FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!

2/18/2018 12:57:29 PM

controlling the narrative is of utmost importance, yet so many forget that.

want to even have a chance of winning over the “2A crowd”?
* stop calling them gun nuts (even those that really are).
* stop using the term “gun control” - it’s an incredibly loaded term (even though yes, the desire is for more “control”)
* start small, in the name of safety and do it in an informed way (“scary looking guns” bills just make people look stupid to those that know the hardware)

i get it - the mud slings both ways, and i truly think it’s one of the reasons this country sees so much division. we don’t know how to do anything else but hate each other.

2/18/2018 4:32:24 PM

if you're trying to reach out to people who don't prioritize preventing mass casualties, you've already lost.

2/18/2018 4:35:20 PM

^ Yep.

Look, protecting the lives of innocents is more important than protecting the feelings of gun nuts. They can go jump in a lake if they're so goddamn sensitive to being called what they are.

You don't compromise with yourself before you get to the table. This is something that liberals and Democrats still haven't been able to grasp. You make bold demands and you force the other side to compromise. That's how you win political battles. Not through these incremental "reforms" that don't do anything. Otherwise we just keep drifting little by little into this hellscape where children are massacred in their schools, citizens are gunned down by police, minorities and the poor are incarcerated en masse, and people are forced to die because they can't afford access to basic healthcare needs.

You do not "win over" a side that seeks to deprive you of your political power in service of their bosses. You force them to bend to your will. That's how politics work, and only one side currently seems to understand that.

2/18/2018 5:30:22 PM

[Edited on February 18, 2018 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/18/2018 5:30:37 PM

Quote :

"FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!"

True or not it still is a valid point. The plugged in world is not helping the situation. It can inspire kindness, but it can also inspire evil.

2/18/2018 7:11:39 PM

Can we include in Fry's post:
*stop using hyperbole to make your point- it's not constructive, and only furthers the visceral reaction to the opposing side.

2/18/2018 10:07:49 PM

^^ is the US the only plugged in nation in the world?

2/19/2018 12:22:03 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_France

2/19/2018 5:21:55 PM

I'm not sure if that helps the argument you're trying to make. If you're trying to make an argument. In fact, it seems to counter your argument (if you're trying to make the argument that I think you're trying to make).

[Edited on February 19, 2018 at 5:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/19/2018 5:42:43 PM

Fry is right with his first point. Demeaning the other side or trying to write them off as unhinged won't help attract support. I speak from experience, having stopped talking to a some of my less intelligent liberal friends who have made clear that they equate gun ownership with insanity, or at least sworn fealty to the NRA. I am a gun owner. I am on the side of better and generally more restrictive gun laws. But if any of them come up to me with a petition they can go pound sand.

That said, I don't think it matters whether you call it "gun control." Yes, it is a loaded term, and kind of a silly one, when you think about it; but it's not like any other name is going to fool the NRA's public relations people, who will immediately tar the new terminology with the same brush they use on "gun control" (if they acknowledge the pivot at all - their side has superior message control and will just keep calling it whatever they want until everybody goes with that)

I also don't think "starting small" is a good tactic. But "do it in an informed way" is absolutely essential and one thing that Democrats have never done well, at least on a national scale.

Quote :

"Look, protecting the lives of innocents is more important than protecting the feelings of gun nuts."

Fry was saying that doing the latter may help the cause of the former. Protecting the lives of innocents is also, one presumes, more important than propping up your own sense of moral superiority, or just denigrating the opposition. Tens of millions of people in this country are skeptical of gun control, and I think we'd do well to be civil with them. Not just because their votes would help, but because their eventual cooperation with stricter gun control regimes will be essential to making them have any effect.

2/19/2018 10:27:33 PM

Don't do it yall. Don't fall for it. ^ may mean well but there are people out there waiting for you to push some half-assed "solution" so they can wait for the next mass shooting to say, "see, gun control won't stop mass shootings, what we need is to arm more people". Don't let that happen.

2/19/2018 11:38:13 PM

Quote :

"I am a gun owner"

Then the rest of your post is irrelevant. The gun control side is trying to defeat you in this political objective. Not tie. Defeat. You are in the opposing camp, and as such, your desire in the matter directly contradicts any stated aim for those who seek immediate gun control. You even lay out your intentions clearly in your very next sentence.

