Why your gun makes me nervous

[sarisataka]

There’s a mantra quickly repeating in my head: “Please have a badge. Please have a badge. Please have a badge.” It’s a steady heartbeat as I begin a conversation with a shop clerk and reposition myself so I can peer over her shoulder.

I’ve already seen the bulge in his jacket, and it’s clear from the size and shape that he has a holstered gun. Now my eyes are quickly scanning, hoping to find a law enforcement badge clipped to his belt.

I’m in a local bookstore and there’s a sticker near the door asking patrons not to carry weapons on the premises. My two children scurried off the moment we entered, each in search of their own treasures.

The man with the weapon is as interested with the bookstore patrons as he is with the books on display. I’ve watched him watch others. The way he tracks them is unnerving.

http://thegazette.com/subject/opinion/blogs/lynda-waddington/why-your-gun-makes-me-nervous-20150110?fb_action_ids=916845454992771&fb_action_types=og.comments

The answer seems to be- because it exists, even if only in the writer's mind. At no point does she actually view any portion of this gun/holster- she just knows.

If that man's actions make her unnerved I would likely make her manic. When out I always look at my fellow shoppers. I make eye contact and sometimes *gasp* greet them with a hello. I am neither a fugitive, a drug dealer, a rapist nor the owner of a sporting goods store.

[pipoman]

1. It was probably a colostomy bag and the guy was self-conscious.

[Electric Monk]

2. If an African American (or Mexican, Chinese, or other) tells you they think something is racist

do you tell them that it's all in their head?

What about if a woman tells you she thinks something was sexist or misogynistic, do you tell her it's all in her head?

No?

Then why do you think it's cool to mock people who are concerned about having guns casually around unnecessarily that it's all in their heads?

[Duckhunter935]

7. we can

differentiate. There is just a little minor difference and you know that but nice straw man.

[sarisataka]

11. If it was in any way comparable

you might have a point. But to say a melodramatic overreaction to a man with something in his pocket is on par with racism is insulting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Do you tell people that want to defend themselves that it is all in their heads?

You do. Repeatedly. Day after day. And you mock them.

[Electric Monk]

18. Ok, so how many times have guns saved your life? Where, without one, you'd be dead?

Statistically speaking, I'm guessing none.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. The same number of times a seatbelt has saved my life.

And yet how many women, statistically speaking, carry guns for defense from sexual assault or other crimes?

Perhaps you could man'splain them about how they aren't capable of adequately defending themselves or their concerns are overblown.

[Electric Monk]

23. Does your hypothetical woman carrying for self defence need a 30 round mag, bayonet lug,

or bump-stock? Has she been trained in how and when to use it and when not to? Did she pass the background checks and obtain it legally? Does she carry it safely, in such a way that her 2 year old won't shoot her with it in the supermarket?

Despite what seems to be a commonly held belief otherwise, I'm not in favor of "taking everyone's guns away", but I am in favor of limits and rules regarding them and where they can be carried.

[NaturalHigh]

28. I'm not in favor of "taking everyone's guns away"...

Just curious then...what exactly is the problem with our family keeping firearms in the house for self defense? From reading your posts, it seems to me that you are a lot less concerned with decent people being killed by criminals than you are with those same decent people defending themselves with firearms.

[Electric Monk]

29. My only problem with you keeping guns in your house is it increases the odds of you getting shot. nt

[NaturalHigh]

30. Okay, whatever.

Tell you what...If I or anyone else in my family gets shot by one of our own firearms, I owe you a coke.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. How many times have you been shot.

Statistically speaking.

[Electric Monk]

34. Once, when I was mugged. If I'd had a gun too it'd probably have made the situation even worse.

There were five of them vs one of me, and one of the assailants was trigger happy when I didn't surrender my wallet fast enough. Yeah, it sucked, but it could've been worse. This was around 20 years ago. Thanks for asking :/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. And how would disarming non-criminals have improved your situation?

[Electric Monk]

39. I don't know where they got their guns. Could've been a gun show parking lot "private sale". nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Maybe even the same place they took your money to buy illegal drugs.

