Skip to main content

I did not mean to stir up such a firestorm with the first post, so let's try it with a little more clarification and nuance.

I am getting on in years, but though I am a reasonably intelligent individual with a good education and a lot of experience, there are still plenty of things I am woefully uninformed about. I usually but do not always have the sense to keep my mouth shut on these issues. This would separate me from:

• celibate old men who make authoritative pronouncements on the evils of abortion
• privileged whites of either gender making authoritative prounouncements on lazy minorities
• Kossacks who have never touched a gun making authoritative pronouncements on guns and/or gun laws

Now, all of the above may make their statements from a position of sincerity, but sincerity does not make them any more informed or qualified to speak on the issue in question. It is easy enough to be sincerely wrong. So, on the assumption that Daily Kos readers and diarists do have the courage to stand up and be counted for their beliefs, a simple poll.

But first: Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but that does not mean you have any experience to speak authoritatively on the issue. I have strong opinions on nuclear disarmament, but I do not think I am qualified to sit at the negotiating table or advise the President. Because it is just my opinion. In the wake of Newtown (and elsewhere), parents can be concerned for their children and have strong opinions on guns, but these are not necessarily informed opinions. Since forty percent of Democratic households have guns, an awful lot of liberal/progressive parents may have a different opinion or degree of opinion on guns than those households without guns.

Similarly, if you or someone you know has been the victim of gun violence, you almost certainly have a strong opinion on the issue, but that does not mean it is an informed opinion.

So, to rephrase the poll choices:

1) I have posted, commented on or rec'd blanket pronouncements on issues of guns, gun owners or gun control, but I have done so from a position of opinion or gut feeling rather than any first-hand knowledge or research on that particular aspect of the issue. For instance, speaking up on what specific bits or types or features of guns should be banned without actually knowing what you are talking about. I do not know the technical details of different types of nukes, so even if I dislike nukes, I keep my mouth shut when other people talk about these details. If you have been or know a victim of gun violence, you would be in this category if the events gave you a perfectly justifiable strong opinion, but one which you never followed up on by educating yourself on the various issues. There are a few RKBA diaries at Kos devoted just to educating the non-gun owner about guns. Have you read any of them?

2) I have posted, commented on or rec'd on blanket pronouncements on issues of guns, gun owners or gun control, but I have done so from a position of first-hand knowledge or research on the issue. You do not necessarily own a gun or have owned a gun or used a gun, but the latter is pretty useful to be considered informed. For instance, I doubt Rachel Maddow owns any guns, but she has gone to gun ranges and shot them. That puts her a step ahead in "being informed" over everyone who has absolutely no experience with them. Being in a war zone and having to wear body armor for her own safety, likewise. Take the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence. Presumably they have done some research after the injuries Jim Brady sustained during the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. They have a strong opinion, and they try to back it with hard data rather than just having a strong opinion all by itself. Is this the category you fall into?

3) I have kept my mouth shut and fingers off the keyboard when I have only an opinion I have not done any research on.

Let's see if I can offend fewer people and get a better selection of responses. It was commented in the previous (deleted) diary that I am implying that there is a single class of people qualified to express their opinions on this subject. Yes, I am implying that, at least for blanket statements and specific details, for this and any other subject. Despite what some may think, the purpose of the diary and the poll is not to make people angry that I am saying they shout out things they cannot support with anything other than gut feelings. People do that.

I am just trying to see what fraction of people are doing it on this issue, which is a relevant question, regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

Tags

Poll

When it comes to blanket statements about guns

6%2 votes
37%11 votes
55%16 votes

| 29 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Since I'm the only vote I guess you know my (9+ / 0-)

    thoughts ;-)

    I first ran up against your idea when I posted anti gun comments on the DK RKBA thread. After doing so I realized that though I own and shoot guns regularly, I do so for an entirely different reason than some of the regulars over there. My firearms are almost always unloaded. Useless for defense. I don't call them weapons.

    I primarily hunt. I keep no firearms for self defense and had never really considered it. I don't live in a high crime area, quite the opposite, and maybe more to the point I'd weighed the complications and responsibilities of having a handgun or carrying one for self defense and decided it wasn't for me. I did however realize that my outlook wasn't the only one, and that the viewpoint of others might be much more relevant to their situation.

    Now I restrict myself to making jokes about every gun needing to have walnut, and am generally supportive of people making their own choices regarding the issue. I've read more and am happy to see firearm homicide on the decline.

    I've read on the Constitutional reasons for 2A and was frankly surprised at the protection from government part.

    Always possible to learn more.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:14:11 AM PST

    •  I think it would (7+ / 0-)

      be useful to turn the question around and ask you to tell us what knowledge in particular do you find that people who comment tend to lack. In my experience gun people seem to invest a lot of importance in arcana that is of only tangential relevence, for instance, wanting to disqualify from debate participation anyone who doesn't know what exactly distinguishes a magazine from a clip. (Not saying you do, only saying this is an attitude that is encountered often.)

      Many years ago in the army I qualified with an M16(I think that was the designation but if not I think most people would not be particularly concerned if it was an M15 unless they were gun sticklers), a 45 pistol, handgun or whatever the proper term is and a carbine. I also had occasion to fire (not in anger) a pedestal mounted machine gun. As I said it was many years ago and I don't remember a lot about the terminology, except to say that the sargeants in basic training frowned on people calling their rifle a gun instead of a weapon* (again obsessive focus on arcana that would matter only to a stickler).

      Anyway I don't think my hands on experience would make me any more qualified to hold an opinion on the societal value of gun rights and controls. The underlying facts are pretty straight forward and one does not need to know the ignition temperature non-sulphur based gunpowder in order to appreciate the societal impact of a rapid firing, easily reloadable weapon whether it is naively called an automatic rifle, an assault weapon, a semi-automatic weapon or a machine gun.

      *Any recruit who made the mistake of calling it a gun had to suffer the indignity of parading around the barracks area with his rifle held aloft, grabbing his crotch and saying in a loud voice "This is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for fighting, the other's for fun".

      The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

      by Pirogue on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:48:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry Ban Nock (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brahman Colorado, ER Doc

        I posted this as a reply to your comment by mistake. It was meant to be addressed to the original diary. I will repost it as such. Wish we could take mistakes down, but alas.

