Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun "Enthusiast" In Your Life? Here, Let Me Make It Easier. (UPDATED X2) (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unfortunately, it's YOUR side, (15+ / 0-)

    the gun nuts, who have in a matter of weeks changed me from being completely indifferent to guns to believing that, yes, maybe we SHOULD take your guns. Lecturing people who are alarmed by the swaggering extremisms of gun nuts is not a way to change minds either. You and your ilk have already changed mine radically.

    Jon Husted is a dick.

    by anastasia p on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:41:04 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Woah (3+ / 0-)

      That's a whole lot of assumptions from one comment. Have you past experience with happy camper? I didn't get any of that from the comment; maybe I'm missing something...

      The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

      by lotusmaglite on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:49:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I understand, now. (5+ / 0-)

      allensi pointed me to happy camper's comments, and I see now where you're coming from. I apologize for not doing my homework.

      Having said that, I'm going to go all Obama here and suggest that we engage everyone in the discussion, even if we go it alone in the end and do what's right no matter the disagreement. It's fatiguing, I know, but I'm compelled by my insane code of honor to try...

      The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

      by lotusmaglite on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:28:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice idea, but you really haven't paid attention (11+ / 0-)

        to RKBAers since Sandy Hook. Rather than welcome the chance to expand backrground checks, improve education, expand healthcare including mental healthcare, eliminate racism and misogyny, reduce income inequality or any of the major societal changes they say will reduce gun deaths, they wail and scream about the Automatic Weapons Ban.

        Most discouraging. And while they complain about being called "babykillers", something I haven't and won't do, I am led to wonder why they don't see how people could think that.

        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

        by glorificus on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:28:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right. (4+ / 0-)

          I haven't been paying attention to the RKBA community. I'm sad to hear that has been their reaction. I guess as a member of the RASA (Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment) group, I should expect to be at complete odds with them.

          It's the stubborn optimist in me. My inner optimist is something of a masochist.

          Thank you for the heads up.

          PS It always tickles me when I see you, if for not other reason than your handle, Oh, Most Sweaty-Naughty-Feelings-Causing One ;)

          The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

          by lotusmaglite on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:21:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Call me. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotusmaglite, Beetwasher

            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

            by glorificus on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:04:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The comment to which you replied is utter (12+ / 0-)

            bullshit ... though not a member, I HAVE been paying attention to the wide ranging RKBA responses to both the more moderate views and ugly assaults of many here on DK advocating different degrees of regulation ... from reasonable efforts such as some of PBO's proposals to the  butterflies and unicorns of RASA -- that will most certainly savage the Democratic political majority carefully constructed by PBO.

            Glorificus should absolutely know better than to peddle that nonsense and part of the RKBA replies specifically address the concept of Effectiveness ... which in part requires some degree of technical knowledge, acquiring and analyzing social and crime data, addressing underlying factors behind different types of gun violence AND avoiding what might be seen as a reactionary impulse to white death when minority death abounds in much greater volume and frequency -- daily even.

            •  Having spent much of the last 6 hours (0+ / 0-)

              ...catching up on what's been coming out of RKBA, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. It's not really much different than what was coming out before the reignited dialogue.

              Nor, I'm afraid, do I assign much credibility to statements of which paint the canvas in such broad strokes. "Wide ranging responses to both the more moderate views and ugly assaults" versus "butterflies and unicorns" - yes, I can see where it's all reasonableness and decorum.

              Perhaps if I had one - one - "response" that managed to address pertinent points or establish a proposition rather than attack the other side directly, I might be more inclined to engage.

              In the meantime, "don't listen to that liar" doesn't get very far with me.

              The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

              by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 01:17:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  6 hours catching up? (11+ / 0-)

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                Here ... read this thread for some more "catching up" that includes Happy Camper who was falsely denigrated by Glorificus who should know better, that you apparently ratified for no reason that you have presented and that is absolutely contrary to all evidence I have followed for a quite a bit longer than 6 hours.

                In this thread, there are accusation by someone who "questions the sanity" of anyone who wishes to own a AR-15 type rifle and further equates them to pedophile apologists or the always tiresome fetishist charge that projects on others some silly phallic fixation.