[Veganstein]

118. I'm sorry that happened.

My grampa was also attacked in a similar way, and used a gun to defend his life. Since that time, my family has strongly believed in the importance of personal armed self defense. I guess it just illustrates how our experiences shape our ideas and our goals.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. There's a video on YouTube of a Detroit woman defending her home with an AR-15.

Maybe you should ask her if she feels she had too many rounds.

[branford]

40. I cannot believe you cited the bayonet lung?

Would you kindly explain how a bayonet lug makes any firearm any more or less dangerous to the user or general general public? Has inner city violence or mass shooting been aggravated by a bayonet lug problem? Heck, how many people in the USA have even killed with bayonets, no less lugs, in the last 30 or more years?

More seriously, what limits exactly do you propose concerning what firearms the public can own and where they can be carried? If the restrictions are so broad and pervasive as to ban virtually all modern firearms (e.g., semiautomatic weapons, those that take a magazine, above certain calibers, military pedigree, etc.), you are effectively "taking everyone's guns away" whether you appreciate the accusation or not?

[beevul]

42. "I'm not in favor of "taking everyone's guns away""

I guess this is as good a time as any, to point out, that while your words say one thing, your actions lead to quite a different conclusion.

Need anyone remind you, that you're the host of a group that in your own words is "designed for keeping gunthusiasts out", yet, is happy to let gun ban advocates in and rub shoulders with them?

How many have you blocked over there that are known gun ban advocates, because they are gun ban advocates?

[Electric Monk]

45. I think total prohibitionists are just as unrealistic as some of the extreme rkba fanatics. nt

[beevul]

50. How many of them, have you or the previous host blocked for it?

None?


Imagine that.

[Electric Monk]

52. Of the 41 blocks in GCRA, 39 were blocked before I was a host, so I can't say for sure why each was.

Please stop telling me how to host a Group that is not yours, is not for you, and none of your business anyways. Thanks.

[beevul]

53. Nobody is telling you to do anything in particular.

"Please stop telling me how to host a Group that is not yours, is not for you..."

Nobody is telling you to do anything in particular.

So stop saying they are.

"and none of your business anyways"

When you lot talk shit about us and THIS forum, you make it our business.


Again, nobody is telling you how to run your little clique.

Questioning whether your words match your actions, on the other hand, I AM doing.

And the answer is, they don't, which is why you're getting snippy.

On edit, I gave it a little thought, and decided I should speak to you using some language you understand:





How are we supposed to tell the difference between you, and one of the pro-confiscation folks. when your words indicate one thing but your behavior indicates another?

[Duckhunter935]

59. well here is the one that got me blocked

Want to explain the reason? do you think it was a good block?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1458

Yep

a lot of people here see gun owners that way

[oneshooter]

61. And here is the one he was agreeing with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1379


"I carry a $1million cover policy on my home and land, $1 million on my business, have all my firearms that are not in use in steel fireproof safes installed in a concrete block room inside my home. I have both a alarm system and a fire suppression system.

However I live 30 miles from town on 40 acres and, depending who is on duty at the time, usually must give directions to LE if they are needed.

Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging."

I was banned for "broad brush insult"

[Duckhunter935]

62. and what was stated was totally true

those insults are commonplace for many in that group and you know that. I also agree with this part....

Never was it stated "all"

"I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging."

I know the pro-controller side gets all bent out of shape when faced with the truth on how they have been calling us firearms owners those insulting names and I am not even going to start with the childish endless penis references.

So, yes, I agreed with a true statement and the controllers were afraid to here the truth and blocked us.

[oneshooter]

63. Here is the blocking message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1460


"Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.


Thanks but no thanks - I blocked this poster and the one below in concurrence with the broad brush insult.

ellisonz
GCRA Host

[Electric Monk]

64. I think it's safe to say you were both blocked for being already known hardcore gunthusiasts

but I think you already knew that.

[Duckhunter935]

65. No, we were blocked

because you do not want to here some true things about controllers and how they insult democratic gun owners that do not agree with their positions.

It is nice that this group is run differently and you are granted and we welcome the discussion of the other side. Seems like you like it here more than the group you host. At least I am "allowed" to post my opinion or answer a question in response to you over here unlike your group.

