Does ANYONE here actually SUPPORT gun violence? (rhetorical question)

[appal_jack]

So in the process of accidentally wandering into the GCRA group (via a thread that made the Greatest page), I managed to get banned from there. No biggie. Here's the particular thread if anyone's curious: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12622591

Other than some sarcasm on my part, I think I kept it pretty polite & rational (though a few of my posts were hurried enough to be less than stellar imho), but the rudeness and cussing sure flowed freely from the grabbers' side. Must be part of their 'safe haven' code of conduct.

Anyway, the experience there did get me wondering about that group's SOP, and how it differs from GC & RKBA. Their SOP reads:


The Gun Control Reform Activism group is intended to:
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

This SOP Leads me to ask, is there really a place on DU where opposers "of measures reducing gun violence" are welcome? I assume that my question is only rhetorical, and the clear answer is no. Those of us who support the individual RKBA choose to do so because we believe that it will either have no effect on gun violence (such as perhaps sport shooting and/or hunting might) or that it can actually reduce gun violence overall ( by giving citizens better tools for self-defense against violent attacks).

So it really boils down to the fact that GCRA members believe that restricting hardware will have a real, positive effect, and for that purpose they require a "safe haven" echo chamber. Asking questions about such bans, in a thread that implies people who worry about such restrictions are "stupid," is what got me banned from the GCRA group. Weird, huh?

I am here, out in the open, to state unequivocally that I believe that an individual RKBA can, does, and will continue to reduce the ill effects of gun violence overall by giving citizens better tools for self-defense against violent attacks. Further, I know and celebrate the fact that citizens of the US have the rights (too tenuously preserved at times) to think dangerous ideas, speak dangerous words, protect dangerous privacies, and, yes, possess dangerous weapons. The responsible exercise of ANY of these rights can improve the society in which we live.

-app

[gejohnston]

1. of course not

I'm against knife and tire iron violence too.

[rrneck]

2. It helps to think

of GCRA as the "choir".

In terms of supporting gun violence, my position is this: It is always wrong to kill, every time, I don't care why. And I might mention there is a philosophy group where this could be discussed at length.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. from what I understand GCRA wants us to call them weapons not, tools.

which they are weapons and, as such, I have no problem calling them that.
Much the same way that I have no problem calling a screw driver a screwdriver be it, a phillip head or a flat head.

as for as I know, no one on DU or, in the world in which I live, is Opposed to reducing gun violence.

[rightsideout]

4. Arming Americans has proven otherwise

1,384,171 gun deaths since 1968. 1,171,177 American deaths in wars since the Revolutionary War. More Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than all the wars we've been in combined. That's insane. Gun deaths by Americans killing each other eclipses terrorists killing Americans.

You can debate the numbers but it's still too high. As a society, we have an obsession with firearms. We just like to blow things up, arm ourselves to the hilt against some imaginary foe (like a tyrannical govt or slaves that may hold an uprising) and people get killed in the process.

The object of being an American is to get through life without being shot at. Hit the deck!!

[pipoman]

6. The only question I have with this position

is how many of those deaths would have occurred in the complete absence of firearms? I believe most would not go away in the absence of firearms..(not that the absence of firearms has a chance of occurring in our lifetime)..

[tblue]

8. Are you serious?

I haven't heard of too many mass knifings. Or drive-by stranglings. Or lots of folks with a baseball bat beating to death a classroom full of 1st graders. I guess such things are possible. Bombs are popular among some folks. Okay, so? We do nothing? If firearms were to magically disappear, there would be a lot less needless death by guns. If, after that, we find case after case of bow-and-arrow or bat or knife murders, then regulate those too. What's the freaking big deal? Life is way too precious to leave it at the mercy of people who put absolutely nothing before a damn freaking gun. There is something sick about that. Seriously.

[pipoman]

20. Of coarse the vast, vast

majority of that number cited are suicides, the next most common type of "gun death" is previously convicted criminal homicide, then domestic, then accidents, and various other combinations of circumstances...multiple victim incidents are a tiny, tiny portion of the numbers.

Nobody becomes suicidal because they have access to a gun, nobody determines to kill another person because of access to a gun, nobody wishes to kill their domestic partner because of access to a gun..you get the idea..If someone wishes to harm or kill another person, they will still wish to harm or kill that person in the absence of guns..

If, after that, we find case after case of bow-and-arrow or bat or knife murders, then regulate those too.

This is the error of the position...people in the most secure environments in the world..prisons, find ways to kill each other. And no, you can't regulate those things and everything else which could be used as a weapon...even suggesting such a thing is as ridiculous as pretending guns are going away..so, faced with the absolute reality that guns aren't going anywhere this year, next year, or in our lifetimes, maybe we should be looking at ways to mitigate these things through possible solutions which could actually have an immediate impact..SCOTUS has defined the 2nd Amendment..even if one believes it is possible for some reversal in precedent in some future court, it will take decades at best, what should we do in the mean time?

