Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA's Twitter account goes silent after CT shooting, Facebook page taken down (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You know (32+ / 0-)

    ... I despise the NRA and I'm not a fan of some RKBA'ers, but I would be totally opposed to banning a group for refusing to make some sort of statement under the threat of being banned.

    That said, anyone pushing idea that it was gun-free zones that made this massacre possible is an effing idiot.

    •  I agree on both. Besides being wrong, why ban a (13+ / 0-)

      group when you can defeat it through argument?

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:24:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo (11+ / 0-)

        And related to this discussion:

        In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.


        •  Blatent tautology. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, rockhound, FrankRose

          The incidents stopped by "a civilian using a gun" don't turn into mass-murders.

          Not to mention the false insinuation that there is an expectation for and armed Citizen to be in place to stop such.

          Poor assumptions, poor methodology, poor conclusions.  GIGO.

          •  I call bullchit (0+ / 0-)

            The argument for mass gun ownership is precisely that pistol-packing civilians will shoot the madman, as Rep. Gohmert appears to be arguing.  At least, that is the argument I get from our local gun enthusiast every time there is an incident such as this.  So, no, the
            "expectation for an armed citizen to be in place to stop such" is not a false insinuation, but the leading argument for expanding the ranks of weapons-bearing private citizens.
            As for the other side of the argument, I have never seen a news story to the effect of "Sammy Psycho opened fire on a crowded mall, only to be shot minutes later by Gary Gunowner."  Until someone shows actual evidence, preferably with a link to a reputable organization, I say both sides are spinning tales out of myth and wish, and there is insufficient evidence on either side of the argument.

          •  Uh huh (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The incidents stopped by "a civilian using a gun" don't turn into mass-murders.
            You're right -- I remember all those times some nutcase with a semi or fully automatic weapon was taken out by a prepared, gun toting John Q. Public. Except, you know, I don't.

            And the only people who make the false insinuation that there is/could be such an expectation are those who argue against gun-free zones, or suggest that if more people were armed (with whatever the hell they want) there would be less gun violence.

            And to everyone else, this is the point where I walk away and ignore the NRA-ites.

    •  We need gun control, Barb (10+ / 0-)

      and RKBA makes it nearly impossible for us to use this site to strategize and organize the movement that could bring gun control back into being in this country.

      I honestly think site management should consider it.  If they play nice, ok.  But if they continue their disruptions, I think they should go.

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:24:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I keep saying it would be possible if people would (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tobendaro, LSmith

        just totally ignore them.  I wonder what the counter move to being ignored is.  Mostly, I would really like to see some of the reasonable gun owners here form an alternative group to NRA.  It's been bandied about and I think it would be a powerful tool.  Education, safety, ethics, morals - they could help in all these areas.

        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

        by Smoh on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:47:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ignoring is great (10+ / 0-)

          But they almost Immediately show up as group, all belong to rbka so it's coordinated, and some of them then spam, troll, flame and goad trying to shut down the discussion. It's a small tiny group,, the same 20 or less names, but that are in every gc diary tryin g to shut and shout it down. Bullies who all say that carry guns who then cry people are mean to them. It's bizarro world.bbut they make ignoring them hard because it's a swarm.

          We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

          by Christin on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:55:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure how (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, oldpunk

        ... people disagreeing with you hinders like-minded people from strategizing and/or organizing. Can you explain that?

        •  Yeah, it's called trolling (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          they show up in any diary that has anything to do with guns and gun control.

          I'm surprised you've never heard of it...

          When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

          by litho on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 09:58:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I'm aware of trolling (sheesh) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shesaid, PavePusher

            What I don't understand is why that keeps people from organizing/strategizing. I have never understood the inability to ignore. Make the counter argument and walk away. Let them argue with themselves.

            •  "Don't feed the trolls" misses so much (0+ / 0-)

              I'll just leave this here. I can't believe I'm hearing that from a progressive, let alone one who works for a influential progressive website.

              Jay Smooth

     ~ @MatthewBorgard

              by zegota on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 10:40:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Because they made the topic so toxic that most (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Barbara Morrill, auron renouille

              people just stayed away.  If you take a look at other gun issue diaries before Friday, you'll find lots of people saying they just didn't comment in them once the RKBA crowd swooped in and started harassing, derailing, distorting, and provoking.  Look at their history of mass-HRing after deliberately provoking too.  

              Remember why one of the more popular posters on the BP Gulf issue GBCWd.

              I think they're failing to recognize that Friday's tragedy has changed everything, and a lot of people who stayed away from these discussions are now standing up and telling them No More.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site