[oneshooter]

66. So you are saying that the host lied about the reason? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Oopsie. I doubt *that* question will be answered...

[Electric Monk]

68. You're picking nits. That host blocked you for your attitude about guns and gun control. As would I

if you weren't already blocked.

[Duckhunter935]

69. What attitude about guns or gun control

was I expressing in my 3 posts in that group? I did not put any out and that host blocked me because I agreed with a poster about the fact that some controllers in that group say insulting things about firearms owners in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1186

they are already taxed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1457

you have no idea
of what my nickname is about. Have a good day. Hint, it is not about ducks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=1458

Yep
a lot of people here see gun owners that way

As far as I know these are the only posts I have ever made in your "safe haven" group. So what attitude about guns did I state that is so over the top to be blocked? I think it is really your group is scared of any poster you controllers do not like regardless of content posted in your little group. I am so glad this group is better than that and allows people with differing views to post. You are the one that called for preemptive bans on DU members, how nice of you.

[oneshooter]

79. Then you admit that he lied about it in his post. n/t

[Electric Monk]

84. I admit I have no way of knowing what they were actually thinking when they wrote that post.

And neither do you.

[krispos42]

134. You can un-ban him

In fact, maybe you need to un-ban everybody over there and start fresh.


And no, I'm not telling you how to run your own group, I'm telling you what your powers as Group Host enable you to do.


I actually enjoy watching your boring, march-step safe haven slowly wither on the vine.

[Duckhunter935]

138. like that would ever happen

from the new host that called for preemptive blocking before people even posted over there.


I agree there is massive activity over in the other group.


so slow over there that this is EM's favorite group by far it looks.

[beevul]

70. Are you saying the SOP of GCRA is a lie? N/T

[Electric Monk]

71. You are obsessed. Get help. That group is NOT YOUR BUSINESS. Goodbye.

[beevul]

74. Nope. I'm not obsessed. I'm just someone who has been paying attention...

Nope. I'm not obsessed. I'm just someone who has been paying attention since day 1, to the justification of blocking members of this group, which has changed from ""blocked for an sop violation" to "blocked for being pro-gun".

Whats interesting to me, is how originally, it was an accusation of not meeting the SOP, which as we've seen evidence of in this thread, was a false in many many cases.

Yet now, you just come out and say "blocked for holding pro-gun views" (or however you might phrase it) which doesn't match the SOP at all.

And by the way, if its anti-gun, I'll make it my business as I see fit. And that decision, is none of your business.

You are in no position to dictate, in this group.

[Duckhunter935]

75. quite amazing

when called out about how he is not even following the SOP and he is now the host he gets all defensive. The hypocrisy of him being able to post over here to rebut our comments stands out brightly as he will not allow the courtesy of the same thing in his group even if it has nothing about a position on gun control. I could even say he is obsessed in posting over in this group as he does much more than his own group. He is also the one calling for preemptive blocking and how could that possibly be a violation of the group SOP?

Kind of telling

Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 77 posts in the last 90 days (13% of total posts)

"You are in no position to dictate, in this group."

Very true and I think it is pissing him off he can not shut us up

[beevul]

81. It really is.

I mean...they've taken the first step, and admitted that "SOP violation" was a sham all along.

57. Yep, it's not a secret. If a gunthusiast posts even once in the GCRA Group they'll be blocked.

That's actually the *point* of the group, the "raison d'être", if you will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172158824#post57

The second step, would be to admit and apologize for treating DUers dishonestly.

The third step would be to reinstate every blocked member, and actually enforce the rules as written.

They as a group, demanded no less when hoyt was justifiably blocked, in case they have forgotten.

Not that I expect "fair play" exists in their playbook. They don't even have a transparent and open process for unblocking members like we do.

Which leaves us left with nothing to do, but keep pointing out, that they can not be trusted to be decent fair or to live within even within the rules they themselves create.

And if they can't be trusted to even run a group fairly because of how they view people who are pro-gun, what makes anyone think that they'd be any more even handed when it comes to the laws and "reasonable" regulations they try to stick us with?

