HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "I知 not anti-gun, I...

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:33 AM

"I知 not anti-gun, I知 pro-kindergartner"

12 rational responses to irrational gun arguments
With the gun control debate hitting a fever pitch, a handy how-to guide for dealing with gun rights extremists
By Richard (RJ) Eskow, Alternet

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

snip//

Now that President Obama has made his initial gun control proposals, the crazy痴 being ratcheted up to a new level. Rational Americans in all walks of life will be confronted with these kinds of arguments. We池e going to need a playbook. Here are 12 responses you can use when you池e confronted with some of the standard illogical, irrational and emotionally overheated statements that gun extremists use.

1. I知 not anti-gun, I知 pro-kindergartner.

After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it痴 irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?


snip//

3. If dead children are a 電istraction, what subjects are important enough to be worthy of your attention?

As Media Matters reports, an increasing number of gun-extremist righties have suggested that attempts to prevent more deaths, including the deaths of young people at Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and elsewhere, are really just a 電istraction from more important matters.

Try convincing the parents of dead kids that their personal tragedies aren稚 important. And if dead kindergartners don稚 deserve your attention, what does?


more...

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/12_rational_responses_to_irrational_gun_arguments/

30 replies, 2781 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply "I知 not anti-gun, I知 pro-kindergartner" (Original post)
babylonsister Jan 2013 OP
Kolesar Jan 2013 #1
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #2
Scuba Jan 2013 #4
Squinch Jan 2013 #6
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #12
Scuba Jan 2013 #15
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #16
Lordquinton Jan 2013 #21
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #22
Lordquinton Jan 2013 #25
Hoyt Jan 2013 #27
FarPoint Jan 2013 #5
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #13
onehandle Jan 2013 #3
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #7
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #8
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #9
babylonsister Jan 2013 #11
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #14
galileoreloaded Jan 2013 #20
Scootaloo Jan 2013 #28
Pholus Jan 2013 #29
galileoreloaded Jan 2013 #30
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #17
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #23
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #24
Cha Jan 2013 #10
shill baby shill... Jan 2013 #18
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #19
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #26

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:45 AM

1. conservative writers, ... are calling the unfolding gun debate a "distraction" and a "red herring"

See the Media Matters article for the hypertext links to what the "gun advocates" are saying:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/16/right-wing-spin-school-massacre-gun-debate-a-di/192267

...conservative writers, including a USA Today columnist, are calling the unfolding gun debate a "distraction" and a "red herring" designed by the White House to focus attention away from what's really important in America, the national debt.

Dismissing the implications of a steady string of mass shootings, including the Newtown, CT elementary school massacre, gun advocates in the media accuse the president of fabricating the need for action or attention on the issue. He's being an "opportunist" who's "picking a fight" on guns, they insist.
...
Either way, portraying 30,000 gun deaths each year in America as a "distraction," and especially portraying the issue of school gun killings as a "red herring," strikes me as tasteless.

Nonetheless, in his USA Today column, conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds suggested Obama is purposefully focusing on guns in order to keep attention off "the country's financial situation." ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:48 AM

2. With due respect, I think that sounds silly.

That's saying that people who are anti-gun control legislation are anti-kindegartner, which is a disrespectful claim that gets no one on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:51 AM

4. No, it's a good sound bite. There are obviously a lot of Americans who are willing to let ....

... the slaughter of our children continue rather than accept gun control. These people are called "the gun manufacturers lobby, their shills and dupes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:46 AM

6. It's a GREAT sound bite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:50 PM

12. I totally disagree. Anyone who claims that doesn't understand the minds of gun owners....

the ones who legally own and responsibly use guns.

If the point is to convince, that sound bite doesn't do it. If the point is to insult, you got yourself a great slogan!

"We are not anti-choice! We are pro-life!" That has worked really well, so let's do more of the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:05 PM

15. "Anyone who claims that doesn't understand the minds of gun owners...."

You don't speak for all gun owners, including this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:17 PM

16. Neither do you. My opinion is....it's a bad slogan that wouldn't convince anyone

who isn't already on board. "We aren't anti-choice. We are pro-life" is the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:20 AM

21. What do you suggest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:26 AM

22. "I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro-reasonable gun control"

That is the truth, for one thing. For another thing, most people are pro-reasonable gun control, with the understanding that "reasonable gun control" can mean different things to different people. So people would hear that and relate to it, projecting their own view of "reasonable gun control" into the slogan. And it doesn't insult anyone.

Slogans go only so far, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:49 PM

25. "Pro-Regulation" that's a good, and all around one as well

The fact is that few are anti gun, it's the RWs who smell a hint of talk about "Hey, maybe we should do something about all these mass shootings" and they fly off the handle with GUN BAN THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS and that shuts down reasonable debate, not a semantic talk about slogans.

