Pit thread for Martin_Hyde {He has been BANNED}

[k9bfriender]

@SenorBeef

I wasn’t attacking anyone personally.

@SenorBeef

you’re all pretty cowardly on introspection).

Yeah, that was pretty clearly implied in your opening statement. And if you think that just insulting everyone isn’t attacking anyone personally… I suppose that’s a weird way of justifying it.

@SenorBeef

Others in this thread were calling anyone who wanted guns to be legal a sick, perverted, twisted, child murderer because they were willing to pay for something they wanted in innocent lives.

No, they were calling out an individual for his specific statement. One that, if he wanted to walk back a bit, he had plenty of opportunity, and instead, he doubled down on it.

@SenorBeef

I pointed out that we all do this and challenged anyone to have the guts to admit it was true

But it’s not, as I’ve just said. We do work to mitigate the dangers posed by those other issues. We’ve come a long way, and we know that we have further to go. But if you think that universal background checks is political suicide, try running on banning cars and alcohol, and see how far that gets you.

@SenorBeef

Compare this to the insults and wild assumes and just completely untrue things thrown at me, I was conducting myself in a pretty upstanding way, I think.

It’s the pit, so you should expect insults, and honestly, there are only a few posters that I remember what their positions and attitudes are, so your posts in this and the other thread stand on their own. And IMHO, you have not conducted yourself in an upstanding way.

@SenorBeef

I was far more civil than the people personally attacking me that followed, calling me a liar and all sorts of often internally inconsistent insults that were entirely based on perceiving me as the enemy, rather than perceiving me as a bad faith actor or some other justification for that hostility.

I mean, you are coming across as very hostile, so seeing you as the enemy is just seeing you on the place of the battlefield that you chose to stand, and you are using, what, IMHO, are rather disingenuous tactics to dismiss the concerns and shut down the discussion.

@SenorBeef

As an aside, I’m surprised I didn’t get accused of sea lioning - a term which has some use but has quickly come to mean “anyone I want to dismiss because I don’t actually have a good argument to put up”

Nah, that’s when someone “politely” asks for clarifications of ones position, demanding that it be explained to their satisfaction before allowing the conversation to progress. It may be overused as an accusation, but it’s also becoming overused as a debate “tactic”.

What you were doing was a completely different form of hijack. Not even really trolling, if I thought that, you’d be in the killfile with @Martin_Hyde right now. But it’s not a way of having a productive discussion or debate, either.

@SenorBeef

I am strictly attacking the faulty logic of people who suggest that anyone who is willing to advocate for something being legal, knowing that it being legal will cost innocent lives, is a monster

Yes, but that’s not what he was doing. He was saying that we was willing to trade innocent lives not to keep guns legal, but to prevent any lessening of gun rights.

If you asked me, “Would you give up your car to save 46,000 people?” I’d honestly have to think on that one. If you asked if I was willing to submit to rules and regulations on how I operate my motor vehicle, I’d be all for it.

@SenorBeef

That’s not whataboutism, that is enlightenment and introspection and trying to point out people making huge logical errors.

I think that the logical error here is yours, in that you are not defending what you think or claim that you are defending, and that, rather than do some introspection and admit that, you are doubling down.

[Martini_Enfield]

Here’s Puzzlegal from earlier in this thread saying she thinks target shooting shouldn’t exist (bolding mine):

@puzzlegal

First, if i could wave a wand and make all the guns in the US be as if they never were, I’d do it. Then we’d need to find solutions for farmers with vermin, and for a number of reasons, I’d like to support gun hunters, too. (There are plenty of existing alternatives to target shooting, IMHO.)

And here she is again not understanding, or apparently even considering, that shooting targets might be a rewarding, satisfying, accomplishing and completely benign use of firearms:

@puzzlegal

What are the benign ways that people use guns? Killing vermin and game? The sensation (true or not) that you can fight back if someone aggresses against you? Feeling power under your fingers?

And here’s a post from someone in the Political Thread saying that the only allowable shotguns should be break-action, and people should be limited to 12 rounds:

@nicky

My gun control proposals

The following guns are allowed, subject to background checks

Revolvers
Shotguns, break action
Rifles , bolt action, small magazine

Guns must always be unloaded and securely bagged -except in the following places.

Your own property
Anothers property , with owners permission
A licenced shooting range
A designated hunting area

Maximum ammunition allowances
12 rounds per gun type

(Exception: licenced shooting facilities)

This seems to me to cover all legiitimate self defence, vermin control and sporting cases for gun ownership.

You can argue that taking something someone has said in a different thread on more or less the same topic, which is running concurrently with this one, might be “nitpicking”, but I would disagree with that interpretation.

And here’s a poster in the now-locked thread about how many mass shootings it would take to change gun supporter’s minds saying that a single-shot rifle is all anyone needs for hunting or many other purposes:

@Richard_Pearse

Isn’t hunting a bit of a red herring? If you’re hunting to put food on the table a single shot hunting rifle is adequate. There could be, for example, legislation that prohibits ownership of large magazine semi-automatic rifles while permitting the ownership of hunting weapons. Can you still kill lots of people with a single shot rifle? Yes, but it’s not as easy.