[oneshooter]

80. If what you say is true, then why isn't this poster blocked for this one post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627825

[Electric Monk]

72. It is, however, quite telling how much you worry about it. nt

[beevul]

73. Credibility and legitimacy.

Your lack of forthright answers speak to it.

I wouldn't want to admit it either, were I involved in something so dishonest.

[Duckhunter935]

82. we just point out

the hypocrisy of how you run your group and selectively enforce the rules you make up and are not part of the SOP.

[Electric Monk]

86. Do you and oneshooter agree with

members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations

from the GCRA SOP

You don't. I know you don't based on other posts of yours I've seen. Care to drop the subject now? You're not fooling anyone.

[Duckhunter935]

87. Care to drop the subject now?

nope

[Electric Monk]

88. But you disagree with that part of the SOP, so why do you even want to be part of the Group

other than to disrupt?

[Duckhunter935]

90. have a civil discussion

on the parts we can agree on. I guess I can not pass your groups purity test. That is why you are allowed to post over here, I do not think you disrupt but add to an honest discussion of the topic. That gets hard when all you can do is congratulate each other, I see that group has slowed right back down and you are posting mainly over here.

[Duckhunter935]

76. known hardcore gunthusiasts

what is your definition of that? I own firearms, OK. Please link to some of my so over the top hardcore gun posts. Since you know I am I am sure you will find many. I doubt you will find any. I truly think it is because I am not for bans and confiscation like many on your side want and I do not pass your purity test.

[samsingh]

48. you make excellent points

[Veganstein]

115. This seems incredibly strange to me.

I'm not in favor of "taking everyone's guns away", but I am in favor of limits and rules regarding them and where they can be carried.

That seems kind of flip-flopped. If your goal is to reduce gun deaths, it would seem like taking away guns should be your primary method. If guns exist and are available, then reducing legal carry wouldn't make any measurable impact on gun deaths at all. Legal carry isn't what you should be worried about, but rather illegal carry, and illegal gun ownership altogether. The only way to influence that figure significantly is to eliminate guns.

Failing that, stopping legal carry doesn't do anything.

[sarisataka]

20. Good standard!!!

If you've never been killed you don't need to protect yourself.

The Coast Guard should adopt that standard. If you've never drowned you don't need a life jacket.



Oh and statistically speaking you would be wrong

[Electric Monk]

24. When is the last time a seatbelt or life jacket killed someone, intentionally or by mistake? nt

[sarisataka]

25. I could look up the last time

but I know they have caused more intentional and accidental deaths than they have stopped violent crimes.

[Electric Monk]

27. Now you're shifting the goalposts. Your standard in post #20 was reducing deaths and injuries. nt

[sarisataka]

31. No

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your premise in #18- that if you have not been killed for lack of an item, you therefore have no use for said item.

You brought in deaths by intent or otherwise. Both items you mentioned have caused death because they were improperly used.

[Electric Monk]

32. Feel free to link to statistics comparing them all. I'm not going to waste time looking for you. nt

[sarisataka]

43. Here is a start

One study found that 72% of nearly 3,500 observed car and booster seats were misused in a way that could be expected to increase a child’s risk of injury during a crash

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

you may continue when you have the time

[Electric Monk]

46. I thought we were talking about seat belts and life jackets? You're shifting goalposts yet again. nt

[sarisataka]

47. You're funny

Let's get back to my original point-

Ok, so how many times have guns saved your life? Where, without one, you'd be dead?
Statistically speaking, I'm guessing none.

is the only person who has been killed for not having a gun when needed the only one who should be permitted one? Remember please that my statistic is greater than zero.

[samsingh]

49. i read the same comment and that's not what electric is saying

[sarisataka]

54. EM has the opportunity to refute me

I ask the question directly in #47 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159159#post47

[Electric Monk]

55. I already did, then you started changing the subject and shifting goal posts, so I'm done here.

[sarisataka]

56. Nope- nice dodge

like your answer in post #24

When is the last time a seatbelt or life jacket killed someone, intentionally or by mistake?