I believe we could reduce murder by making mental health and addiction services available to anyone who needs these services...Taking the whole private sale background check to the states, and quit pretending it is going to happen federally until there are around 40 states requiring background checks on private, intrastate sales (there are currently 18 IIRC)....but ultimately, people will always kill each other..tragic, but true..

Bottom line is we are where we are, and speculating about impossibilities may be fun, but does nothing at all to address the problems in our society which actually cause crime and murder..

[Eleanors38]

14. My "object" in life has never been to avoid getting "shot." Though I

Would be leery of locating close to a fertilizer plant.

[hack89]

17. Funny - I live in an area that is very safe and where gun violence is rare

just like most Americans.

Gun violence (as well as violent crime in general) is very geographically concentrated. Most Americans have nothing to fear from gun violence.

And lets not forget that two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, which while a tragedy, does not reflect an actual threat to you or me.

We have cut our murder rate in half in the past 30 years - you have to go back 60 years to find a less violent time in America.

[BlueStreak]

5. If you fight food inspections, are you in favor of unsafe food?

Yes,. Obviously.

You can call that a "freedom" if you want, but the reality is that it isn't freedom when you don't have a practical choice to avoid the consequences. If there are no food inspections, there is no practical way that individuals can do the meat testing themselves. And likewise, when guns are sold to insane and/or irresponsible people, their victims don't have the freedom to choose whether they will be slaughtered or not.

[gejohnston]

7. problem is

they are sold to criminal and irresponsible people in Mexico, Chicago, and to a lesser degree UK all of the time. Just not legally.

[appal_jack]

11. What if the food inspections were looking for the wrong thing?

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Plenty of states used to insist that breads, cakes, jams, jellies, and other low-risk processed foods sold by family enterprises at farmers markets needed to be made in a commercial kitchen in order to be 'safe.' The inspections required thousands of dollars of stainless steel countertops & commercial vent hoods & ovens. But none of that was making people safer - it just added unnecessary regulations, while getting people pissed at heavy-handed government.

But in more recent years, many states, my own NC included, have switched to just inspecting home kitchens of such businesses. They make sure there are no pets in the house (who wants cat hair in their cake?), and check the businesses' recipes to ensure that enough sugar is being used, process time is adequate, etc. Those are actual safety factors.

I contend that magazine limits & 'assault wepons' bans are analagous to the top- paragraph's style of regs: punishing the little guy, while protecting no one.

-app

[BlueStreak]

23. How are you "punished" by not having a 30-round magazine for a para-military weapon?

[Warren Stupidity]

38. zombie apocalypse

or as one high profile gungeoneer noted: in case there are swat teams going door to door in your neighborhood.

[appal_jack]

43. What part of "shall not be infringed," is unclear to you?

When it comes to rights, the citizen need not jump through hoops extensively proving harm in order to protect them. Rights are by their very definition meant to be protected.

Now of course, all rights have limits. We don't protect specific and explicit incitements to violence under our First Amendment, and fully-automatic weapons and ordnance are already extensively regulated (so much so that I will likely never be able to afford them) under the National Firearms Act. But Americans have been able to buy "para-military weapons" with "high-capacity magazines" for more than 60 years now (I'm thinking of the vast array of M-1 carbines sold after WW-2, for example). If you want to suddenly infringe on this right, you'd better have a really compelling reason, and also demonstrate that less infringing-strategies will not work.

-app

[gejohnston]

45. even older when you count bolt actions

and trap door single shots. My wife has a bolt action that was, German, army issue in the 1930s.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Yes there have been posters here who, for example, defended Zimmerman.

And of course despite the clear evidence that gun ownership is correlated to gun violence, the radical gun rights activists here continue to insist that their precious guns make them safer. In general the idea that everyone should be armed everywhere is promotion of gun violence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. There are no radical gun rights advocates here

You most likely have never met one. The gun rights people here are moderates. For example, I have not seen oppose UBCs.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Spare me.

They do get evicted on a regular basis, if that's what you mean.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Ok, I spare you. I also ignore the transients on both sides

The long term gun rights people here in DU are centrist, not radical.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. By "defended", don't you mean "did not immediately and automatically condemn him"?

No doubt Zimmerman is slime (and that might be defaming slime) , but even slime have civil rights-
Ernesto Arturo Miranda comes immediately to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda

[Warren Stupidity]

27. oh of course, my mistake, nobody in the gungeon went all in on zimmerman

YHGTBFKM.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Undoubtedly you have links to what you claim, and will post them for us.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. nope. as I said, nobody here in the gungeon went all in on zimm. never happened.

WWJD?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Cool! Slander an entire DU group, then waffle when asked for evidence.