The point is, the arguments I referred to (with some hyperbole) aren’t things I just made up out of thin air; they’re real viewpoints people have expressed here on the SDMB within the past week or so and - if we’re honest with ourselves - they’re arguments/viewpoints we’ve all seen many times elsewhere on the internet too.

[k9bfriender]

@SenorBeef

Plenty of liberals (rightfully) chose opposing expansive surveillance even though it could potentially cost lives to oppose it. If there were any terrorist attacks that would’ve succeeded in a world where we didn’t pass those measures, those deaths would’ve been the cost for us not adopting those polices, which is something that anyone who argued against the PATRIOT act was accepting.

There were compromises made. Security and surveillance were stepped up, which arguably has helped prevent some attacks, but there were certain things we were not willing to accept. If attacks increased, then maybe we would accept more, but that still doesn’t mean that we would give up all right to privacy.

It’s a balancing act, freedom versus public safety. Now, to give up freedom is to have neither, but to not accept any limits on your freedoms means that you are dead.

With freedom comes responsibility, and as more people find that they are not able to exercise their freedoms responsibly, sadly, all of us have to give some of them up.

[k9bfriender]

@Martini_Enfield

The point is, the arguments I referred to (with some hyperbole) aren’t things I just made up out of thin air

The added hyperbole certainly changes the actual words used substantially, yes. I’d also argue that @puzzlegal was talking in hypothetical terms, in a response to @SenorBeef who was using black and white terms and using examples of banning alcohol or cars, so the response was equally black and white.

The other two, yes, as I said, those are the sentiments of some of the vocal opponents to gun violence. There are even a couple who do favor bans and confiscation, you don’t even need to find those posts in order for me to give you that.

@Martini_Enfield

they’re real viewpoints people have expressed here on the SDMB within the past week or so and - if we’re honest with ourselves - they’re arguments/viewpoints we’ve all seen many times elsewhere on the internet too.

Yes, but they are not the viewpoints of the posters that you were responding to, and that’s what is disingenuous about it.

[Martini_Enfield]

@k9bfriender

Yes, but they are not the viewpoints of the posters that you were responding to, and that’s what is disingenuous about it.

I was making a general observation on the sort of “I don’t understand guns but I still want impractical and unreasonable restrictions on them” viewpoints that people - including a number of posters here - have. Nothing disingenuous about that.

I also don’t believe Puzzlegal was speaking hypothetically; her rejection of target shooting as a reason to have a gun at all and not mentioning “target shooting is rewarding and competitive like any other sport” when asking “Why would anyone want a gun?” suggests to me she simply (at least before then) had never even considered it as an option and was therefore speaking literally.

[Babale]

@SenorBeef

My only point in this is that we all wilingly advocate for things that will cost innocent lives because we think the tradeoff is worth it. Acting like this is some unique factor that only comes into play on the gun issue is irrational and weak minded.

I don’t know why you think anyone doesn’t realize this. The issue isn’t the concept of a coat benefit analysis, it’s the deslicable results of this particular calculus that values something as vapid as drugs above lives.

[Guest-starring_Id]

@Martin_Hyde

That’s a reasonable opinion, I’m certainly not perfect at expressing myself. From my personal perspective, I am largely “numb” to school shootings. While they are terrible, I don’t react to them emotionally. I did when Columbine happened, I did when Newtown happened, I even did when Marjory Stoneman Douglas happened, but I don’t really think I have that in me anymore.

re: the bolded.
How come?

[Babale]

@Martini_Enfield

And here she is again not understanding, or apparently even considering, that shooting targets might be a rewarding, satisfying, accomplishing and completely benign use of firearms:

Your homework is to write a letter to the family members of victims of all school shootings in the last couple years. Here’s a template:

Dear sir or madam,

While I am sorry for your loss, I ask that before you push for stricter gun registration you consider and understand that shooting targets might be a rewarding, satisfying, accomplishing and completely benign use of firearms.

Thoughts and prayers

Your name here

[MrDibble]

@Drsunflower1

I also remember boycotting stuff from South Africa in the Eighties. I hope that helped.

It did, and thanks!

[MrDibble]

@k9bfriender

Pretty hostile, and insulting, IMHO.

But see, he didn’t use any swears. So really, he has been unfailingly polite.

[MrDibble]

@Martini_Enfield

And here she is again not understanding, or apparently even considering, that shooting targets might be a rewarding, satisfying, accomplishing and completely benign use of firearms

You can happily shoot at targets without using a human-lethal gun.

[kaylasdad99]

@k9bfriender

@SenorBeef

It is bad political strategy to make this election about gun control when there are much better, less divisive issues to focus on.

And this I completely disagree with. A strong majority of Americans are for better gun control, including most gun owners. The ones against it are never going to vote for Democrats anyway.
(bolding mine – kd99)

The corollary to this ought to be “The ones for it are never going to vote for Republicans anyway.” And if it was, the Republicans would never win another election.