You did not answer my question
here I'll ask again quite clearly:
NU asked in #15

Do you tell people that want to defend themselves that it is all in their heads?

Your Post 18-

Ok, so how many times have guns saved your life? Where, without one, you'd be dead?
Statistically speaking, I'm guessing none.

My question-Is the only person who has been killed for not having a gun when needed the only one who should be permitted one?

[Electric Monk]

57. Simple answer: of course not. I didn't say that above because I thought you were being rhetorical.nt

[sarisataka]

58. Thank you for the straight answer

That seemed to be the implication. I have seen it proposed that women who have been rape victims be allowed to carry firearms with the suggestion that if you are not such a person you should not be allowed to carry.

I disagree that anyone needs to be a sacrificial victim before being allowed to defend themselves; nor do I believe a gun is a be-all end-all defense tool. They are not for everyone.

[samsingh]

78. what you think is not answering the question is in fact answering the question

[LynnTTT]

77. My brother in law

He always had a gun and swore it saved his life many times. He also talked alot about carrying a "stiletto" when traveling on business in Mexico and other countries and how he fended off attackers. When pressed for details, he had a story about how he was walking down a dark street and a group of young men came close to him, he showed the knife and .. they continued on their way. That's was his story of self defense.

[Electric Monk]

83. ROFL, what a hero! A role model to gunthusiasts everywhere! Thanks for sharing :) nt

[randys1]

26. You are brave to post here and argue, let me watch you and admire you

[Duckhunter935]

60. you should thank our host

fro allowing the open discussion. That is quite unlike the "safe haven" that EM requires for his group that the pro-controller side seems to be afraid of open discussion and blocks any dissent.

[NYC_SKP]

3. "Why do you make me angry?"

Fear and anger are the same in that we have LOT of control of when and if we feel these things.

People don't make people angry, people do that to themselves.

I think it's the same with feeling "nervous".

[KT2000]

4. guns are changing all of us

When a friend filed a health complaint against a dentist, the investigator asked her if the dentist kept guns in the office before she went there to investigate.

If I see someone with a visible gun walking in the store, I don't know if he is there to shoot his old girlfriend, shoot randomly or is just flashing people with it. I will leave the store.

Driving now has to include the knowledge that another driver may have a gun and may shoot if they take a driving error as an insult.

Neighborhood conflicts now have to take into consideration whether or not guns could be involved.

This country has gone mad with guns and we see the violence of it every day. People are going to adjust to it in a multitude of ways. People can surely want their freedom to have and wear guns, but they cannot control the reactions that will define our society.

[hack89]

5. Yet gun violence rates are at historic lows

And continue to decline. Go figure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. I'm bookmarking this the next "gunners are motivated by fear" post.

[ileus]

6. Nothing like a "guns are scary" story.

It's amazing how closed minded folks can be...

[NaturalHigh]

8. My shotgun and pistol never leave my house...

unless it's for target practice at a place my family owns way out in the country. It's strictly for defending our home in case someone breaks in. Anybody who refrains from breaking into our house has absolutely nothing to worry about in reference to my firearms.

[Lurks Often]

9. "I’ve watched him watch others. The way he tracks them is unnerving."

On noes, the horror of it all!!!!

So someone is either a people watcher or chooses to pay attention to his surroundings and they are a threat?

Sounds like the author of the article should stay inside her home if she is that easily scared or perhaps she should seek help from a qualified mental health professional.

[Brickbat]

10. "I’ve watched him watch others. The way he tracks them is unnerving."

And what she is doing is...what?

[sarisataka]

12. The irony is not lost

Nor is the irony lost that her response to this imagined gun is to pretend to have a gun. According to the fables doesn't that make her the prime target?

[Brickbat]

13. I can't figure out why she does that.

If he's the bad guy, it makes her a target. If he's a good guy, what is she worried about?

[sarisataka]

14. It makes no sense

Though I'm not sure I would have understood her "tell" .

I never did get the super secret list of gunner signals and signs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. "irony"

You misspelled "hypocrisy."

[petronius]

21. It's a very strange story all around. Beyond the author's distorted view of risk, it makes

me suspect that this fellow who may or may not have had a gun wasn't so much tracking all the customers, but was keeping an eye on the one woman that kept giving him stink-eye and pretending to be armed.