                And by someone who describes the "assault rifle" as as proxy for any rifle for all semi-automatic and automtic rifles --- clearly indicating a profound and willful ignorance on matters that bear directly on about proposed regulations s/he is advocating.

                I have also read Happy Campers recent posts after reading your exhange with Glorificus and they are far more moderate, balanced and informed than the opposing technically ill-informed and semi-hysterical slanderings by persistent violators of site rules on uprate/HRing for mere disagreement.

                But if you disagree ... good for you.  To my mind it doesn't seem to speak well to your credibility or objectivity either.  

                •  Thank you. (9+ / 0-)

                  I'm not going to bother to engage in this now-dead thread, mostly because I'm tired of defending myself against the bullshit. There's no objectivity on this topic any more from many people. If you don't agree 100% with severe restrictions that will have little effect, you are a supporter of "unlimited gun rights" and not worthy of being allowed to post. It's ridiculous.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:19:28 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If I have given the impression (5+ / 0-)

                    ...that I'm attacking you, I apologize. Whatever you may think of the diary I wrote, I hope you will find me receptive of any rational argument. I have made no value judgments about you personally nor the argument(s) you've presented.

                    When I say I can see where glorificus is coming from, I refer to the posting history between the two of you, which is littered with heated exchanges. I did not mean I agreed with one or the other of you in those exchanges, merely that I understand now where each of you were coming from.

                    Having reread your comments in this diary, I can/have respond(ed) to the one argument I find relevant to the subject, which is that "stereotyping, insults, disrespect... these are not ways to change minds, folks." If you'll recall, I did reply, and whatever you may have thought of the reply, I did and still do agree that stereotyping, insults, and disrespect are not useful in persuasion.

                    I respond now to the second comment (the one I'm replying to) by saying it is exceedingly rare that I am dragged down to the level of personal attacks or other such irrelevant nonsense. If, in future, you wish to engage with me on this or some other topic, you may find me occasionally sarcastic, but you will (almost) never find me responding to your arguments by ignoring them in favor of personally attacking you.

                    I say "almost" for two reasons: 1) Never say never, and 2) I am not immune to "losing my cool" from time to time. However, it is a very, very rare thing that I do not later recognize it, acknowledge it, and apologize for it.

                    The point being, as far as I'm concerned, you are always welcome, as are any who wish you argue rationally, and even a little irrationally, as we're all human beings and therefore require a little leeway when it comes to our emotions. As you and I belong to the Groups RKBA and RASA, respectively, I'm sure we will find much disagreement between us, but it is my hope that we can field these disagreements without the unfortunate consequence of acrimony.

                    I am, after all, also a member of Courtesy Kos, which (here at Daily Kos) I consider a higher calling than almost any other Group to which I belong. Obviously, in the real world, the issues take precedence, but on a political blog, courtesy helps get the ideas across. This may sound incongruous with the tone of my diary, but I would argue that the snarky remarks were aimed at a very particular and very deserving minority who do gun owners a great disservice with their extremism (the shining example was James Yeager), and I took pains to point out that some of the "talking points" I mentioned can and have been presented in a more rational manner by reasonable people.

                    As a comedian in real life, part of my job is to provide catharsis to people, and I do so often by taking the most extreme examples (James Yeager and his ilk) and deflating them. This is a little trickier at DK, and the tone and substance of the presentation are widely different than if I were onstage, but catharsis is/was still the primary goal in this diary. (This is why I harped - in the diary and in comments - on the far superior - in terms of actual substance and actual debate - diary xaxnar wrote.)

                    This is also why I repeatedly made the point that the majority of gun owners are not like the James Yeagers of the world, and do not deserve the kind of dismissive scorn inherent in the diary's flippant replies. When the Yeagers of the world enter the conversation, they poison it with their extremism, and we all suffer for it, but none more so than the many, many gun owners who aren't paranoid lunatics. By providing an outlet tailored toward addressing the Yeager-types specifically, it was my intent to defuse some of the hostility the Yeager-types create, thus freeing people to argue more rationally with those who aren't like that. Catharsis.

                    That's the theory, anyway. Whatever else you may think of the diary, the arguments presented, or the efficacy of my attempt, I can at least assure you that there was no attempt to lump the reasonable gun owners in with the Yeagers, on my part.

