I find your definitions for “good/innocents” and “bad/guilty” to be lacking. But thanks for sharing!
No, the cop shot a good guy (the homeowner defending his grandson from the intruder) who didn’t listen to his commands. What’s positive about that?
While you certainly seem capable of exercising poor judgement, I don’t believe for a second that you are that stupid.
This is a friendly reminder that trolling is an insta-ban offense.
Also, consider yourself permanently banned from the Positive Gun News of the Day thread.
If you come across a story that is SO positive that you would be remiss if you didn’t post it, you’ll just have to keep it to yourself now.
I think the explaination in the OP of that thread is pretty clear. It was made to give a different point of view than the Pit thread that has 171 pages. That thread is called “Stupid gun news of the day.” Positive might not be the best term but it’s better than “Smart news.”
I do remember at the time in gun control threads there were often posts like “Name one time a gun would have made a difference.” It’s easier for posters to point to this thread than have to research every instance of self defense. Regardless of how you feel about the subject those that want to report instances of self defense should not be hijacked and shouted down any more than any other subject.
There are multiple instances of moderator instruction in that thread. We tend to be a little more lenient in long threads because posters could miss previous posts. More lenient does not mean we will forget the previous instructions. No one should assume they will get away with ignoring moderator instructions just because it’s a long thread.
Why don’t we have an entire forum for bolstering ignorance on topics by only allowing one (dubious) side? Imagine the possibilities. We can have threads that only permit “news” that says the environment is fine, that racism doesn’t exist, or that the holocaust never happened. And we can umbrella them as “positive” news, telling people there’s nothing to worry about.
You couldn’t be more wrong in considering it positive news on the latter part.
So an elderly 73 year old man who probably is severely hearing impaired according to family members does a good deed by protecting his 11 year old grandson, probably saving his life, by shooting a naked intruder in his own home who had his grandson in a choke hold, biting his ear.
You think it’s okay and positive news too, that he gets shot by the cops for probably not hearing the cops commands, nor did they identify themselves as cops. Nor did the elderly man point the gun at the cops, it’s pointed straight down to the floor, he shined his flashlight at them to see who it is. The cop called this advancing towards them. Sigh. Look at the video. So maybe one step with plenty of distance, don’t even think he made it to the living room, the cops were well outside the house, and there is enough lighting to see the elderly man had the gun clearly pointing down and it’s very clear he’s just raising his flashlight.
It was a terrible judgment call on the cops behalf.
But still this part is also “positive guns news” according to you. What’s wrong with you?
Clearly the OPs post in the positive gun news thread was inappropriate, but it does bring up a question.
Say that my state totally banned private ownership of guns
In all seriousness, I’d consider that the best news since we won World War 2. Now, I would probably make my own thread that situation, but would the below be banned in the Positive Gun News thread:
Would a thread titled “Negative Gun News” be allowed in MPSIMS, and would it receive the same level of protection?
Just like I said, the stories are only “positive” as useful political ammo. I believe the term 2nd amendment boosters use is “defensive gun uses”, which would have been a more descriptive title, less prone to the “misunderstanding” we see here.
Also, let me just point out that what happened to this guy is no more of a tragedy than what happened to, say, Trayvon Martin. And yet, there are lots of posts by the usual suspects on this board praising Zimmerman for his excellent self defense. Perhaps the OP was arguing in bad faith, but if he was, his bad faith position is no more despicable than the position taken by many on this board wholeheartedly. So why should he be censured?
I read it as an veiled attempt, wrapped into a joke, about how killing a gun owner is positive news, and that appears to be how the mods (and other members) saw it as well. I don’t follow that thread, but one of the mods mentioned it wasn’t the first time manson’s posts seemed trollish in that thread.
Why wouldn’t it?
Well, I have a suspicion that a “negative gun news of the day” would get shuttled to another forum because of anticipated heated reactions. I could be wrong.
You could maybe but ------- read the thread. And especially the posts the Mods made during it. Seriously, in light of all that I would have possibly posted the story or link but without comment. And even that could have been nudging it a bit since it almost begs for replies that could derail the thread. Sorry, I gotta agree with the Mods on this one.
This is something that comes up not just on guns but also on various other subjects on this board (no different than other online venues), the matter of whether point/counterpoint or “but whatabout” *must *appear in every single thread it can. Even when there already exists a thread for the other side.
Well, since the “Stupid gun news” thread either started or wound up in the Pit as it is, I have to say you’re most likely right on this account.
I think there are a variety of threads that fit that description and they get posted in nearly every forum without being closed. So, yes would be the answer to your question, although I am not sure what you mean by “the same level of protection.” Is kicking someone out of the thread for trolling “protection”? If so then in my opinion the mods do a pretty good job of protecting the whole board in that way.
No. That’s not about guns, though gun deaths are a big part of it. If you look, the OP is recording mass deaths “by any criminal means” and within the first 20 posts there is one example of beating deaths and one of vehicular homicide.
No, it’s not exactly the same, but it’s very similar to “negative gun news” and it has not been shuffled off to another forum.
There’s a real problem with the attempt to define who is a Good Guy and who is a Bad Guy, isn’t there? Maybe that distinction is artificial, inconsistent with the real facts of many cases, and needs to be explored if ignorance is to be fought. Refusing to allow examination of such a basic point in a thread is one approach to preventing such examination and discussion, sure, but it hardly seems within the ignorance-fighting charter of this board to let self-proclaimed Good Guys define cases into something that can be called Positive without being challenged on it.
That said, the thread in question had fallen dormant for lack of examples to support its thesis. Maybe it should have been left to die.