        The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

        by Pirogue on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:49:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some specifics (7+ / 0-)

        Pirogue, there are people here at DKos who have wanted to outright ban the RKBA group, people who want to ban all new gun sales, confiscate all guns, or have specific ideas on guns based on very minimal knowledge of guns. I think there was a recent post saying all rifles should only be allowed a three-round internal magazine because that is all a hunter should ever need. Did that poster bother to ask any hunters before saying that? If not, they are someone who, if they read this diary, should be honest enough to answer the poll as item 1. Personally, if I need more than one shot I should not have taken the shot in the first place, but if I lived in Alaska and had to deal with polar bears, I might be a lot happier with more shots or more muzzle energy than I use here in the lower 48.

        There is no one specific item of knowledge nor ownership of any particular gun that makes one qualified to speak with credibility on the issue. It is a matter of attitude, of wanting to know, regardless of whether or not knowing changes your beliefs on the issue. Do you, the reader, want to speak with the same knowledge on this issue as Todd Akin has when he speaks about abortion?

        If not, then please do not get bent out of shape when I imply that you should work to educate yourself on the issue before speaking out on it.

        •  I re-edited a book on firearms and archery that (8+ / 0-)

          dealt with the knowledge of a very specific item that dealt with the mental mechanics of operating firearms. The FBI, police departments, professional competitors and of course joe blows throughout the world bought the book. The FBI would buy 200 every year for training their new recruits.     ( It was exciting at $19.95 each to get an order every year from the FBI for 4K). They are part of the elite of the elite, so I was honored to have edited the book at the time.

          The author had never shot a firearm is his life.

          The premise was simple. If you own a gun, you should imagine yourself consciously through pre-thinking every split second scenario of thinking, visualization and practice of achieving your goal of markmanship.The section on taking a life was sobering to say the least.

          I do not own guns anymore. I have been considering a rifle for my ranch in southern Colorado because I enjoy elk, pheasant, duck, turkey and deer as I also am a great wild game cook. I have had way to many unfortunate experiences around hunters though and that is why I do not hunt anymore. I'm scared of hunters. ( they don't get a free pass either IMHO)

          Stricter hunter safety and comprehensive firearms certification is the answer to gun control.

          After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

          by Brahman Colorado on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:41:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think it is unfair (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, poco

          for you to characterize anyone as taking the position that they should be arguing from ingnorance. To the contrary, I think the more information the better, but I do not need a degree in animal husbandry to have an opinion about the morality of factory farming. That would be my point.

          As a matter of fact my ideal gun law would be one that was pretty close to the one you decry. I might be happy to allow a few more bullets (rounds, cartriges?) in the internal magazine for semi-automatic firing, but once that is expended hand reloading of each individual round would be necessary. (With such a firearm a perp would not be able to continuiously reload large capacity magazines in a matter of seconds and the damage would be much more easily contained.) Now I am sure that any number of hunters would find that inconvenient, but I myself have read in serveral places since the Sandy Hook tragedy where hunters have said that this would be adequate for the hunting experience.  But my chief concern is the protection of innocent lives, especially children in urban settings who find themselves caught in firefights or children otherwise in the crosshairs of a lunatic shooter. If the recreational satisfaction of hunters is compromised to some degree, so be it. Now what I have given is a broad outline of what I consider ideal. I could well be that exceptions need to be made for those who will be going against polar bears and such. That can be discussed with whatever other exception need to be worked out.  But what my question was intended to find out is what particular knowledge do you suspect I lack that disqualifies me from espousing such an opinion on the broad countours of a gun policy. Of course I am not an expert and would be open to hearing reasons why this plan is flawed, but until I hear counter arguments I don't think it is rash of me to adopt this opinion.

          The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

          by Pirogue on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:34:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Your logic in this diary is just as flawed as your (21+ / 0-)

    previous post, and your framing is just as insulting. Having touched a gun, or a million guns, conveys no special insight or expertise regarding national gun policy. By the same token, not having touched a gun does not invalidate one's opinion. By your standard, Wayne LaPierre is authoritative on the subject of gun control, while most others are not. This is some deeply flawed logic.

    •  Really? (3+ / 0-)

      Don't comments like yours seem to imply that the Pope is just as qualified to make pronouncements on abortion as Planned Parenthood is?

      After all, if experience and/or ownership does not improve one's qualifications to speak on the issue over someone who has neither, then celibate old men with no experience (or ownership of equipment to be have experience with), would be just as qualified to speak on women's issues as anyone else. Or was that point not clear in the opening paragraph of the diary?

      If I put up a poll item saying "being blind or knowing a million blind people conveys no special insight or expertise in crafting national policies for the blind", I doubt I would get anyone to agree with it, yet when rephrased with the word "guns", you consider it perfectly logical.

      If you were to ask me if I thought Wayne LaPierre has his head up his ass, I would say yes. That's an opinion. Yeah, it's sort of a blanket statement, but I am not demanding a specific course of action from anyone because of it. But if you asked me if I thought he should be committed to an asylum somewhere? That is a specific issue and action. I would not have sufficient information to answer that question and thus would not be able to intelligently comment on the issue.

      That's what the poll is about.

      •  Owning a gun has nothing to do with national (15+ / 0-)

        gun policy. Nothing. And what your poll is about, in my opinion, is passive-aggressively calling anyone who has an opinion on national gun policy, and who is not themselves a gun enthusiast, ignorant SOBs. That's what you poll is really about.

        •  That is your opinion (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper, PavePusher, kestrel9000

          And my diary is there for anyone to read. If you care to quote the parts that show where I say you have to be a gun enthusiast to make informed arguments about national gun policy, then it will cease to be your opinion and will become your argument.

        •  Disagree. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't want gun policy set by someone who doesn't know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, a clip and a magazine, and an assault rifle and an assault weapon.

          •  so as a pedestrian I don't get a say in (6+ / 0-)

            how fast people drive down my street..??

            who gets to sit at the table..??..I used to work at a gun range and own guns...but no longer do...can I send an email to my congressperson with my opinion..??..should it just be ignored..??

            what about victims of gun violence...the ER doctors that deal with the carnage...do they get a voice..??

            I hope the politicians listen to a wide range of voices...and make an honest effort to create a reasonable gun policy.


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:43:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I want to make sure (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              gun owners are not excluded from the discussion. Which, based on postings I've sen on Daily Kos, some seem eager to do.