Why isn’t it?

[kaylasdad99]

@SenorBeef

I am the most militantly anti-republican member of this board

Way to make a guy feel like chopped liver.

Regards,

kaylasdad “It’s a sin to vote for a Republican” 99

[Martini_Enfield]

There’s a couple of disciplines (10m air pistol) where there’s possible, but generally no, you need an actual firearm.

Even without getting into various rifle shooting events, you’re not going to get far doing clay target shooting (an Olympic sport) with an airsoft gun.

[MrDibble]

@Martini_Enfield

There’s a couple of disciplines (10m air pistol) where there’s possible,

There’s also air rifle events, and small-calibre normal guns. I realise '22s can be lethal, but so can an airgun, I’m sure.

@Martini_Enfield

you’re not going to get far doing clay target shooting (an Olympic sport) with an airsoft gun.

True, although that’s a job for the breech-loading shotguns she also allowed.

[puzzlegal]

@Martin_Hyde

you need to win elections to set policy , something that Democrats seem almost hostile to hearing. The response that came (which included death wishes directed at innocent people who committed the sin of being known by me)

So, i can explain the first. Many people feel that a great deal of evil has come from politicians who frame debates in terms of “winning and losing” instead of “right and wrong”. In particular, this is a major reason why out current crop of politicians haven’t cooperated to make policy that is widely popular. Such as gun background checks. So when you start focusing on winning to the exclusion of what is actually moral, you start building the tension that is expressed as “fuck you”.

And as to the latter, i think you are misunderstanding. It’s not that the poster wants any extra deaths. They want fewer deaths. But if we are going to have X gun murders next year, In part because of policies you support, they prefer those murders affect people you care about, instead of other, equally innocent, people. That is, they want the burden of your protection of your right to shoot to fall on you. They are, in affect, bemoaning the tragedy of the commons.

@Martini_Enfield

Here’s Puzzlegal from earlier in this thread saying she thinks target shooting shouldn’t exist (bolding mine):

Naw, you missed the context. I was talking about the world in which i have a magic wand and could actually prevent every gun death by waving that wand and removing guns. Yes, I’d do that. But of course i can’t.

In the real world, where the US is full of guns that aren’t going away, i see absolutely no problems with target shooting. It’s a benign activity that people enjoy. Heck, I’ve enjoyed it.

However, the right to enjoy target shooting isn’t an important right. Heck, we have banned lawn darts, they are fun, too. The actual right enshrined in the second amendment has already been destroyed, IMHO. I believe the founders wanted to protect the rights of the states to rebel against an over-aggressive federal government. And the civil war ended that right. I think they also wanted local militias to be able to defend towns against the native Americans who sometimes fought back. I suppose we still have that right, but it’s somewhat obsolete. Do you know of ANY well-regulated municipal militias?

As best as i can tell, the public, municipal right right to own firearms didn’t become an individual right until well after the original right was dead. I think it happens in some supreme court decisions circa 1970. (I looked it up, once, and of course it’s messy and happened over several decisions, and i don’t recall the exact dates or details, but it’s all post civil war.) I’ve never understood how the right of an individual to shoot at a home intruder is related to a well-regulated militia, but that’s the right the supreme court invented, not the right to shoot targets.

Which again, doesn’t mean I’m hostile to people enjoying shooting targets. I think there’s a broad area between important rights to be legally protected and stuff that should be banned, and in general, i prefer that everything between those two extremes be legal.

[puzzlegal]

@Martini_Enfield

I also don’t believe Puzzlegal was speaking hypothetically; her rejection of target shooting as a reason to have a gun at all and not mentioning “target shooting is rewarding and competitive like any other sport” when asking “Why would anyone want a gun?” suggests to me she simply (at least before then) had never even considered it as an option and was therefore speaking literally.

You seriously didn’t understand the context of my post? So, for the record, I’ve gone target shooting and it was fun. I’ve even played with an AR-15

But

@MrDibble

You can happily shoot at targets without using a human-lethal gun.

So i was trying to think about why people really want to shoot targets using extraordinarily human-lethal guns. And i am guessing it’s the feeling of power you get when you are literally holding that power and controlling it. That’s why i suggested arc welding as a possible replacement hobby. And endorse the suggestion of blacksmithing.

[What_Exit]

@lissener

(If memory serves, the Mod was a gun fan.)

Not even remotely correct for the record. I’ve never shot a gun in my life, despite being in the Navy. I’m not remotely a gun fan. I’m leaving it at that.

[madmonk28]

You’re such a piece of shit.

[Cheesesteak]

@Martini_Enfield

And here she is again not understanding, or apparently even considering, that shooting targets might be a rewarding, satisfying, accomplishing and completely benign use of firearms:

Well, that’s the single shot bolt action .22, single shot pistol and over under shotgun taken care of. I’ll even throw in a 2 shot internal magazine larger caliber bolt action rifle for big game hunters. Can we now get rid of the military-adjacent toys that seem to be the favorite of terrorists?