                    Sorry for the book-length explanation, but I wanted to at least the once fully explain what I trusted kossacks to understand about the subtext of the diary. In the heat of the moment, subtlety goes out the window, and all that.

                    Anyway, whatever the outcome, I hope this finds you well, and I wish you and your loved ones much happiness in the coming year. And all the other ones, too, of course.

                    The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                    by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:34:19 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  happy camper (0+ / 0-)

                  ...is irrelevant, here (sorry, happy camper - I mean that you didn't "make up my mind" one way or another; I neither think you're right nor wrong. I don't mean that you personally are irrelevant).

                  The statement(s) by glorificus I was evaluating was more about the general theme of commentary coming out of RKBA, and I found it not much different than what I've seen in the past. ("Past" being relative, as I went back about through almost year's worth of comments/diaries, nearly to the beginning of RKBA.) I don't particularly care about whatever individual, personal "beef" has cropped up between glorificus and happy camper.

                  Nor do I care how you interpret glorificus' statements, attribute or assign characteristics to them or glorificus the person, and/or any other argumentum ad hominem you wish to make in this case. It simply isn't relevant, as all fallacies aren't relevant.

                  My interest in this case is in the RKBA Group. My being polite or friendly toward either glorificus or happy camper is irrelevant. That is why I spent 6 hours reading a backlog coming out of RKBA, and not looking up the personal history of the two kossacks you've been talking about.

                  See, the disagreement here between you and I is not predicated on argument or evidence, but on relevance. You've yet to present any actual argument, and have instead personally attacked kossacks and Groups. When I say "I disagree", it's the worthless and irrelevant ad hominem statements I'm talking about. When I say I find little credibility in your statements, it's the same.

                  The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                  by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 07:50:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  NO ... I have not attacked anyone (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tom Seaview, PavePusher, gerrilea

                    ... so please read more carefully.  I have defended someone who was used a specifically targeted example with a false and libelous construct, that you ratified and which DOES NOT comport with the actual history of the individual's postings.

                    You now persist in suggesting I am engaging in ad homs ... when if fact what I have written is nothing of the sort -- if one truly understands and correctly applies the term.   Ironically, the better application of the ad hom label would lie with those who simply tarnish and dismiss RKBA and their suporters with an intellectually lazy and dishonest broad brush -- RKGBrs are not the "gun lobby" "NRA shills" 'insane" "pedophile apologists""phallic fetishists" and so on as the semi-hysterical factually disconnected list of calumnies goes on.  

                    And by the way, I recognize Glorificus because of his/her frequent participation in gun diaries -- both RKBA written and not.   Sometimes I rec his/her comments, sometimes I disagree, sometimes I question or elaborate and sometimes I just ignore.  In this case, I chose not to ignore and instead refuted because you ratified a false assertion -- and I did so with reasoned argument.  But if you can't not see my points and argument or this context -- you simply ain't looking too hard, my friend.

                    •  Okay, if you don't know what (0+ / 0-)

                      ...an ad hominem argument is, if we can't even get over that hump, then there's nothing more for us to talk about.

                      The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                      by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 11:41:41 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Please spare me ... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Tom Seaview, PavePusher, gerrilea

                        I know exactly what an ad hominem argument is ... and your patronizing condescension betrays your ostensible "Courtesy Kos" commitment.

                        Since you are the font of knowledge on this, show me where I engaged in an ad hominem attack where I refuted a false assertion that you ratified and with oodles of factual support.

                    •  And just to skip the further protestations... (0+ / 0-)
                      …butterflies and unicorns of RASA…
                      Argumentum ad hominem.
                      …Glorificus who should know better…
                      Argumentum ad hominem.
                      And by someone who describes the "assault rifle" as as proxy for any rifle for all semi-automatic and automtic rifles --- clearly indicating a profound and willful ignorance on matters that bear directly on about proposed regulations s/he is advocating.
                      Repeated argumentum ad hominem.
                      …technically ill-informed and semi-hysterical slanderings by persistent violators of site rules…
                      Argumentum ad hominem.