              •  If gun owners want to be involved in writing (4+ / 0-)

                reasonable gun control legislation, they have to get away from refusing to allow any reasonable gun control legislation.
                And I would suggest that legitimate gun owners have nothing to fear from registration of firearms and licensing of firearms owners.
                But so far, very few gun owners are stepping up. When they DO speak up, it's stuff like this diary which basically tries to tell the non-gun-owners that we have no standing to regulate guns.
                I keep hearing about the "responsible gun owners" and I've met a few of them, but I have also met a large number of irresponsible gun owners, people I wouldn't trust with a butterknife, let alone an AK. I lived in a building in LA that became a crack house, over run by three distinct waves of gangsters. Not one of those guys would have been so tough if not for the firearms.
                I live now in a different gun culture and some of those vaunted, responsible hunters are slobs about their guns, fully loaded, hanging in the back window of their pickup truck, unlocked in the shopping center parking lot, loaded guns where their kids can reach them, "Empty" guns that "go off" "by themselves", dipsh!t playing quick-draw-McGraw, blew a hole on his leg, a bachelor party here went really bad a few years back.... These people have so much familiarity with the subject that they are dangerous to themselves and anyone that gets near them.
                Oh, did I mention that alcohol is a major component of gun culture around here?
                Where are the responsible gun owners policing their own?
                NO WHERE!
                It's a free for all.
                Not your responsibility, right?
                Well if y'all don't step up, someone else will.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:35:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gun owners have EVERYTHING to fear ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, kestrel9000

                  from registration.  They know that one day the stars could align such that the powers that be will deem all guns be confiscated.  It's happened many times in history, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.  

                  The flip side of the coin is that yes, registration could help implicate criminals.  It already does, in some cases.  

                  What is the happy medium?  There doesn't appear to be one.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:02:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  considering that the conservative estimate (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cama2008, poco, Glen The Plumber

                    is 88 guns per 100 people in this country, just from a logistical standpoint, the idea that anyone is going to "confiscate the guns" is pure fantasy.
                    There is no possible alignment of the stars that will change that and whoever has you thinking that way is conning you.
                    The only people who have reason to fear registration and licensing are people that want to avoid responsibility for their bullets.
                    And in the process, they enable the criminal class.

                    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                    by CwV on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:27:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But don't you know there was once (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco, Glen The Plumber

                      A weird traffic law in one state a long time ago so all traffic laws are bad?  And also at some point in the past guns were confiscated so it means that it will definitely happen again, the stars know more than we do, we have to shut up and watch the stars, there's just nothing else to be done here.

                    •  There are MANY here at Dkos, ... (0+ / 0-)

                      and elsewhere in the country, who would LOVE to see ALL guns confiscated ... from the citizenry, the police, the military and any other group I'm forgetting to include.  I'm not saying such an effort would even be remotely successful, but many would surely love to try.  And they wouldn't hesitate to jail anyone they thought was withholding, while they were at it.

                      Someone ought to post a poll on that question.

                      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                      by Neuroptimalian on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 06:53:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •   wait wait wait (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Melanie in IA, Glen The Plumber

                    According to Shamash, you're not an expert in this area, were your own guns confiscated?  Or are you just getting your data about the consequences by reading about it?  Because, you know, not good enough.  And, can you tell us, from what university did you acquire your astrology degree?

                •  Just like companies are expected to self regulate (4+ / 0-)

                  Please step up and do it already.

                  But Shamash is trying to shut down every avenue and conversation, can't register, can't tax the gun manufacturers, if you don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, well then you can't talk about ammunition either.  Very clever, seems like they're hard at work here making sure nothing changes and they want their seat at the table to make sure of that.

                •  Becoming informed (0+ / 0-)

                  CwV, for your own edification, look over say the past century of federal gun law. With exception of the expiration of the Clinton Assault Weapon ban, what reduction in federal oversight has there been?

                  Things your grandfather or great-grandfather could have bought through the mail with cash (like dynamite and Tommy Guns) are now so restricted as to be inaccessible to the average person. For instance, the holder of a Class 3 license (fully automatic weapons) pretty much gives up the 4th amendment. The government can enter that person's house or wherever the weapon is listed as stored without a warrant or prior notice, just to make sure the weapon is there and properly secured. Can you think of any other issue for which you as a liberal say "No knock warrantless searches for the home or buisness of someone not even accused of a crime? Great idea!"

                  Gun laws have generally tightened, not loosened. You and many others may think this is a good thing. But this is a case where terminology and language does matter.

                  If you are asking gun owners to compromise on the issue, then compromise implies that you in turn are giving up ground on the issue somewhere, offering a relaxation in one aspect of regulation or law in exchange for a tightening elsewhere.

                  Demanding that gun owners (47% of US households) give up something in exchange for a unenforceable promise that you won't make them give up more later is, ethically speaking, no better than the Republicans demanding Obama give them a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for the nebuous promise that they will not hold the economy hostage later.

                  That is not the language or tactics of compromise, it is the language and tactics of demand and capitulation. I think that especially among conservatives, it generates a kickback of equal stubbornness. If there was a history of actual compromise on the issue, adoption of measures that respected privacy and individual rights while improving public safety, then gun owners of any political persuasion would probably be less inclined to think that every new law or regulation was something they should be worried about.

                  •  I am not demanding anything (0+ / 0-)

                    and I don't appreciate being yelled at by a fanatic that's looking for a fight.
                    Do you act this way when you don't have a gun in your pocket?
                    Is this why you feel so threatened that you must be armed? Because you try to browbeat people that don't agree with you?
                    Because this is the kind of behavior that gets people beat up in the bars around my neck of the woods. Don't be a dick.
                    Anyway, thanks for the demonstration of why RBKA is SOOO popular at DKos, keep it up, maybe you can make it unanimous.

                    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                    by CwV on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 05:52:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Traffic laws (0+ / 0-)

              Since you brough the subject up, I think the oft-quoted law from the early auto era in Pennsylvania is relevant:

              “any motorist driving along a country road at night must stop every mile and send up a rocket signal, wait 10 minutes for the road to be cleared of livestock, and continue.”

              Glen, do you think this law was made by people who were well-informed about cars? How do think people who were well-informed about cars felt about it?

          •  And I don't care (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            whether you want it or not. You don't get to decide.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:50:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  If the policy debate were about (10+ / 0-)

        how to carry and store a gun safely, you would have more of a point, but even then other people affected have plenty to add.

