Not automatically agreed. Which is my principle objection here (and indeed there). The use of a gun in legitimate self-defense is understandably positive. The “positive” nature of gun control laws (or the lack thereof) is far more nebulous and subjective.
And yet you’ve just set the default position as “my view on gun regulation is correct and no one is allowed to say otherwise”. If gun control is off-topic, then gun control should be off-topic for everyone.
That’s not *that *“hyper-specific”. “Accurate” is a better description.
It’s not that hard.
[ul][li]Don’t be a jerk.[/ul][/li][ul][li]If you think a post is problematic, report it.[/ul][/li][ul][li]If you can’t figure out the rules on a topic, don’t post on the topic.[/ul]They’re not going to give you a bright line, because then posters will see how close they can get to the line without crossing it. [/li]
This is their message board, not yours. Etc.
This is another left vs right argument apparently.
What would “positive gun news” be for Jesus? You really need to title your OP so he doesn’t feel welcome and come in, if he’s not.
As far as “Don’t be a jerk” (!!!???). I agree. If I’m a jerk punish me. I’ll take the Mitch McConnell punishment please. No one in any thread here is more of a jerk than that. That was a public statement, and demonstration, to humiliate and deny anyone to the left of him, the fairness of him not being a jerk to the constitution of the US.
If something is not spelled out, now in 2019, expect it to be spelled out for you by someone else. Why are they the jerk?
For what it’s worth, I’m sympathetic to Fear Itself’s views on gun control but even I can tell he is just threadshitting there. I don’t have any problem with the moderation. Yes, the title was badly chosen. Still, from the examples, it’s clear what direction the conversation was supposed to head in. I stay out of that thread because they aren’t having the discussion I think is worth having.
I agree, and was going to make exactly those points myself. The further point I would make is that while the right to post opposing viewpoints should obviously be allowed and indeed protected in debate threads, this isn’t a debate thread. It’s a thread in which the OP wishes to confine the discussion to only positive gun news, presumably for the express purpose of avoiding yet another gun debate. There’s nothing biased about moderation that supports the OP’s intent, as long as moderation policy also allows a similar thread with the opposite intent, which indeed it does.
I can appreciate the urge to barge in to such a thread with an opposing viewpoint, but it really isn’t appropriate in that context and is in fact threadshitting. The only contrarian kind of post that would be appropriate there IMHO would be one that I think is appropriate in any serious thread at any time, namely one that challenges something clearly non-factual (e.g.- “according to this cite, the above good-news gun story is highly inaccurate as that’s not what really happened …”). But the OP of that thread clearly wants to avoid another gun debate and that should be respected.
Personally I would question the utility of such “good-news-only” threads, as they seem to be thinly veiled attempts to celebrate one’s pet issue without fear of opposition, but hey, they appear in a forum in which “pointless” is right in the name of the forum!
I’ve never gotten the hang of nested quoting, if somebody could point me to an Idiots Guide for Posting, I’d appreciate it; until then, please bear with my cut and pasting.
In this About This Message Board thread, I’m attempting to explain my humble opinion about the In My Humble Opinion thread. Obviously I think my opinions/interpretations are correct and I will try to clarify them based on Gyrate’s reply.
Originally Posted by dba Fred 
“The use of a gun in accordance with the current laws/rules/regulations is a positive gun use and a post concerning that is positive gun news.”
In the original Positive Gun News of the Day post, the OP contrasted negative and positive gun news and stated the thread was for positive news. A place to post pictures of kittens was not was the thread was to be about, nor for negative examples of gun use, nor debating/discussing what gun laws could/should be. Any example could change from positive to negative or vice versa if the laws/rules/regulations were different but the thread was about what is today.
Originally Posted by dba Fred 
“A change in the current laws/rules/regulations in the direction of allowing more freedoms/greater rights concerning obtaining/possessing/using guns is positive gun news.”
I think the OP would have started this thread in Great Debates and stated in the original post that the thread was debating gun control laws if that was the intention. The foundation, the basis of the thread concerned what currently is. In every thread on this Board that I can recall, an expansion of rights and freedoms is considered a positive so I don’t see why that wouldn’t be the default position concerning gun control.
In a thread called Pretty Kitty Pictures, if I posted a photo of a kitten after being run over by a car and said “I hate kitties so this is a pretty picture”, I’d be moderated. Why? Because what I posted isn’t what the tread was about.
Originally Posted by dba Fred 
“The correctness/appropriateness of the current or proposed gun laws/rules/regulations are debatable and appropriate for a thread in Great Debates or the Pit; it could be a In My Humble Opinion thread if the thread explicitly encourages all opinions.”