Here, let me translate:

Quote :

"I am on the side of better and generally more restrictive gun laws"

I'll pay lip service to the notion that children shouldn't be executed when they go to school to avoid looking like a monster. *wink, wink*

Quote :

"But if any of them come up to me with a petition they can go pound sand."

Lololololol, but I ain't gonna do shit about it, lololol. Fuck you, dead kids.


The gun control side will never win over the pro gun side. Trying to do so would be a stupid and pointless endeavor. The objective should not be to engage in civility or "win the debate," because in American politics, "debates" about political ideas are designed to last forever. They're never settled. Continuing the debate in the name of civility only serves to delay action. The American electorate is invited to have an opinion on these issues, but conditioned to never expect a conclusive result. The goal for those who desire gun control should be to start with immediate action, and to hell with the desires of the side that seeks to extend the status quo by demanding civil engagement and a continuation of the debate.

2/20/2018 2:34:04 AM

Quote :

" The gun control side will never win over the pro gun side. The goal for those who desire gun control should be to start with immediate action, and to hell with the desires of the side that seeks to extend the status quo by demanding civil engagement and a continuation of the debate."

ok. sure. congress should vote tomorrow then we all agree to stfu regardless of outcome

2/20/2018 5:35:58 AM

I'm sure you'd be throwing that proposal out there if it was a Democrat led congress, right?

2/20/2018 7:25:01 AM

Why do republicans care if obama let iran have nukes? nukes don't kill people, people kill people. we should think and pray that iran plays nicely.

2/20/2018 7:38:20 AM

Quote :

"Then the rest of your post is irrelevant. The gun control side is trying to defeat you in this political objective."

False. The "gun prohibition" side might be trying to defeat me as an owner, but the gun control side is not.

I made it very clear that I am in favor of "gun control" as it is commonly understood. I am literally on the gun control side. That is in no way mutually exclusive with gun ownership.

Quote :

"The goal for those who desire gun control should be to start with immediate action, and to hell with the desires of the side that seeks to extend the status quo by demanding civil engagement and a continuation of the debate."

Leaving aside the fact that this is essentially an argument in favor of dictatorship over republican government, on the grounds that such ideas are far beyond the scope of the gun control debate...it ignores the fact that all your authoritarian yearnings currently exist in fantasy rather than the real world, where the majority of Americans oppose banning firearms (with which you seem to conflate "gun control"), where both houses of Congress and the Presidency are held by people to whom even more reasonable gun control is anathema. You can't start with immediate action. You don't have the "immediate action" button. If you want your side to get that button, it's going to have to win some elections. And if it wants to win some elections, maybe it should think about not questioning the sanity of half the electorate.

Quote :

"there are people out there waiting for you to push some half-assed "solution" so they can wait for the next mass shooting to say, "see, gun control won't stop mass shootings, what we need is to arm more people". Don't let that happen."

Oh, but this is inevitable. You could outlaw firearms tomorrow and exactly this would happen. Sooner or later, someone with an illegal gun would perpetrate a mass shooting in spite of the ban, and everybody opposed to the ban would burst their lungs screaming "I told you so!" Any time spent worrying about this outcome before taking action is useless hand-wringing.

2/20/2018 7:47:36 AM

Well, at least he took real quotes to translate into hyperbole this time...

Quote :

"nukes don't kill people, people kill people. we should think and pray that iran plays nicely."

I took a nuclear deterrence class in Grad school, and the parallels between that and gun control were certainly evident.

[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 8:25 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2018 8:22:19 AM

It looks like Jesus, at least ITT, is the very person who creates more gun ownership by calling for untenable goals when it comes to gun control.

He's the type that causes some folks to run out and buy a gun because they're afraid that they'll eventually be banned. I'd like to see the stats over the couple of days after the FL shooting. Rather than people being abhorred at the idea of gun ownership, I bet firearm purchases ticked up a bit.

You call for extreme "gun control" and then berate anybody that doesn't agree as unhinged. I too, am a gun owner. I too am in favor of stricter firearm laws. At the very least, I'm in 100% favor of an in-depth interview for anybody who wants to purchase a gun. There should most definitely be a medical records check when making a purchase. Domestic abuse? Even a misdemeanor? Nope, you're out.

Will it keep people from illegally obtaining guns? No. Will it prevent mass shootings? Probably not.

But the only other two options are a comprehensive database of gun owners, and/or an outright ban on the sale of certain firearms. Neither of which will get enough support for legislation to pass.

So Jesus, while you feel like your intentions are the right ones, they aren't doing anybody any good, except maybe making you sleep better at night. You have to find a good midpoint between your lofty goals and reality.

And the only way you're going to keep illegal guns out of the hands that would do people harm is to take them off the streets. Tell me how well you think that would go.

2/20/2018 9:20:15 AM

I do not own a gun, and come down closer to ^'s line of thinking on control. Although I do think a national/state registry is also a good idea.

2/20/2018 10:25:55 AM

If you want a registry, then you need to come up with a better name for it. "Registry" will turn people off.

2/20/2018 10:37:49 AM

consolidated database.

2/20/2018 10:44:11 AM

gun ownership is only a small part of the issue, and more of a reflection of our priorities as a society. if we felt happy, safe, and fulfilled, we wouldn't buy (and use) as many guns to begin with.

[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2018 10:52:25 AM

Quote :

"Although I do think a national/state registry is also a good idea."

We can't even ban bump stocks post-Vegas.

If the idea of a firearms registry was seriously proposed, lol jk I can't even finish this sentence

2/20/2018 11:36:57 AM

its rooted in the need to kill natives and slaves to protect what was stolen and now the motivation is to kill minorities who have been deprived.

This is why you always hear " but those countries are almost entirely white" when you bring up countries with successful gun laws.

2/20/2018 11:47:15 AM

Quote :

"if we felt happy, safe, and fulfilled, we wouldn't buy (and use) as many guns to begin with."

honestly, most gun owners just like to shoot shit. it's not about safety.

2/20/2018 11:52:41 AM

Quote :

"If the idea of a firearms registry was seriously proposed, lol jk I can't even finish this sentence"

Seriously. The conversation has been so poisoned by one side, that this isn't even considered a realistic starting point, even though this would be a necessary first step in order to have comprehensive reform.


Otherwise you'll be left with this:

Quote :

"Even a misdemeanor? Nope, you're out."

Hmmmm......who is this most likely to penalize? Poor people and people of color. People who have excessive policing in their communities. In other words, the very people who are most victimized by the excessive and oppressive forms of governmental abuse -- the very thing that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a check against. Funny how that works.


And then, even on a pragmatic level, this "solution" is proposed knowing full well that it won't do anything in his next sentence, where he states:

Quote :

"Will it keep people from illegally obtaining guns? No. Will it prevent mass shootings? Probably not."

So what are we left with?




And Grumpy, you know damn well I'm not advocating for a full blown authoritarian response to the issue. I'm simply arguing that the gun control side will gain no good will in "negotiating" with your side, so there's no reason to water down our demands.

2/20/2018 11:56:54 AM

The problem with people who use language like yours is that it's actually not clear that you're not calling for full on authoritarian response so it will shutdown any debate before it starts

2/20/2018 12:09:56 PM

Quote :

"honestly, most gun owners just like to shoot shit. it's not about safety."

It def is

http://news.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

2/20/2018 12:09:57 PM

I think some of you have some misconceptions about all gun owners.

Reading social media, it seems like they're all right-wingin' "gun nuts".

But I know quite a few people who these right-wingers would consider "liberals" who own a gun or few, maybe shoot them a couple of times a year, but are in favor of more gun control.

2/20/2018 12:29:28 PM

Quote :

"The problem with people who use language like yours is that it's actually not clear that you're not calling for full on authoritarian response so it will shutdown any debate before it starts"

Again, you're appealing to civility against a side with whom you are in open conflict. Using "soft" language allows the opposing side to extract concessions from you before you even get to the table. There is no "debate" to be had. The opposing side wants the "debate" to continue in perpetuity, because an eternal continuation of the "debate" guarantees inaction, which is their goal. If you want and demand meaningful action against a side you fundamentally disagree with, then that conflict must be confronted and resolved, not debated.



[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2018 12:36:31 PM

so then you are effectively conceding that nothing can be done, we can't change anything.

why is that morally better than their position?