        But to state that lack of expertise about guns means that one's opinions about whether the country should be drowning in a sea of them is patently absurd. It's emotion substituting for logic.

        A definition is the enclosing of a wilderness of ideas within a wall of words -- Samuel Butler

        by A Mad Mad World on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:58:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The pope isn't wrong *because he's a (6+ / 0-)

        celibate old man. His being a celibate old (white) man -- on top of the teachings of his church -- lead him to ignore the experiences (and wisdoms) of those who aren't like him.

        •  What on earth does the Pope's skin color ... (0+ / 0-)

          have to do with anything?  Are there no priests and ministers of other colors (or other genders, other ages, other sexual commitments) who share the same opinion?

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:06:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  National policies for the blind (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        and gun control are not equivalent issues.

        Gun control laws aren't enacted to benefit gun owners but for the protection of everyone from gun violence. My interest in it is that I and my loved ones and community are potential victims. That interest is in no way lessened by not being a gun owner.

        Besides which, I AM entitled to have an opinion on policies benefiting blind people. I have opinions on countless things about which I have no direct experience. War. Agricultural subsidies. Police brutality. Genetically engineered fish. Right-to-work laws. Sports doping. Medical malpractice.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 02:49:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  People here are not illiterate (0+ / 0-)

          or they would not be able to post. Did I ever say you are not entitled to your opinion? If so, please show me. What I have said (repeatedly) is that people who actually look into the facts on an issue likely have a more useful opinion on the subject than people who do not. That people with life experience on a topic probably know a little bit more about it than people who do not.

          Is that so hard to accept or understand? Is it really that controversial of a stance?

          Gun owners are not immune to gun violence. I believe they may in fact are more likely to be victims of it. Which would make them have a bigger stake in the issue than non-owners.

          They're more affected by the issue than you, and they have more experience with the issue. Have you ever considered it from that viewpoint, that people who own guns will benefit more from improving laws and regulations? You can't even say they're all idiots who do not know any better, because forty percent of those households that will benefit more than yours are Democratic.

          I have opinions on everything that you listed, denise. But I don't think I have gone around making specific policy recommendations on any of them without a lot of prep work. Otherwise I might say something superficial, broad and painfully stupid, like "Medical malpractice? Let's ban doctors!". Yes, that's reducing it to the absurd, but important issues require more than knee-jerk responses if you expect to make good policy.

          So yes, do you have an opinion on guns? Is it an informed opinion based on some thought and looking up the answers to things you did not know on the subject? If so, let's hear it. Even if I do not agree with it, the discussion could be useful to both of us and bring us or other people closer together on the issue.

          If your opinion does not have these qualties, then exactly how is it supposed to be useful?

        •  PS to denise (0+ / 0-)

          denise, gotta run and do all the Christmas Eve stuff, and tomorrow, Christmas. But the offer stands. I will happily engage in a solid discussion of any aspect of gun control you want via messaging. Maybe we'll both learn something.

          •  I have absolutely zero interest (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, cama2008

            in guns and would not spend time learning anything about them. When there are specific gun control proposals being considered I will read and form an opinion about them.

            I have no interest in cars as such either and know little about them, but I don't believe that has any bearing on my opinion that cars should have emissions controls, be registered and be driven only by licensed drivers who are required to obey the rules of the road.

            If you wanted to debate specifics of gun control, why didn't you open that up for discussion? As far as I can see, this diary is not about gun control at all, it's about you telling us that we all need to know more about guns.

            Well, no. I'm not going to learn more about guns. It's your right to think that makes my opinion on gun control worthless. It's my right not to care if you think that. So there we are. Little left to talk about.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 05:51:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  When was the last time (0+ / 0-)

      you touched a gun?

  •  How about a poll choice (12+ / 0-)

    "I create polls from less sophistication of polling nuance than I should have"?

    Perhaps the reframing of the oversimplistic choices in this second iteration of your poll are a little better than the first, but they still don't even begin to do justice to an incredibly complex topic.

    It's just my somewhat informed opinion, of course, having read both diaries and the comments, that you appear to be proposing that folks shouldn't express their opinions unless they meet your rather arbitrary notions of being qualified to express them.

    Well, that's just your opinion.

    Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Monkeys kill people too, if they have guns.

    by DaNang65 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:28:59 AM PST

  •  I think it would (9+ / 0-)

    be useful to turn the question around and ask you to tell us what knowledge in particular do you find that people who comment tend to lack. In my experience gun people seem to invest a lot of importance in arcana that is of only tangential relevence, for instance, wanting to disqualify from debate participation anyone who doesn't know what exactly distinguishes a magazine from a clip. (Not saying you do, only saying this is an attitude that is encountered often.)

    Many years ago in the army I qualified with an M16(I think that was the designation but if not I think most people would not be particularly concerned if it was an M15 unless they were gun sticklers), a 45 pistol, handgun or whatever the proper term is and a carbine. I also had occasion to fire (not in anger) a pedestal mounted machine gun. As I said it was many years ago and I don't remember a lot about the terminology, except to say that the sargeants in basic training frowned on people calling their rifle a gun instead of a weapon* (again obsessive focus on arcana that would matter only to a stickler).

    Anyway I don't think my hands on experience would make me any more qualified to hold an opinion on the societal value of gun rights and controls. The underlying facts are pretty straight forward and one does not need to know the ignition temperature non-sulphur based gunpowder in order to appreciate the societal impact of a rapid firing, easily reloadable weapon whether it is naively called an automatic rifle, an assault weapon, a semi-automatic weapon or a machine gun.

    *Any recruit who made the mistake of calling it a gun had to suffer the indignity of parading around the barracks area with his rifle held aloft, grabbing his crotch and saying in a loud voice "This is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for fighting, the other's for fun".

    The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

    by Pirogue on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 08:50:24 AM PST

  •  I've never touched a gun in my life (8+ / 0-)

    But my teenage daughter has experience on a rifle range.  Pretty good shot, too, and something she really enjoys.

    I've learned just recently that the NRA doesn't speak for or represent most gun owners, and that there was another shooting today, so far.  It's still early.

    So... Who else is an ignorant SOB?

  •  I understand nuclear weapons very well. (31+ / 0-)

    I'm quite sure that if I were asked to do so - and I haven't been so asked - I could do a pretty credible job designing one or participating in the building of one or more.

    The fact that I do does not entitle me to reject objections to those who do not understand them on the same level that I do.

    Your argument, which is very weak indeed, would seem to imply that the only people who are qualified to make judgments about nuclear weapons are people who have either tested them, managed them, constructed them, etc.

    The argument is ridiculous on its face.

    Obviously if one has a nuclear weapon, one starts with a presumption that they are OK to either construct, test or own.

    Thus the subset excludes the vast majority of humanity whose interest in the existence of nuclear weapons involves their very survival.

    If we extend the gun analogy that you have made, we would possibly rule that Adam Lanza, who was definitely more familiar with guns than I am, since I have lived a long and exciting life without ever owning one, was more qualified to discuss gun laws than I am.

    Frankly, Adam Lanza was a violent murderous nut.   He was not more qualified than I am to discuss guns.

    Again frankly, I am personally very suspicious of people who feel that they need guns for whatever it is they claim to need it for.

    If the issue is some silly abstraction about "protection" - I would note that Nancy Lanza wasn't very well protected by her gun obsession.   Arguably it killed her.

    As for the issue about the American Revolution, there were a lot of issues in those times that no longer have standing in civilized society.   As Thurgood Marshall used to point out, the "original intent" of the constitution was that he would be a slave rather than a justice on the Supreme Court.

    There is nothing sacred about the second amendment.  It wasn't handed down by God to Moses, or Buddha, or Jesus, or Mohammed.   It was, in fact, written by the same people who declared African Americans to be "3/5 of a person."   The amendment has been so spectacularly misconstrued by people who clearly can't think very well, that our country would be better off were it repealed.

  •  I assume, since this isn't a diary about guns (7+ / 0-)

    That you have a degree in philosophy or education, or you have published papers on formal logic or rhetoric.
    Otherwise, what the hell are you dong writing a diary on such subjects?

    •  Well put (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      But if one can claim an on its face validiation to comment by dint of personal or close gun violence, then merely being close to educators or philosphers would give me a validation for my argument, would it not?

      But if the personal or close gun violence does not grant such validation, then you are agreeing with my argument.

      So, your statement is either validating my argument, or by invalidating it, accepting the premise of the argument.

      And yes, I do have some formal training in rhetoric...

  •  Again, how does declining to own firearms (12+ / 0-)

    invalidate one's opinions on gun policy?

    Does an ER doctor who owns no guns get a say? She's the one who has to clean up the mess, after all. How about the taxpayers and insured persons who pay her?

    I don't eat pork. Should I be forced to sit by silently should my neighbors decide to keep pigs in the middle of my street?

    Some friendly advice: quit while you're behind.

    Pardon our dust. Sig line under renovation.

    by Crashing Vor on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:12:57 AM PST

    •  Never said it did (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      invalidate one's opinions on gun policy. I do think and can reasonably argue that it makes these opinions less informed. Look at it this way:

      There are tens of millions of children under the age of 12 in this country. How many of them do you trust with whiskey, guns, cigarettes, cars, credit cards or foreign policy? Just about none of them, I'll wager. Why? Mostly because of measures of intellectual maturity, but also knowledge and experience.

      Everyone who wishes to make the argument that the uninformed and inexperienced should have their opinions granted equal credibility in a democratic discussion with the informed and experienced...clearly has less children than adults in their household.

      I would not go to a grocery store with a 6-year old and a 4-year old if every food choice was subject to a democratic vote. Those that wish to argue that this is a preferable shopping method should do so after gaining some experience with it first.

  •  do you know how to heal the wounds (5+ / 0-)

    of a gunshot victim..??

    if no...why should we listen to you..??


    We are not broke, we are being robbed.

    by Glen The Plumber on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 09:24:16 AM PST

    •  Because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      I would say to follow the advice of a doctor rather than an electrician when it comes to treating those wounds. Unlike some people, who think that anyone and everyone's ability to deal with the problem is equally good.

      So, are you going to take my advice and seek someone with knowledge and experience, or just pick a random person off the street to work on the wounds?

      Somewhere around half of all households in the US have at least one gun (Gallup says 47%). Of those, forty percent are Democratic households (according to Nate Silver). These are the people who have lived peacefully, sanely and legally with guns, sometimes for their entire lives.

      Yet the most rec'd comments to this diary are the ones saying that these people really have no more value in a discussion on guns than people who have never owned a gun at all.

      Because if you, as a non-owner are saying that your voice is equally credible, you are saying that their experience and knowledge is useless.

      •  how do you come to this conclusion..??.. (4+ / 0-)
        Because if you, as a non-owner are saying that your voice is equally credible, you are saying that their experience and knowledge is useless.
        I don't see any argument here implying that.

        we all base our opinions on our own life experiences and knowledge...I don't think owning a gun gives your opinion any more or less credence in the discussion on gun control.

        you also accuse people of basing their opinions on emotions...I read the news...and stats...it is reasonable of me to conclude...guns are a risk of injury and death to owners and non-owners...I would like to see laws written to lessen the risk.

        and is not the whole second amendment based on some outdated emotional fear of suppression by a tyrannical government..??


        We are not broke, we are being robbed.

        by Glen The Plumber on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 11:19:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

          Statistically speaking, it is likely that I have owned and used guns longer than you have been alive. I have never had to point one at anyone, or threaten or imply the presence of a gun to intimidate anyone, nor had a gun stolen and used in a crime. I have lived in rural areas where gun ownership was common, I have lived in urban areas where it was very uncommon.

          So, why exactly is my life experience with guns no more credible than yours when it comes to dealing with the issue of safety, regulation and such? I am not saying my experience is so vastly superior and authoritative that your lack of it should be ignored, but you did just explicitly say that my life experience with guns is no more credible than your life experience without guns...on the topic of guns.

  •  I've never done heroin either... (7+ / 0-)

    But I don't think it makes my opinion as very strongly against it any less valid.

    People who don't own guns do so mainly because they do have an opinion against them.  You don't get to dismiss millions of opinions as uneducated simply because they don't see things the same way you do.  Many people are making a conscious choice to value life over the potential for violence. It may make these people easier targets, but it's often a moral choice.

    •  You might be surprised (0+ / 0-)

      Since heroin is an opium derivative, odds are you have "done heroin" or something very much like it if you have ever had prescription painkillers after a surgery.