                      The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                      by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 11:52:10 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ok ... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Tom Seaview, PavePusher

                        You clearly don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

                        That's quite ok ... but to pretend you do is demonstration of foolishness - and surprise ... that ain't an ad hom either.

                        Research it ... it is a simply enough fallacy to understand in less than five minutes.

                        So ... yawn. This well is now dry.

                        •  Yawn, indeed. I've see this before. (0+ / 0-)

                          It's the old, "I know what it is, but do you?" routine, where you clearly have something wrong, insist you have it right, accuse everyone else of having it wrong, and never actually try to explain what you think it is, so no one can point out where you have it wrong.

                          Look, it's okay. It's bad luck; you just happened to wander into the briar patch of someone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to logical fallacies.

                          Here, I'll take five minutes and break down just one of your comments:

                          ... so please read more carefully.
                          Argumentum ad hominem. The suggestion that I did or do not read "carefully" is a direct argument against the person.
                           I have defended someone who was used a specifically targeted example with a false and libelous construct, that you ratified...
                          Petitio principii. You're begging the question, "Did lotusmaglite 'ratify' a 'false and libelous construct'?", providing no evidence to support your claim.
                          ...and which DOES NOT comport with the actual history of the individual's postings.
                          You now persist in suggesting I am engaging in ad homs ... when if fact what I have written is nothing of the sort -- if one truly understands and correctly applies the term.  
                          Argumentum ad ignorantiam, with a little argumentum ad hominem. The assumption that if one doesn't agree with you, then one doesn't understand "correctly" is both an assumption that states the positive and demands proof of the negative, and it's also a direct argument to the person, whomever the person may be.
                          Ironically, the better application of the ad hom label would lie with those who simply tarnish and dismiss RKBA and their suporters with an intellectually lazy and dishonest broad brush -- RKGBrs are not the "gun lobby" "NRA shills" 'insane" "pedophile apologists""phallic fetishists" and so on as the semi-hysterical factually disconnected list of calumnies goes on.
                          Argumentum ad hominem again, with a little dicto simpliciter. Again, the "semi-hysterical" characterization is an argument against the person; in this case, it's applied broadly to to "those" people, a generalization.
                          And by the way, I recognize Glorificus because of his/her frequent participation in gun diaries -- both RKBA written and not.   Sometimes I rec his/her comments, sometimes I disagree, sometimes I question or elaborate and sometimes I just ignore.  In this case, I chose not to ignore and instead refuted because you ratified a false assertion...
                          Petitio principii again. Same as before, begging the question on an assumption (as before "ratification") for which no evidence has been given.
                          ...-- and I did so with reasoned argument.  But if you can't not see my points and argument or this context -- you simply ain't looking too hard, my friend.
                          Argumentum ad hominem again. Same as the first, demanding agreement, or else the other person isn't "looking too hard". Argument against the person.

                          Your comments thus far have been chock-full of fallacies, argumentum ad hominem being the primary among them. And that's okay; almost everyone commits fallacies every day. So you can stop trying to slip it by me; I'm not fooled, it's not working out well for you, and the quicker you give it up, the quicker you can move on from the embarrassment. I certainly won't hold it against you. It's pretty common.

                          The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                          by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 03:55:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Let me cut to the chase ... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tom Seaview, PavePusher, gerrilea

                            Calling you or anyone stupid is not an ad hominen argument.

                            Calling your argument wrong because you are stupid is.

                            The ad hominem fallacy involves the invalidation of the premise on grounds of a personal attack.

                            Nowhere have I done that ... contrary to your pedantic silliness and persistent misunderstanding (yup, not an ad hominem) compounded multi-fold now.

                            I refuted Glorificus demonstrably false attacks against Happy Camper and asserted she should know better ... and if you still believe that is as ad hom then there is nothing any sensible person can say that will persuade you of your error.

                            And it's you who is fooling yourself.  Better luck next time.

                          •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

                            Person1: President Obama is not a very good negotiator.
                            Person2: Of course you say that; you supported Hillary Clinton in 2008.