It's really hard to hold a reasonable debate when the other side is pointing a gun in your face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:25 PM

27. Sorry, gun culture's ownership, accumulation of, promotion of guns is significantly responsible .


Clearly there are other factors, but if gun culture had self-control over their bad habits, we'd have been much better off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:59 AM

5. Just read the linked article...

Then, it will all make sense....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:51 PM

13. "We aren't anti-choice. We are pro-life!" Same slogan. It doesn't convince anyone but the base who

is already in sync with the slogan. If that's the goal, you got yourself a good slogan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:38 AM

3. Absolutely. Kids > Fetish. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

7. Is anybody proposing any "gun control" we haven't had, more or less, at some time in the past?

And when these "bans" were in place, were everyone's freedoms suppressed? Could a law abiding citizen still be able to get a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:39 AM

8. Go ahead. These attempts to reframe the gun debate are why the AWB will fail.

1. Everyone favors reasonable responses to tragedies. Banning some guns won't do much. Connecticut has an Assault Weapons Ban and all news reports are saying the rifle was leglly owned. So much for partial gun bans.

2. To fight drunk driving we punish those who do it and try to prevent those from doing it but we don't ban cars or alcohol.

3.I agree that focussing on the massacre is not a distraction.

4. When ever the government calls up the unorganized militia, then youll see it. The point of the 2nd was to protect the right of the people to have arms In order to form a militia if needed.

5. Militias are well regulated, not individuals. It sounds like Lanza should have been institutionalized

6. This is true and the grandmother killer should been in prison but they let him out.

7. Actually you can buy a tank, but ordnances are tightly controlled.

8. The US does not provide for unrestricted gun ownership.

9. Yep. When it comes to civil liberties it's amazing how people fight for some but hand wave off others (which includes gun banners).

10. No we are not safe enough but gun homicides are lower than they were 20-30 years ago. I don't attribute that to more guns, but they didn't prevent the decreases either

11. Three gun competitions typically use rifles that some people seek to ban.

12. Maybe Eskow needs his own island to feel safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:02 PM

9. The article fails at the first "point"

"After Newtown, what person in his right mind thinks it痴 irrational to propose some common-sense measures to prevent similar tragedies in the future?"

What common sense measures that will prevent a similar tragedy?

Enough with the foreplay anti-gunners. What EXACTLY do you want and what do you believe it will accomplish? Because after weeks of this circus all I have seen is a bunch of "Guns are really scary!" and "Only evil right-wingers own guns" nonsense.

Anyway, this entire piece is complete candyfloss. I don't want spun sugar, I want meat.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:02 PM

11. Here's the list of proposals. If some of these are enacted,

it could deter potentially violent people who'd at least have to jump through some hoops.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/List-Gun-control-proposals/-/1735978/18153344/-/9qujn2/-/index.html

List: Gun control proposals
Published On: Jan 16 2013 12:44:26 PM CST

Proposals for curbing gun violence announced Wednesday by President Barack Obama:

NEEDS CONGRESSIONAL ACTION:

-- Requiring background checks on all gun sales. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says 40 percent of gun sales are conducted with no criminal background check, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads. Obama said there should be exceptions for cases like certain transfers among family members and temporary transfers for hunting purposes.

-- Reinstating the assault weapons ban. A 10-year ban on high-grade, military-style weapons expired in 2004. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says such a ban might clear the Senate but doubts it could get through the House.

-- Renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines.

-- Prohibiting the possession, transfer, manufacture and import of dangerous armor-piercing bullets.

-- Senate confirmation of a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The agency has been run by an acting director, Todd Jones, whom Obama will nominate to become director.

-- New gun trafficking laws penalizing people who help criminals get guns.

EXECUTIVE ORDER:

-- Address legal barriers in health laws that bar some states from making available information about people who are prohibited from having guns.

-- Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

-- Make sure that federal agencies share relevant information with the background check system.

-- Direct the attorney general to work with other agencies to review existing laws to make sure they can identify individuals who shouldn't have access to guns.

-- Direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other research agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence.

-- Clarify that no federal law prohibits doctors or other health care providers from contacting authorities when patients threaten to use violence.

-- Give local communities the opportunity to hire up to 1,000 school resource officers and counselors.

-- Require federal law enforcement to trace all recovered guns.

-- Propose regulations that will enable law enforcement to run complete background checks before returning firearms that have been seized.

-- Direct the Justice Department to analyze information on lost and stolen guns and make that information available to law enforcement.

-- Provide training for state and local law enforcement, first responders and school officials on how to handle active-shooter situations.

-- Make sure every school has a comprehensive emergency management plan.

-- Help ensure that young people get needed mental health treatment.

-- Ensure that health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

-- Encourage development of new technology to make it easier for gun owners to safely use and store their guns.

-- Have the Consumer Product Safety Commission assess the need for new safety standards for gun locks and gun safes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:53 PM

14. Okay! Let's me look them over!

CONGRESS

-- Requiring background checks on all gun sales. I am not opposed to this, and it might eventually do some good. It would not, however, do anything to deter a mass shooter. Gun owners might oppose this as a gun registration scheme.

-- Reinstating the assault weapons ban. The previous bill did NOTHING. It banned certain military style looks (which the manufacturers worked around), and things like bayonette lugs. It was, in short, feel good nonsense.