      I doubt that you are of the opinion that all use of opium-based painkillers is a bad thing, so that would probably mean you are just opposed to the misuse of them in a non-medical context.

      I think there is a good case to be made for regulation of heroin, but I am nonetheless very happy that heroin or something like it was available for me in my house or on my person when I needed it, and I made sure to use it in a responsible fashion.

      Any analogy is left to the reader.

  •  I'd been thinking along somewhat similar lines. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brahman Colorado

    I generally don't give a rat's behind about anyone's opinion here or in my local paper. As the saying goes, they are like belly buttons. I am much more interested in facts and well reasoned arguments. Unfortunately, those are becoming increasingly hard to come by. Too bad we live in a society where information comes in fast and furious and people process that information to fit into their ideological beliefs.

    That said, a person doesn't need to be an "authority" on a subject to check facts or detect logical fallacies in arguments. I would agree that most of the diaries on the subject since Sandy Hook have been generally emotional in content and devoid of real substance. For many ad hominem seem to be their primary (if not sole) rhetorical weapon. But there have been exceptions.

  •  I voted for the first option, because I'm really (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shamash, poco

    not that into guns.

    However, I don't have to be to think having 1000s of people, 100s of them children, killed by guns in this country annually is a BAD thing.

    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

    by glorificus on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:23:36 AM PST

    •  Thank you for your honesty (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, 43north

      Of all the people reading, commenting and rec'ing comments, you are the first to hold the position that you ought to know more than you do, as opposed to the dare I say "ignorant and proud of it" contingent.

      I support gun ownership, but I also think the annual death toll from guns in this country is a BAD thing. I just do not think that taking a hostile attitude towards knowledge and those who have it is going to improve the situation any better than it does when Republicans take that attitude towards a subject.

      My attitude towards those who do not have the knowledge is not hostile, but rather exasperated. You're liberals. You're progressives. You're supposed to be interested in the facts and the truth as part of your decision-making process. You're supposed to want qualified people making decisions, as opposed to hiring someone like "heck of a job Brownie".

      And people like Wayne LaPierre? Isn't he really just a triumph of ideology over sense? I do have to grant a point to those saying that by my standards, his experience gives him a qualified voice, but you've got to admit that whatever experience he has is overwhelmed by something other than an interest in the truth.

      •  I think you will NOT find agreement about who (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, kestrel9000, a2nite, poco

        those "qualified people" are. And I just read sporks primer on guns and laws so I'm already better informed.

        You're supposed to want qualified people making decisions, as opposed to hiring someone like "heck of a job Brownie".
        For example, the main fact I'm interested in is why is there a body count of innocent bystanders at all, so having in-depth technical knowledge of gun workings or state and local laws is irrevelant to me.

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 11:08:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think this (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, 43north, kestrel9000, Shamash
        My attitude towards those who do not have the knowledge is not hostile, but rather exasperated. You're liberals. You're progressives. You're supposed to be interested in the facts and the truth as part of your decision-making process. You're supposed to want qualified people making decisions, as opposed to hiring someone like "heck of a job Brownie".
        says what you wrote a diary trying to convey. I too thought people here wanted to base policy on facts, because fact based policy is the most effective policy. And like many a contentious issue, there'll likely be only one chance to do anything.

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

        by happy camper on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 11:19:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So what "facts and truth" should I use regarding (3+ / 0-)

          the Connecticut shooting of small children?

          You're supposed to be interested in the
          facts and the truth as part of your decision-making process.
          And since there continue to be multiple shootings, there will be multiple chances to do something.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 11:33:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Any time there is a diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, Melanie in IA, poco

    About a gun violence incident, RKBA is summoned over to get nasty about any discussion of gun control.  Why would anyone feel welcome to one of their diaries on guns, or even be interested?  Most likely they'd be called "ignorant" which is what you're doing here.

    I get what you're saying.  You don't feel that people's specific suggestions of possible gun control measures are valid because they didn't ask a hunter.  You are more than welcome to write a diary on what you think would be effective, as an expert, it would be welcome.  But you didn't.  Instead you wrote not one but two insulting diaries that seem offer nothing more than bitterness that people just aren't meeting your standards and should therefore pipe down.

    If there's something you want to say, say it.  This just seems to be another coy attempt to change the topic or shut it down.

    •  I have made suggestions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, 43north, kestrel9000

      I am not a "any sort of gun for anyone" type of gun owner. I do think that there are substantive things we could do, substantive things that have been done at local levels, and I have addressed them in other comments and diaries, both recently and in the past. I do not by any means consider myself an expert. But I have thought a lot about the issue, among others, and if there is something I care about but do not know, I work to educate myself so that I can make an informed decision.

      Which according to the most popular comments here, has apparently been a waste of time.

      I'll probably never again use everything I learned about Mitt Romney, but it served me well in discussions with conservatives when I clearly knew more about their candidate than they did. I may not have changed anyone's mind, but I did make some of them think, which was the point.

      As it is here.

      Here's one for the non-gun owners: Most gun owners, liberal, conservative or otherwise, do not carry guns around with them. They do not have one in their glove compartment or trunk, their job does not require one, they do not have a concealed carry permit. In other words, 99.9% of the time they are in public, they are a long way from any gun they own.

      They are just as unarmed as you are. I own guns. I even have a pistol. But if I had been in the vicinity of Newtown or Columbine or Virginia Tech, I would have been as unarmed as someone who had never touched a gun in their life.

      Gun owners are not "them". Gun owners are mostly "you", who just happen to have one or more guns in their house, guns that will never be used illegally nor harm a human being. My great-grandfather's hunting rifle has characteristics that some people think are worth banning over a century after it was made. It has been passed down for three generations and has never even been brandished at a person, much less used against one. People like me and guns like that are what some of you here are railing against when you make gun owners into "them". And you wonder why some of us take it personally.

      A gun owner in public has a very high probability of caring about things like Newtown just as much as you, because by and large, they and their children are just as vulnerable as you and yours in a situation like that.

      And while "ignorant" is not a nice word, it is an accurate one. It just means "you don't know". Ignorance is curable. Not knowing, being proud of not knowing and not wanting to know? That's stupid.