                            Person2 has just committed an ad hominem attack. Notice there wasn't any name-calling. Ad hominem merely requires that instead of rebutting a person's argument, you argue against the person. In this case, rather than demand evidence of Person1's assertion or attempt to refute P1's claim, Person2 instead sought to discredit P1's argument by attacking P1's credibility. An ad hominem attack need not be insulting; it only has to ignore the person's argument in favor of attacking the the person directly.

                            So let's use another example. Rather than argue against my claim that insinuating a person doesn't read carefully enough if they don't agree with you is an ad hominem argument, you ignored the claim and instead insulted my intelligence. This is another ad hominem argument.

                            It does not require a base formula or template of "You're wrong because you're stupid." You merely have to attack the persona instead of the proposition. Which you have done repeatedly.

                            And denied repeatedly. So I guess the problem isn't that you don't know what it is. I can only suppose that you either can't or won't see it when you do it.

                            Good luck with that.

                            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                            by lotusmaglite on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 04:32:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's try this: segments of a comment. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, gerrilea, lotusmaglite
                            ...RKBAers since Sandy Hook. Rather than welcome the chance to:
                            expand backrground checks,
                            improve education,
                            expand healthcare including mental healthcare,
                            eliminate racism and misogyny,
                            reduce income inequality
                            or any of the major societal changes they say will reduce gun deaths, they wail and scream about the Automatic Weapons Ban.
                            Now this reads as a list of things not advocated by RKBA, until you get to the bold part of the statement.
                            (my use of bold, not in the original)
                            Note the underlined.
                            Obviously a point conceded.  
                            RKBA, here on DKos,
                            has been advocating for social change, not a cosmetic ban on firearms.
                            The danger of DiFi's AWB II is that the substantive issues will not be addressed.
                            We will not address jobs, schools, social services, the war on drugs, gangs, infrastructure, jobs, single-payer health care, mental health care including funding for therapy - not just pharmacotherapy.

                            We'll say:  "At least we banned the guns" and call it a "revenue-neutral" victory.
                            The rest of it is messy, costly, and difficult.

                            The death toll won't go down.  Certain cities will maintain a school-to-prison pipeline.
                            We won't address the changes to the NICS record keeping which would preclude a Cho, Loughner, or Holmes from purchasing a gun.  

                            Why?
                            It's messy, costly and stigmatizing to a segment of the population, who already have tough sledding.

                            But at least we banned the guns.  The cynic in me says the NICS will remain incomplete, as the goal is to ban all of the legal guns in civilian hands.
                            And "not working" is the best method to ensure an AWB III which removes all handguns, IV which removes all rifles, and V which removes all shotguns.
                            It's bi-partisan.  The peasants are disarmed, and the 1% rejoices.  
                            The people are disarmed, and violence, poverty, prejudice, hatred, illness, and misogyny are eliminated by fiat.  
                            The progressive goal, reached.

                            Note too, there's a pre-existing "Automatic Weapons Ban" enacted in 1934, and broadened in 1986, named in another of my comments.

                            Next:

                            Most discouraging. And while they complain about being called "babykillers", something I haven't and won't do, I am led to wonder why they don't see how people could think that.
                            Classic, humorous, first semester law school ruse.
                            A case of character assassination:

                            "Mister Maglite, do you still beat your wife?"
                            No!
                            "So you stopped beating your wife?"
                            No!
                            "Well it can't be both!  No further questions."
                            Objection Your Honor!
                            "Sustained... the jury will disregard."

                            Now the jury just heard, in Mister Maglite's own words that he either ceased, or failed to cease, beating his wife.
                            While it may not pertain to the facts of the case, the seeds of character assassination have been planted in the mind of the jury.  He's not trustworthy.  He's a cad.  He abuses his wife... probably his children and dog too.  
                            The jury will follow the Judges instruction, and disregard that line of questioning.  
                            It doesn't pertain to the facts of the case. However - where the facts of the case are refuted by Mister Maglite, the jury will view that testimony as less-than-truthful.  The seeds of doubt, planted.

                            while they complain about being called "babykillers", something I haven't and won't do
                            Mister Maglite?
                          •  Who said this? (0+ / 0-)
                            ...while they complain about being called "babykillers", something I haven't and won't do...
                            Glorificus.