Quote :

" But I know quite a few people who these right-wingers would consider "liberals" who own a gun or few, maybe shoot them a couple of times a year, but are in favor of more gun control."

there are full-on far-left liberals who own guns

[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2018 12:38:27 PM

I mean I'm personally ok with a registry, but I don't necessarily see how that equates to making people safer. It might make tracking easier post-event, but I don't see how that would stem the flow of violent acts like the one done in FL.

I do know one thing though, we won't be able to have an honest conversation about any of this until we kick the NRA out of DC.

2/20/2018 12:44:36 PM

i think the main ways is that it would help to combat straw sales (which reduces illegal guns, which makes things safer) and it would make courts and law enforcement aware that someone owns guns

[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 12:56 PM. Reason : but there is no way it's going to happen, and liberals haven't helped on this issue]

2/20/2018 12:55:47 PM

Quote :

"so then you are effectively conceding that nothing can be done, we can't change anything?"

I'm not conceding that nothing can be done. I'm saying that engaging with a side that opposes action is a fool's errand. They oppose you. They don't want what you want.

If what we want is a registry, then that is what we should demand. If what we want is a ban on future sales, then that is what we should demand. We set the terms, not them

If the healthcare issue has taught us anything, it is that we should not let a side that is in direct opposition to our goals to hijack and control the boundaries of negotiation.

2/20/2018 1:03:27 PM

but they exist, they aren't going anywhere, so if you aren't okay with dealing with them you are saying the status quo is okay

which is morally equivalent to them

2/20/2018 1:10:58 PM

Apply that logic to literally any other left position

2/20/2018 1:13:16 PM

the left deals with the other side

2/20/2018 1:16:39 PM

Yeah, that's worked out well, hasn't it? That's why we have single payer healthcare and free college education and don't have a bloated and military and surveillance......wait a minute I'm getting am update.


You're making an appeal to incrementalism.

2/20/2018 1:20:33 PM

better than saying that you're above working with them and nothing happening, yeah

tell me how the left can do this on their own (and keep in mind that your position isn't even shared among democrats)



[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2018 1:23:14 PM

Shrike, is that you?

2/20/2018 1:28:46 PM

https://twitter.com/ajentleson/status/964358200651755520

Fairly interesting tweet from an ex Reid staffer in light of the conversation here. Not conventional Dem thinking though.

2/20/2018 1:58:56 PM

^^ the point of calling on your party to hold to values is to not compromise in a way that goes against those values, not for them to not participate at all

you're saying it's better to just not go to the table



[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2018 2:23:49 PM

huh?

I'm saying to make demands. Be explicit. Not to operate in useless vagaries like "acceptable compromises within our shared value system"

2/20/2018 2:30:34 PM

earlier you wouldn't even hear someone else because you didn't like your language, now you are saying you should hear them just don't use vague phrases when presenting your solution?

if your bold phrase is "no guns, conversation over" that is the same as doing nothing

[Edited on February 20, 2018 at 2:33 PM. Reason : morally corrupt and pointless]

2/20/2018 2:33:00 PM

I'm sure JesusH is a smart man. Which is why I find his stance here baffling.

But it's a trope among conservatives, a stereotype if you will, that hardcore liberals do not carry much common sense, that they don't live in the real world.

I typically don't believe that, but JesusH isn't helping that stereotype any.

You can't just have a "no guns" policy and expect reasonable people to listen, and you especially can't expect the unreasonable, far right to listen. It's almost like you want people to say no, so you can go back to the echo chamber and be like "I tried...I tried but they're so staunch in their god and guns that they won't listen"

2/20/2018 2:45:19 PM

JHC comes across as someone who would be content with millions of gun owners being killed because then those gun owners couldn't kill other people.

2/20/2018 3:58:14 PM

Quote :

" It's almost like you want people to say no, so you can go back to the echo chamber and be like "I tried...I tried but they're so staunch in their god and guns that they won't listen""

I was thinking that too...

2/20/2018 4:00:00 PM

TreeTwista comes across as someone who would be content with millions of unarmed people being killed because then gun owners could keep their guns.

2/20/2018 4:00:07 PM

set em up

2/20/2018 4:05:40 PM