      •  We know. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, poco

        Believe it or not, we know that.  We're not as ignorant as the broad brush you're using to paint people with.  Many of us, including me, who don't personally own guns have friends, relatives and neighbors who do.  I was just talking to my supervisor on Thursday about his hunting hobby, telling him about places he might be able to go,  since he  just moved here.  I could never hunt, I set spiders free.

        You may think the use if the word ignorance us accurate.  I don't believe it's accurate at all.

        The NRA has spent the past generation trying to convince Americans that gun owners are all like minded when it comes to gun control, thus fomenting your persecution complex.  Not only are you making that our fault and our problem, when  gun owners haven't done enough to counteract that, but you are helping their cause with your own generalizations.  You're not helping the conversation either.

        •  Good (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian

          If you are an informed opponent of gun ownership, good for you. I disagree with you, but I am glad you are informed and came to your decision from looking hard at a contentious, difficult issue.

          But when you paint all the liberal gun owners here at DKos with phrases like "RKBA is summoned over to get nasty", you aren't really helping us get over that whole "persecution complex" thing.

          •  I am helping you. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, poco

            You need to see how you are perceived and that you are not an innocent victim just searching for the truth either, the way you have been portraying yourself in your own diary and in your comments.  

            I didn't write two diaries calling an entire group of people ignorant, and when I talk about RKBA, I'm not talking about all gun owners.  I'm talking about RKBA.  There are many, many more gun owners on DK who are not part of RKBA, and I've learned so much from them.  But those gun owners don't come on here ready to be belligerent.

            Glad to see that RKBA, has already been here.

            •  Not a victim (0+ / 0-)

              I don't see myself as a innocent victim or martyr for the RKBA cause or anything like that. I am just dismayed at the villification and name-calling and and utter lack of coherent thought processes demonstrated by some gun opponents. Read through the thread and ask yourself how many of the commenters probably are not gun owners nor have any experience with guns. At the time I am typing this, exactly one of them had the honesty to admit they were under-informed (see, I didn't say ignorant) on the issue.

              It would be like me being a member of and in ideological agreement with everything on a conservative blog, and then posting a long pro-choice diary. The results are not quite the same (put on a poncho and dive into that moral morass sometime), but when you are used to civilized debate on a topic here at DKos, the difference in tone when it comes to guns is striking. You would never know it from the comments that four out of ten Democratic households tacitly support some form of RKBA by...owning guns.

              Pretty much every pro-RKBA diary here at DKos gets responses like that. One Pissed Off Liberal would be an example today. Comes in, makes a few assertions or accusations without any argument or data to back them up, then disappears. Drive-by commenting, as it were.

              My beliefs on guns have evolved over time. I have never been an NRA member, but long ago I was very much in the "zero regulation" camp. My beliefs evolved because I chose to become more informed and chose to let what I learned change what I thought, rather than simply continuing to believe what I wanted to be believe because I wanted to believe it.

              There are a lot of people who could benefit from trying that sometime, and I do not mean just here.

              •  Yes. But your diary did not (2+ / 0-)

                Come across to it's readers as being an honest search for a way to impress upon people that they need to get informed and how to do it.  That's why you had to do it twice.  That's why people aren't forthcoming with you.  This is a conversation that people want to have, but your diary, whatever your intentions, did not come across as a good faith attempt at that, it is just another "more of the same".  Like I said, maybe that's not what you meant, but that's how it sounds.  

              •  And even though it seems besides the point, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                No, I really didn't comment about gun control.  I don't know what would work and what wouldn't.  I had a few comments about gun manufacturers and the NRA, but not much.  Until today, I've pretty much stayed out of the conversation.

                I've suggested taxing gun manufacturers, not that I'm a huge expert in taxation, but I'm a believer in "hit 'em in the pocketbook".  After all, sharing ideas is what we do here.  If that's ok with you, I mean.

                •  Fine with me (0+ / 0-)

                  Sharing ideas is fine. I'd like the ideas more if the justification behind them was more sophisticated than a Republican "because freedom!", however.

                  For instance, increased taxation on guns. Superficially, it sounds like a good idea. But have you considered that it is a regressive tax that would hit a lower income person harder? Maybe you have thought about it and you are fine with it. Have you thought about what should be done with the tax money? There are plenty of good, directed ways to point that money. Would increased taxation keep guns out of the hands of criminals any better than not taxing them more? Could the extra revenue be dedicated to something that would help and how would you keep federal or state legislators from siphoning it off into pet projects by defunding existing efforts and having the new tax take up the slack.

                  I think about these things too. Quite a bit, in fact.

                  There's a difference between " I have an idea" and "I have sat down and thought through all the likely ramifications of my idea". There is a big jump from the first to the second, but if you do not want other people to do the thinking for you, you need to do some of it for yourself.

                  As far as this diary goes, if there was an option to disallow comments I would have clicked it. Despite what some people think, I was really just interested in the results.

                  •  Oh deep thinker... Has there ever (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, CwV, poco

                    Been a policy without ramifications?  

                    And now I've stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt.  You are placing restrictions on who can say what under what conditions. No wonder your 2 attempts at this were such failures, you really just don't want to hear what people have to say, as you've just said, only if they can fit inside the narrow little restrictions you place on them.

                    •  What restrictions? (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not restricting anything. I'm just saying that you can't really criticize Republicans for making an argument no more sophisticated than "because freedom!" if you are not making arguments any more sophisticated than "because guns!".

                      You have stopped giving me the benefit of the doubt because I have asked you to think about issues before speaking out on them.

                      And this makes me the bad guy. Sigh. Now I'm feeling all persecuted again...

                      I love to hear what people have to say. Especially if they care enough about an issue to think about it first. If the depth of someone's counter-argument is something like "Thog say tax guns more!", it really does not add anything to the debate.

                      •  Well, you did say you wished (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        serendipityisabitch

                        That no one could reply, only respond to your poll.

                        You are just assuming that people haven't given anything any thought because they disagree with you and then complain that you're just an innocent victim.

                      •  "If there was an option to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        serendipityisabitch

                        Disallow comments, I would have clicked it."  Just says it all right there.

                      •  And your buddy up there in the comments (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        serendipityisabitch

                        Was going on about stars aligning, ok, let's think about how we can set policy based on that faultless logic.  Don't see you there saying that's not the most well considered response.