                            Why exactly am I being asked to explain or defend someone else's statements? The above passage is just another example of argumentum ad hominem, and thus irrelevant to the discussion.

                            I'm looking for a relevant point, here, but I can't seem to find one. The best I could come up with is, "Glorificus is a terrible person; don't you agree", and I have no interest in it. It, again, is irrelevant.

                            If you're trying to make some larger point about gun control, gun rights, my diary, or my comments, could you please reiterate it? I confess I'm at a loss, here.

                            PS My apologies for the tardy response; I've been (and will be over the next day or so) quite busy. I promise to reply as soon as I can to any further comments, and I beg your forbearance on the alacrity with which I fulfill said promise ;)

                            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                            by lotusmaglite on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:52:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Precisely. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lotusmaglite
                            The above passage is just another example of argumentum ad hominem, and thus irrelevant to the discussion.
                            The RKBA community has been accused of using only logical fallacies, and attacks ad hominem, towards all challengers.

                            I find most contrary positions employed against RKBA resort to reductio ad absurdum, and should that fail, the ad hominem character assassination is soon on it's heels.

                            A popular assertion:
                            Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.

                            An example:  Stop for Red traffic lights.

                            Chaos theory: In a power failure, there must be massive traffic accidents, as drivers proceed at the posted speed through the intersection, as all have equal "rights".

                            Observed behavior:  Drivers sort out a random but orderly co-existence, using "fair play" and courtesy.  "Rights" are self-tempered and measured against those of others with "par" being the desired result.

                            Same can be said for my experience in well armed communities.  The chaos theory of massive gun battles never happened.  Perhaps it's another example of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, providing a strong deterrence  for the majority.
                            The outliers, are who we need to address.  Those persons who are see no downside to MAD, as their cognizance, respect, and/or desire, for life is missing.

                            This is why I believe a battle against a design of a firearm, at the expense of meaningful mental health care, is a serious mistake.
                            We as Progressives, can use this moment to build with NRA-mouthed support, a single-payer health care system for mental health; viewed as not possible, not desired, for the past 40 years!

                            NB: your response to my earlier comment, regardless of promptness, is appreciated.

                          •  LOL reductio ad absurdum (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north

                            ...is practically the Daily Kos mascot. At some point, I just had to start filtering it out. I used to respond to ad absurdum with the following ad absurdum example:

                            1. Minorities can't be racist, because it requires a position of power they do not have.
                            2. White people are a minority of the world population.
                            3. The KKK is all-white.
                            4. Therefore, the KKK can't be racist.

                            Unfortunately, mirroring with that little bit didn't win me many friends.

                            Anyway, on to the gist of your comment:
                            There is an element within both the gun control advocates and the RKBA advocates who muddy the waters for everyone. I have seen the people you're talking about, who reject any and all propositions from (for instance) the RKBA Group, respond to RKBA members' comments with pure ad-hom, and turn a deaf "ear" to any rational argument against any gun control measures. It's pretty sad.

                            I've also seen some pretty bad behavior from the other side. As I said, both drag the conversation (even among reasonable people) into the toilet, where a lot of the back-and-forth has been taking place.

                            It also doesn't help that a lot of people have a hard time articulating their arguments in a logical manner. This whole site could use a refresher in the process of logical argument, if the back-and-forth on this issue alone is any evidence. Usually what I see is people who are trying to make a reasonable, legitimate point, but because they don't know how to avoid the pitfalls of fallacies, they end up undermining their own argument and pissing people off.

                            I do agree with and support many of the RKBA Group's oft-made arguments in favor of attacking the roots of violence, crime, and weapon-stockpiling. As you (and others) have said, mental health, economic disparity, education, training, and anti-racist measures are all excellent area to address, as each has wide-ranging implications, not just in the realm of weaponry.

                            Oddly, I mentioned something the other day that you just brought up: in their neverending effort to turn the subject away from guns, it would be possible - perhaps even likely - to gain the support of the NRA for some of these measures. I wouldn't feel super about that particular bedfellow, but if it got a single-payer system or funding for treatment and prevention of (well, take your pick: mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, the list goes on) off the boards, it would be a result much to be desired.

