Skip to main content

View Diary: "One Million Moms" vs. a NYT must-read: "Selling a New Generation on Guns" (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't you think your time would be better spent (12+ / 0-)

    (if you do indeed want facts to be in the forefront of this discussion) with other gun advocates, out on the streets or on blogs, where people are perpetuating the myth that regulating certain guns and magazines that are not necessary for hunting or self protection or "sport shooting" will ultimately end in them having ALL of their guns taken away?

    Because we aren't going to take your toys away. We just want you to be responsible and limit yourselves a little bit in the interests of less dead people. I don't think that's too much to ask.

    •  Tipped. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, PavePusher

      Because it is important to be responsible, and it is important to get a hold of the carnage.  And I'm well aware of the danger posed by poor understanding of firearms and legitimate shooters.

      I suggest to you that we can do so without implementing a series of arbitrary restrictions, or depriving young people the opportunity to gain a healthy respect for firearms.  I want fewer Adam Lanzas and more Kaci Cochrans.  What's wrong with that?

      •  I repeat (4+ / 0-)

        No one is going to take all the guns away, or prevent anyone from teaching their children on how to shoot a handgun or rifle responsibly.
        Having organizations that are hellbent on allowing any and every gun/magazine capacity/open carry available to the masses as sponsors/providers of childrens' shooting skills is wrong, not necessary, and ripe for criticism imo. It's a set up used by lots of different causes to accomplish the same goal of recruiting future advocates by "hook".

        •  Never said you were taking away *all* the guns. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

          That would be impractical and you need not repeat yourself on an issue not raised.

          I see your problem is with the particular organizations and firearms involved.  I acknowledge that and accept it, but I also point out I have different interests.  I want to encourage the next generation to safely and responsible exercise their Second Amendment rights, and providing  outlets like shooting competitions is one way to achieve that end.  We'll have to agree to disagree, since we're at the point where our difference boils down to this than personal taste.

          •  sorry (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Smoh, lyvwyr101, FogCityJohn

            my repetition was meant to say that your time fact checking would be better spent with those that expouse that myth than questioning people here, who by and large  imo are a pretty well informed and well intentioned bunch.

            •  The ones who believe that are few. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

              And largely irrelevant.  And more importantly, it doesn't matter since they still obviously have their guns and aren't going to do anything until somebody actually tries to take them away.

              On the other hand, I do feel obligated correct mistakes your side makes, especially since they do bear directly on matters near and dear to my heart.  After all, we are on opposite sides of this issue.

              •  But their voices are louder and nuttier than (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, Smoh, lyvwyr101

                ...the voices of respectful, common-sense gun owners.
                You guys have to speak up too, lest people classify ALL gun owners as being in league with the nuttiest fringe among you.

                Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

                by Icicle68 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:50:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am speaking up. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

                  I resent that I have to, because thinking people should know better than to paint with a broad brush.  I know others who won't precisely for that reason; there's a lot of mistrust, the demagoguery is hardly one sided, and when you get down to it we really are of opposing views on this.

                  •  I understand what you're saying, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, Smoh, lyvwyr101

                    ...but thinking that way won't solve the problem. This is democracy, and those who choose not to be involved in it will not get favorable results by assuming that those who control the levers of power will remember that their group exists.
                    I think it would be quite constructive if responsible gun owners would take a stand for the ground that they hold, and differentiate themselves from the crazies. Otherwise, as I said, the loudest, craziest noises will be drowning out everything else.

                    Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

                    by Icicle68 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:29:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, it is a democracy. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, PavePusher

                      And it can easily go the other way.  And gun owners are considerably more engaged on these issues than others, which is why we've been winning for the past decade.  I'm not here to defend Wayne LaPierre or the NRA to people who are hardwired to hate them, and for my part I'm not impressed the fecklessness of their accuracy, or by the overpriced buffoonery from GOA.  SAF does good work in the courts, but that's about it.

                      That said, I'm also not here to grant quarter to the gun control lobby or budge an inch on the 2A.  Still, this debate raises legitimate issues.  We can't simply say "well, it's not our problem" for the simple reason that it surrenders the stage to people who know a hell of a lot more about despising gun owners than protecting the public from gun violence..  So we have to be proactive, and that's the sort of activism I hope to see blossom on this site.  If we actually achieve something, we'll have the additional benefit of splitting yet another currently natural consistuency for the GOP.

                      •  Hello new user (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bobswern, Burned

                        Since you've only been here a few days, please allow me to offer some gentle advice about DailyKos etiquette.  It is generally not considered good form to attack those with whom you disagree by characterizing them as somehow emotionally disturbed or incapable of rational thought.  Thus, statements such as this are to be avoided:

                        I'm not here to defend Wayne LaPierre or the NRA to people who are hardwired to hate them[.]
                        Most of the people here on DK are not "hardwired to hate" anyone.  We disagree with the NRA's positions on policy grounds, which is why we find LaPierre and his ilk unpersuasive.  Your attempt to cast valid policy disagreements as the result of some kind of unreasoning, emotional response is inappropriate.

                        For similar reasons, the following statement is out of bounds:

                        We can't simply say "well, it's not our problem" for the simple reason that it surrenders the stage to people who know a hell of a lot more about despising gun owners than protecting the public from gun violence..

                        Again, you attempt to frame a policy disagreement as something other than that.  Instead, you claim people who favor gun control simply "despis[e] gun owners."  In addition, you also claim those who favor gun control don't know much about protecting the public from gun violence.  Since you've complained elsewhere about people painting with too broade a brush, you should be able to understand why your comment is uncalled for.

                        I hope you'll take this advice to heart.  Charging that those who disagree with you do so only because they suffer from some kind of emotional disturbance does you no credit personally.  Nor is that kind of argument ad hominem considered persuasive in these parts.  Indeed, it tends to suggest that your susbtantive arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own, so you have to resort to name-calling.  And you wouldn't want to make that kind of first impression, would you?

                        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                        by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:59:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Adam Lanza's (Newtown Shooter's) Mother (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bontemps2012, Debby, lyvwyr101

          decided that teaching her troubled anti-social son to shoot and handle firearms was a good idea.

          I'm surprised that bobswern didn't mention that factoid in his diary - did the New York Times?

          I don't subscribe so I can't see the article.

          •  the link takes you there (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bontemps2012, lyvwyr101

            or it did it for me whereas going to the times itself blocked me.

            I don't think that we can deny all people the right to teach their kids how to handle and shoot "regular" hand guns and rifles safely because Adam Lanza's mother either had no idea her son would end up in the state of mind he did or used extremely bad judgement. There might be some things that could be done through regulation to prevent that sort of tragic mistake. I strongly believe that some of the organizations recruiting kids to advocate for further out of control gun rights and unregulated "freedoms" are NOT the ones to be teaching them.

            •  The proposition above suggests (5+ / 0-)

              that these gun advocates are interested in teaching all children in schools about guns.  I think that Adam Lanza is a perfect argument against that idea.  People wanting to teach their kids as a private, personal family decision is a different question.  However, I do believe that there should be limitations on what kinds of firearms kids would be allowed to have and supervisory regulations.  Let's face it, the frontal lobe (where empathy and a sense of mortality are housed in the brain) is not fully formed until people are in their early 20's.  There are reasons that our society has opted to define adulthood at 18 having to do with both protecting kids and protecting the society.

              Giving a 15 year old an AK-whatever to run wild with is madness.  One need only to look at the history of the civil war in Cambodia where they enlisted teen-agers to fight their war expressly because they were at an age where their conscience and sense of mortality were at a low point in their development.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site