Meshes nicely with the OP. Well done!

[Warren Stupidity]

35. some != entire

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Well then, kindly point out the miscreants for us.

Or has the NRA somehow erased your bookmarks and cache?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. no I already agreed that certainly nobody ever went all in on zimm here.

That would never happen, not here, not in this gungeon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. That does not stop the accusations from flying, inaccurate as they may be

[Warren Stupidity]

42. I'm not the one keeping the alleged fact that gungeoneers went all in on zimm alive here.

[gejohnston]

30. no, but some have

questioned the media's ability to report accurately, and the public's ability to tell the difference between what some non expert pundit or blogger says from straight news. That is quite a different thing. If someone says "let's see how the facts come out in trial" is not defending Zimmerman, but is pointing out that the media is full of shit half the time.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. right. my mistake again, poor zimmy was crucified by the media.

Have Hoodie, Will Die.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. I doubt it was a mistake. As the saying goes:

"It's true I was born in the morning- but it wasn't yesterday morning"

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Ok fine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45485

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45590

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246491

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117261432

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=41519

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=48024

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=88620

And on and on and on.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. I'll give you most of them, but what's the problem with the fifth and last ones?

Expressing a desire to wait for a trial instead of judging by press release hardly seems
extreme.

BTW, would you be very upset if we started judging all of you lot by the posts of a few?

Like these, for instance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022767297#post1

1. We need to start putting the gun lovers behind bars where they belong......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172121412#post11

bowens43 (14,296 posts)
11. this asshole should spend the rest of his miserable life in jail.....

[ileus]

10. People who are regressive on the 2A need gun violence

to promote their agenda.


You won't find any progressive 2Aer that approves of gun crimes.


carry on.

[Eleanors38]

15. Interesting take. For the OP, no one I know favors violence...

sorry, no text.

[rdharma]

12. I'm against reductio ad absurdum

Which the OP in this thread exemplifies.

[appal_jack]

13. rdharmio es absurdum.

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

rdharmio es absurdum.



-app

[Eleanors38]

16. LOL! I knew I should have taken Latin.

[sylvi]

24. lol

"rdharmio es absurdum"



He could be an entirely new category of logical fallacy unto himself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. I support reductio ad absurdum

It shows glaring defects in arguments quite readily.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Specific example?

I'm curious as to what portion of the OP you consider to constitute a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

[DemDealer]

21. "Gun violence" has a negative connotation

But needn't be so. I DO support lawful, defensive violence committed with a gun in the protection of my fellow man. That's why I value the RKBA to begin with. There is nothing "regressive" about defensive violence when legally and reasonably applied. The problem is the one who initiates violence.

"Criminal Gun Violence" would have been a much better headline choice IMO.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. you will fit in well here.

just define all that unpleasant gun violence out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. You seem to have confused 'regrettable, but necessary' with 'pleasant'...

...perhaps accidentally.

[DemDealer]

53. Bingo.

There is nothing "pleasant" about, say, hypothetically shooting someone holding you at knifepoint. But it is THAT PERSON who has willfully created a situation where your life is threatened. He's forcing the choice on you that only one of you will be walking away alive. A person can not reasonably be expected to offer himself as a sacrifice to criminal violence just to lower the "gun death" statistic by one point and perhaps raise the stabbing statistic.

The criminal knowingly takes an action that makes his own death lawfully necessary, and is rewarded accordingly. If the attacker wins, he goes on to attack others. If the victim wins, the victim goes back to their life and that criminal causes no more harm to others. It's regrettable, but it wasn't the victim's choice to be attacked. By every reasonable expectation, his hand is forced. That's self defense.

[appal_jack]

44. I agree that criminal gun violence is indeed the problem.

I agree that criminal gun violence is indeed the problem. I still would not choose to celebrate successful defensive examples of violence per se, but violence in defense of self and loved ones can often be the least-bad option when someone is attempting criminal harm.

-app

[rdharma]

46. Judging by the number of homicides using guns.......

....... Some gun owners obviously believe in gun violence.

Any more "rhetorical" questions?

[appal_jack]

47. Do you know any murderers here at DU?

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you know any murderers here at DU?

I don't.

rhetorico ad absurdum.



-app

[beevul]

50. It has an interestingly worded SOP to be sure. N/T

[Kolesar]

51. You are a troll

From your post on that thread that you so proudly posted:
Forgive me for disrupting the sonorous harmony of your precious echo-chamber hidey hole, oh "delicate flower," as some on one side of the RKBA debate are particularly fond of saying.

[appal_jack]

52. You clearly have nothing constructive to say.

You clearly have nothing constructive to say, Kolesar. Get back to me when you have something resembling an actual, logically-constructed argument.

-app

[quadrature]

54. lots of gun violence is praiseworthy

robber's career ends

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/21815406/robber

lots more from where that came from