I don’t think I was setting as a default position that my opinion was the only correct position on gun control, not for all Forums nor for all threads. For the purpose of the Positive Gun News of the Day thread, news of a change in positive direction re: expansion of rights & freedoms of gun laws/rules/regulations, is appropriate for the thread; changes to gun laws/rules/regulations that reduce rights & freedoms are negatives and while appropriate for other threads, not the Positive Gun News one.
Originally Posted by dba Fred 
“A more appropriate title for the thread could be News of Positive Gun Use but if hyper-specificity becomes the standard, many thread titles on this Board would need revision.”
You say to-may-toes and I say to-mah-toes.
Example: the USS Missouri had 16” guns; are we to assume it would be appropriate to bring them into the thread because the OP didn’t exclude them?
One could write an OP of several pages’ length to define every word and situation down to a gnat’s ass but at some point we assume common definitions and understanding.
That’s my attempt to clarify and not be a drive-by poster.
I think it all depends on what the OP says exactly, and should be judged modded and litigated on that. You can’t fulfill a mission of fighting ignorance by saying “You know what I meant”
When McConnell did his ignoring of practice and protocol, in defiance of the majority of voters in the country, it didn’t just happen in the wider world. It happened here too. Mitch became a topic of a thread and my memory of it is that it was people saying, basically, “You know what (I) (The Constitution) (Congress) meant!”
Do you remember what the responses to that were? It was to go back to the letter of the law, and the letters ommitted, and chew on a piece of leather.
When I watch Fox News they remind me that every value I have about economics or the environment, or race, OR GUNS, is currently a heated debate between the left and the “right” and that debate is so contested and important that it does not end, ever. It can’t by definition because the rhetoric on the right has gone down that road, towards revelations and apocalypse. Just watch Fox some time. It’s the end of the world for them all the time. Imagine if you had a relationship with Fox and had to tell them “You know what I meant” How far do you think you’d get?
I don’t understand why a single thread about self-defense with a gun disturbs some people. There are many cited cases of women protecting themselves from domestic violence, rape or even death because they had access to a gun. Many homeowners have stopped armed home invasions by using a gun. Documenting and discussing these cases is the only purpose of the Positive Gun News thread.
Criminal use of guns is heavily reported by the media and discussed in SDMB threads.
That’s how it should be. Fair and equal discussion.
I read the threads from both sides. Guns can be misused by bad people. They can also save lives in some circumstances.
I can tell you why this one person is disturbed by it. . . in many of the examples someone dies. I don’t find anything positive about the death of another human being, no matter the circumstances.
It is making a false claim that any time a gun is used for self defense it’s “good” and any other experiences or characterizations are not welcome, as coming from an opposing political philosophy.
But every time a gun is used it is not just “good” or “bad.” Actually it is a mixed thing like almost everything else in human endeavor. To censor the discussion of it is basically ignorance.
What if I started a thread about “good news about income inequality”? Would everyone know what i mean, and either post or stay away based on my needs, and their political philosophy?
I refer you to post #9 in this thread. That time is doubtless coming to these Boards, along with a lot of other “protected” ( i.e., if you write something that crosses the protected speech line in that thread you are warned/ banned ) issues.
It’s a very very good thing that Cecil Adams isn’t a real person. Based on decades of his point of view on free speech, he might well find himself banned right off of his own invention.
Yup. I would need to write a damned good OP. Even then my “good” solutions to IE could be discounted as unaffordable, and immoral, because “crisis emergency mexicans illegal wall blah blah.” Money is fungible. If I take $1 for a humanitarian cause and it helps a refugee, some people just don’t want it to go to “someone like that”
This is what I would expect. It’s political, just like guns.
It is not liberals fault that all political fights have to be to the death now. They import the pain and contempt wherever they can insert it. It’s working so far. The taste of trump was like chicken to a dog. They won’t be satisfied with anything less now and the arrogance is perfectly clear in DC and here.
You can disagree. You can likely say that that news isnt as positive as thought due to more recent news which revealed that…
But there are many threads where you can’t threadshit.
IA"in memorium" thread about a singer for example. But even there, when someone sez “Oh, Love me my tender heart” was that singers best, you can certainly say, “No, I think the artists earlier work, such as “Hand holding is great” is better”.
But you cant say “That singer was a no talent sellout and I am glad he/she is dead- good riddance!”
So, no threadshitting, which is pretty much a common rules.
Except that’s not “fair and equal”, that’s propaganda, and a standard right wing rhetoric tactic. This is hardly the only board where that trick is used; create a thread where only pro-gun rhetoric is allowed in the name of “fairness”, which in is opposite of fair since it provides a false impression of the results of gun ownership. The same tactics is commonly used to push other right wing positions as well.
It’s just right wing partisan propaganda that relies on how heavily the right is pandered to basically everywhere - including here - in order to demand special treatment.