                            One are we probably won't find much agreement on is how to address the problem of the "outliers", as you called them. To begin with, I hope we can agree that most, if not all, of the measures attacking the roots of crime and violence are slow-moving, unpopular with very powerful people, and would require more taxation - an ever-unpopular proposition. In short, we wouldn't see results any time soon.

                            As such, we have a problem of immediacy. It is my contention that in the immediate future, it is probably going to require some sacrifice on the part of responsible gun owners to reduce the harm. This usually brings up an argument about fairness, and to my thinking, sometimes, we just have to be unfair. In fact, I don't really like the concept of "fairness", because it's an unattainable goal. All we've ever been able to manage in the history of humankind, is an effort to be the least unfair to the largest number of people.

                            We are constantly being "unfair" to one group or another because of the actions of a few. The ultimate expression of this has been going on for over a decade now, in the form of a war on practically the entire Middle East. Much death, destruction, and chaos has resulted from an attempt to stop a murderous few. At the other extreme are minor inconveniences like being unable to buy Sudafed without ID.

                            The point is, while it may be unfair to the large majority of responsible gun owners to enact some legislation more restrictive than they deserve, it may be necessary to ask of them a relatively small sacrifice (perhaps even temporary) in order to reduce the harm being done.

                            The caveat there is, it will not do much good if we're not also attacking poverty, mental illness, the dismantling of our educational system, too many people who don't have the proper training to use the weapons they own, and the ubiquitous problem of racism. It would be much like the difficulty facing our law enforcement agencies: we send them out to clean up after crimes are committed, but we don't do anything to prevent crime.

                            If we're not willing to tackle the issue on every level, we don't stand much chance of success. And it would be pretty rude to ask gun owners to sacrifice for the greater good if we're just going to hang them out to dry, refusing to follow through on solutions that would eventually obviate the necessity of sacrifice.

                            That, as I see it, is the dilemma. It's a familiar one to all Americans, because we've all experienced it on some level. For instance, my earlier point that tackling education, mental illness, economic disparity, etc would almost certainly require higher taxes. Now, personally, I would gladly pay those higher taxes if I knew the money was going to real needs of real people. That is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. However, if I am reasonably sure that the money is just going to be diverted into the black-hole-bank-accounts of the already superwealthy, helping no one, then I'm a little more resistant to the idea of sacrificing.

                            I think we all are familiar with that.

                            The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

                            by lotusmaglite on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:06:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  glorificus's comment was not entirely true. (4+ / 0-)

            Please see my response below.

            •  I think you misunderstood me. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              When I said "you're right", I meant about the very next sentence that follows those words. I haven't been paying attention to RKBA lately (I have since made efforts to "catch up"). I didn't say "you're right, they've said all this stuff and it's bad." It would be kind of stupid to have said that since, I'd just admitted I hadn't been reading a lot of the commentary coming from the RKBA Group.

              My apologies if this was not clear.

              The problem with going with your gut as opposed to your head is that the former is so often full of shit. - Randy Chestnut

              by lotusmaglite on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:57:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Automatic Weapons Ban - NFA '34 (7+ / 0-)

          Furthered by the Hughes Amendment, banning any new civilian "transfers" - 1986.

          Now if you're honest glorificus, you'll state what's on your mind:  

          You deliberately call any self-loading firearm, from a magazine, internal or external, an automatic weapon and you do so on-purpose.
          You want them all BANNED.  
          Australia Banned.  
          England Banned.
          Beyond Canada Banned.

          No "semi-auto" as it still has "auto" in the description, so it all has to go.

          Otherwise, why continue to conflate semi-automatic firearms with fully-automatic, illegal for casual purchase, weapons essentially banned from civilian possession since 1934?

        •  Well, my jaw just hit the floor..... (8+ / 0-)

          because that's the stuff we've been advocating all along.

          You are either horribly confused, or being intentionally non-factual.

    •  Irony is that in my first encounter with them (6+ / 0-)

      in 2009 I actually came out to defend them from someone that wanted to ban all guns.  I tried to reason with them and quickly became persona non grata.  I still don't advocate to ban all guns or confiscate or anything like that, but they always accuse me of it. In a way they are doing a great job, much like the NRA, to make it clear to people how "reasonable" they are.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:54:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site