-- Renewing a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines. Can't hurt. But remember there are literally MILLIONS of magazines already out there. During the previous ban they shot up in price but they were always available. Further, it is debatable how much of an impact this would really have deterring a mass shooter. It's can't hurt though.

-- Prohibiting the possession, transfer, manufacture and import of dangerous armor-piercing bullets. You WANT the guy shooting you to be using these as they are dramatically less lethal. Unless you are a cop of course, but I care about me first.

-- New gun trafficking laws penalizing people who help criminals get guns. Okay. I assume this goes hand in hand with the first proposal.

And that's that. Basically nothing there. Nothing that would stop a mass shooter, nothing that will really do a whole lot to curb (already declining) violent crime. Some okay suggestions but nothing earth shattering. The executive order stuff is nothing really, as I am sure you know from reading the list. And none of this addresses the question:

WHAT PROPOSALS WILL PREVENT THE NEXT MASS SHOOTING?

The only way to do that through legislation would be to ban weapons and actually go after them. Obviously this is not going to happen, it wouldn't pass either house of congress or the USSC, but even if it did it wouldn't prevent the next mass shooting -- it would cause it.

The anti-gun people need to take a step back, drop the emotion, and try to come up with some new ideas to address this issue. Or they can do as they normally do -- they can lose. The goal has to be to get gun owners to relax their death grip on their weapons, and that means working with them to ensure that their concerns are taken seriously.

Anyway, thanks for your post.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:24 PM

20. They can't drop the emotion because without it rational logic fails.

 

In Phoenix, they passed a feel good about shooting a gun of in the air after some poor girl got killed in her backyard from a bullet dropping from the sky. It's always been illegal to fire in city limits, its felony negligent homicide (or manslaughter) to kill someone accidentally.

But "something" needed to be done to placate the uh-oh squad, so viola!. Sadly, on public health issues, DU seems to emote a lot and think less critically than it might to serve societal interests.

Hey, good luck trying to fight for reason though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:29 PM

28. Ah yes. The mr. Spock argument

Which states that any amount of emotion is a negative, and has no place anywhere. Only pure, undiluted "rationality" is acceptable to the Spock-er. The Spock-er ignores that McCoy was right more often than Spock except when Spock "let his human side" get the better of him"; the pair's interaction was specifically written to show the value and rightness of human (and humane) emotion over cold "logic." Which is a false dilemma anyway; emotion and reason are actually not in any conflict. Well, not in humans. Or Romulans. or even Klingons, Cardassians, Ferengi, or whatever those dudes with the hair from Voyager were called

It's a common argument made by libertarians and other far-right fuckheads who are shitting-their-pants scared, and whose own arguments don't really have any rational basis other than that fear. Apparently Progressives-with-asterisks are no less prone to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:46 PM

29. You can say that again!

It's funny how worrying about mass murder is "emotional"
but wetting your pants about losing precious is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:19 PM

30. Your grasp of

 

human behavior and psychology is underwhelming.

Shaming strategies only really work on those that attempt to employ them. Human relationships 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:17 PM

17. Bingo.

Just another re-stating of the same vacuous false dichotomy I've heard ad nauseam...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:36 AM

23. And yet, amazingly, you have no clue what "side" I am on in this debate

That's probably because this is not a left vs right, or liberal vs conservative issue. In any case, you don't know where I stand on gun control because I have never bothered to say.

Here is the reality. It might suck, but here it is:

* You will not see ANY meaningful anti-gun legislation out of all this
* The current proposals will do nothing to eliminate these weapons or to deter these crimes
* Meaningful legislation cannot pass in the House, it cannot pass in the Senate, Obama would not sign it, and it would not stand up to the USSC
* Our guys in Washigton are not trying to ban guns, they are trying to placate anti-gunners.

If you REALLY want meaningful firearms restrictions you will have to work for them. Not with phone calls and letters, not by making demands and calling pro-gun people names, but by working with your political and policy opponents on a solution. You will have to abandon the righteous posturing and the assurance that you have ALL the answers. You will have to stop believing that your political enemies are all crazy, and instead begin listening to them and considering everything they have to say.

There are a hundred million of them, they have lots of guns, and they have the law and the constitution on their side. So you can either work with them and use their knowlege to come up with effective solutions, or you can go home. It really is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:37 AM

24. Can't say I gave that any thought, actually.

My comment was directed at the anti-gun arguments themselves. "Bingo" was intended as agreement. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't take the time to be clear. Apologies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:17 PM

10. I'm anti-stupid and that's what the NRA is

acting like.

Thank you, babylonsistah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)


Response to shill baby shill... (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:55 PM

19. I am anti-bullshit.

And your post is disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:18 PM

26. Sadly we wouldn't be having this debate if...

instead of gun violence victims being mostly young adult black males it was mostly white victims of gun violence. I don't want more white victims. I want fewer victims period. It is just as sad when a young black man dies even if it's gang related as it is when a child dies either through an accident or deliberate homicide.

Also most gun violence is suicide and that is shocking and unacceptable as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread