always gotta get those personal insults in the arguments, don’t ya? Always the first ones to call us ignorant, backwards, abnormal, uneducated . . . whatever. I’m fed up with that and I no longer see much reason to be polite to you jerks.
The reason I’ve done this in the Pit, and not the original thread, is because it’s obvious to me that lissener doesn’t want to debate. If he did, he wouldn’t be posting such utter and offensive crap.
Ed’s free to fire me, if he chooses, but I ain’t gonna stand by and say nothing when such vile accusations have been leveled at me.
So, are you saying that there is no such thing as an accidental gun death and whenever a 10 year old kid shoots their friend and kills them it is because they had a violent intent? It must be the truth, otherwise Lissener isn’t lying or being disengenuous and deceitful. Or is gun violence that doesn’t occure on “the street” subject to different standards? Unclebeer, I don’t want to think that this is a shot at you, I just want to understand your position.
No no, silly man… It’s not bigotry when you’re talking about gun owners! You all, like smokers, are one of the rare and exalted acceptable targets for those who know they are smarter than you.
My candidate for Motto of the New Millenium[sup]TM[/sup]:
“Just because you think it doesn’t make it so”
-Rav
It may be offensive, UB, but nothing that couldn’t be (and was) dealt with WITHIN THAT THREAD. I, for one, see this pitting as unnecessary.
well, I found it offensive when december suggested over and over and over again that by voicing concerns about the Iraqi war that protesters were supporting terrorists. I see this as similar in nature. It’s a common thread in the death penalty debates as well:
“you’re for capital punishment” = you’re for executing innocents, and the correlary of
“you’re against capital punhisment”= you’re in favor of murderers killing other people.
what is factually correct in your example, though is that:
no matter where you stand on the issue, there will be some people wrongfully killed on both sides, either accidentally, or through murder. To only attribute the ‘mess’ to one side is wrong, IMHO.
For the one supporting strong gun control, the tragedy/frequency/ likelihood of an accidental shooting of an innocent through ‘too many guns available’** is more important/outweighs/more than the tragedy/frequency/likelihood of an innocent person getting hurt/killed by bad guy w/a gun where having a firearm nearby would have saved them.
** whichever number/style fits your picture
For those supporting a strong gun ownership position, the position seems to be approximately reversed.
For me, personally, there’s too many variables to control in order to make an accurate risk/benefit assesment. the level of tragedy is unknowable for example (would I feel worse if a loved one was accidently shot by a legal handgun vs. murdered by bad guy? haven’t a clue, hope like hell to never find out);
the frequency is another factor that’s unknowable (while there is some reliable data around wrt number of gunshot victims of either type, there isn’t any reliable method to discover how many times a gun owner was successfully able to protect themselves from harm, nor is there any reliable data wrt accidental ‘near shootings’) and the ‘liklihood’ is absolutely unknowable.
hence my staying away from gun threads.
Bully for you.
It is clear from reading the thread, that lissener is not being totally reasonable.
He seems to be saying
Support of right to own gun :== Support for the missuse of guns.
which is as daft as
Support of right to own vehicle :== Support for the missuse of vehicles.
But it is clear that many criminals within USA have access to firearms. It is NOT proven that the right to own guns is key to the availability of guns to criminals. But it would be nice to see both sides of the gun/no-guns debate actually working on ideas to reduce the ability of criminals getting hold of guns.
Because references to drunken racist Bubbas with their six-shooters and calling people who believe the Second Amendent refers to an individual right to own firearms ‘gun fetishists’ wasn’t meant to be an attack on people instead of ideas?
Implying that everyone in the NRA is an inbred bigotted alocoholic with a perverse addiction to bad bad evil guns are attacks not aimed at ideas, but at people.
Do you think gun owners should just grin and nod at those obvious ad homs?
You make a legitimate point. Still, the context from which the lissener quote is lifted, is not addressing accidental shootings. It’s addressing street crime in Washington, D.C.
No, he’s accusing gun owners of tolerating gun deaths. That’s a reasonably fair charge, much as I tolerate drunk driving deaths for the sake of private automobile ownership (to draw on the analogy from the GD thread).
I’d call “Bubba with double holsters” a caricature rather than bigotry. Then again, I’m a Texan who has more than a few occasions to hang out with folks in California, the Northeast, and the Midwest, so I hear more than my share of that kind of ribbing.
So anybody who disagrees with your party line on the link between guns and violence is lying, fabricating, disingenuous, and deceitful? Well goddamn, I guess that ends the gun debates. Pack up yer bags, boys, we’re through here. :wally
“Participants”? I don’t know where you get that. He said that “making the weapon available in the first place” facilitates suicides, murders, and accidents. Which is entirely true. That doesn’t make you a “participant,” except in any dreams of persecution you may have.
I used it 'cause I got pissed at the preceding comment, which implied that it was some sort of established and accepted fact that everything that spews forth from Mary Pross’s keyboard is the word of God. No content, no links to any number of past discussions where other posters and I have disputed Lott’s definitions, methodology, and conclusions, just a snide drive-by. Fuck that.
Ah, so you’re implying there is a rule against mods pitting members? Very interesting.