                      •  Why tax guns more? (0+ / 0-)

                        Because every other avenue has been effectively shut down.  Ok, you think everyone but not you has just knee jerk reactions because you disagree.  Not true.  We are not just sitting here going "freedumz" and "gunz" like you're insisting.  The taxing comment comes from many things, some of which you and your friends even laid out in the comments here, 2nd amendment rights are inviolable, unlike some other amendments that seem to be iffy these days.  Fears the government will take away your guns.  Your slippery slope argument to one commenter above, you want guarantees that there won't be any more restrictions in the future. Safety locks?  Can we even have that conversation?  My thoughts may be different from yours, and come from a different place, but I'm not just parroting back what I hear and it's why your diary is so insulting and such a fail.  

                        There is no 2nd amendment protecting gun manufacturers from taxation.  Taxation is often used in this way, like with cigarettes.  Hedge funds are already looking into divesting their positions in the gun industry, that's how money works.  Also, taxing manufacturers is legislation that is not all about you, your rights and your slippery slopes and your fears of the federal government or the Zodiac, or whatever your friend is scared of in the comments up there.  Dailykos commenters, I don't know, it kept changing.  But I guess I'm expected to assume that there is some thought behind it and he didn't just consult a medium or the horoscope or something.

                        How the money would be used and whether or not the government sux except when it's protecting your 2nd amendment rights is another conversation to have.  

          •  what gun policy of cama2008's do you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco

            disagree with..??..I don't see where the user has made any suggestions.


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:47:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You already accused me of being (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CwV, a2nite, Glen The Plumber, poco

        ignorant and working solely on emotion, based on the fact I said my family has been impacted by gun violence. You do not know me; you don't have a clue what I know about guns or gun regulation; you don't know what I think about guns or gun regulation. The fact that I choose NOT to tell you these things does not mean it isn't meaningful, informed, or relevant. THERE is a pretty big heap of both ignorance and arrogance on your part.

        •  No, I did not (0+ / 0-)

          I specifically said that if you had gun violence as a personal issue, then a strong opinion on it was justified. And if you base decisions solely on your personal experience and do not bother to investigate the larger issues that will affect other people, then you are deliberately remaining un- or underinformed, which does meet the definition of "ignorance" on the topic.

          Having cancer makes cancer important to you, but it does not make you an oncologist, and if you do not research your cancer, simply having it does not make you any more informed, either. Being emotionally invested in a topic makes it important to you, but it does not make you informed.

          If you are 4'6" and have red hair, it is neither ignorant nor arrogant for me to call you a short red-head. It is not an insult, it is factual. You might not like being short and might not like having red hair, but that is no reason to jump on me for stating qualities that you clearly possess.

          Similarly, I think I would be entirely justified in giving your opinions on gigantism somewhat less weight than I would to those of the late Andre the Giant.

          •  AH, well, did Andre RESEARCH his (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, Glen The Plumber

            gigantism? Because otherwise, clearly he has no informed opinion on it.

            Seriously?? Being personally affected by something informs a person, though differently, than all the research in the world.

            And again, you do not know what I know OR what my opinions are.

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              Andre had to live with his condition, which would give him more authority on the subject than a hypothetical 4'6" redhead who never had the problem.

              Similarly, I would not post a diary telling people how to live with the emotions of personal gun violence. I do not have that experience and could not offer informed commentary on it. If I tried, you would be well within bounds to call me ignorant (or any variation thereof) on the issue, and say in no uncertain terms that my opinion was less useful on the subject than that of a gun violence survivor.

              And if you posted a poll asking "who has a more informed opinion on the emotional fallout of personal gun violence?" and the choices were "A) survivor of gun violence" and "B) someone who has never experienced gun violence", you would expect the majority of sensible people to answer A.

              What you would not expect would be a backlash that accuses you of being the ignorant one, of being arrogant, of having hidden motivations, of being part of a nasty "violence survivor" subgroup that is summoned whenever anyone brings up the issue, of being insulting to people who never experienced gun violence, and so on. It would be amazingly irrational and illogical if you had to spend an entire day responding to comments like that.

              Right?

              •  You choose. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                You choose what you post, and with that you take the consequences.

                Right?

                •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Melanie in IA

                  I did choose, and the only consequence has been a lot of time spent on replies. Did you (collectively) go out and learn anything new on the issue as a result of this diary? If so, then it was worth my time.

                  Or did you dig in your heels and resolve to go the entire day without doing anything to increase your knowledge on the subject?

                  •  Fair question. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, Shamash, cama2008

                    I did not TODAY spend time learning anything new about GUNS or GUN REGULATION. The issue that concerns me, personally, is gun violence. (I frankly don't give a flying fuck about one kind of gun or another.)This is something that yes, I will spend more time on.

                    As you might guess, though, today has been busy with holiday things, besides this. So no, today I did not immerse myself in the academic literature on gun violence.

                    Peace.

  •  Looks to me like ReBeKa is here to fight. (5+ / 0-)

    Melt a pat of butter in a small bowl in the nuke,
    mix in a scoop of brown sugar and nuke that for 30 sec.
    cut up an apple and take out the seeds and hard bits.
    mix them with the caramel so that all sides of the apple parts are covered with it.
    Nuke for 2m30s, stir and let it sit for a minute, then 2-3 more minutes. This time there's a lot of liquid in the bowl, push the apples down into it so they soak it back up.
    Preheat the over to 325^
    Break up a slice of bread, 2 if they are small, and mix the crumbs into the apples, get the bread good and wet with the apple liquid.
    Sprinkle the top with crumbs and big crystals of "raw sugar" and bake for 45m-1hour.
    Let it cool completely (if you can) before cutting into it.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:21:25 PM PST

  •  Did you pull that previous diary? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    or was it hammered?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 12:32:22 PM PST

    •  Pulled (0+ / 0-)

      My intent was not to generate a bunch of acrimony but to see how informed and honest people were on the issue. It devolved to the point where it was clearly not doing that, so I canned it and rewrote.

      Did not do much better this time, it seems.

      •  Well, no, (2+ / 0-)

        because your basic premise is insulting to everyone who doesn't agree with you. And you seem not to be able to see that.
        Sorry but just because you like and own guns doesn't give you any more authority on the subject. Nor does it give you exclusive right to a position on gun regulation.
        It seems that you are here to start a fight, from your tone and technique. That's not why I come here, not why most of us come here and that's why I put up the recipe for pie.
        Good day.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 01:12:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site