The companion pro-gun column, written by a very smug 'sheepdog,' linked in that piece is equally extreme, in the other direction. Seems like that newspaper is working to define the outer bounds of the discussion...

[sarisataka]

22. I didn't read that one last night

When I get home I will do so. I will happily critique it as well.

[ileus]

36. Bet this was a work of fiction...

[Man from Pickens]

38. It's delusional cop-lover propaganda

Him having a badge would make it more dangerous for her and her children, not less, if his intent was hostile. He would then be nearly immune from any consequences for his behavior, no matter how vile. Thinking that having a badge means being properly trained with a weapon is a dangerously wrong myth.

She clearly has a paranoia problem, as she admits straight out that she has no information on the person she is afraid of, other than the figments of her own imagination. She would do well not to watch so many movies, because she is definitely having difficulty distinguishing between make-believe and real life.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Oh, I dunno, the cops seem pretty harmless to me.

In the last couple of weeks we've seen so many videos of them shooting themselves in the leg or blowing off their own fingers there can't possibly be enough of them left to threaten the rest of us.

"Halt! Or I'll shoot myself in the foot again!"

[HockeyMom]

51. My husband's guns make me nervous

Strangers??????? lol

[Electric Monk]

85. That can't be true. It's all in your head. Just ask the glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread.

[Marengo]

89. Perhaps you can identify the glib sociopaths in this thread? N/T

[Straw Man]

91. To whom might you be referring?

That can't be true. It's all in your head. Just ask the glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread.

Could you identify said sociopaths by name, or do you prefer to hide your sleazy innuendo behind a wall of plausible deniability?

[Electric Monk]

93. If someone thinks that the characterization might apply to them, then they just might be right. nt

[Straw Man]

97. I doesn't apply to me at all.

If someone thinks that the characterization might apply to them, then they just might be right.

That's not a reponse: It's an evasion. So I'll ask again: To whom were you referring?

C'mon, surprise us: Take responsibility for your statements for a change.

[Duckhunter935]

98. Well, it does not apply to me either

I am curious on how he is evading a simple question

[GGJohn]

111. Evading the question?

That seems to be your M.O. in this group.

[Duckhunter935]

113. nailed it nt

[GGJohn]

114. Him and Fred,

2 peas in a pod.

[Duckhunter935]

116. yep

both seem to post and when called out, they tend to not answer the question or change the subject, never apologize but run away instead.

not to mention the idiotic cartoon responses.

[Electric Monk]

122. One of my "idiotic cartoon" posts is currently #2 on The Greatest Page, with 139 recs and counting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026100711

Your reaction to them says more about you than about me

[Duckhunter935]

123. one of how many?

and it is about politics not guns

[blueridge3210]

124. So who exactly

are the "glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread"?

[blueridge3210]

125. Hello, Bueller? Bueller?

Just exactly who are the "glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread"?

[Duckhunter935]

126. So EM, simple question

Just exactly who are the "glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread"?

Should be simple to answer as you put out the accusation.

[blueridge3210]

128. Looks like he's afraid to reply to the question.

Funny, I thought it was the gun owners that were supposed to be afraid of everything. Hmmm......

[Duckhunter935]

129. It is ironic

Fred does the same thing, but EM is a host and I think that makes it even worse.

[Electric Monk]

130. Your deep concern over the answer just answered your own question, to a degree.

I know how much you'd love to get a post of mine hidden, but I'm not going to fall into that trap

[blueridge3210]

133. You accused one or more posters here of being a sociopath.

I'm just curious who it is that you feel meets that description? Or are you afraid to answer the question?

[GGJohn]

127. Ok, and that means what?

Is there an award for that?
Is that supposed to mean something IRL?

[Electric Monk]

131. Cartoons can be an effective medium to convey ideas, and are often good teaching tools

(snip)

Cartoons have a number of distinct advantages as a stimulus to group discussion about issues. They often contain a lot of information yet can be assimilated quite quickly. It is possible for people with a range of knowledge of the issues (or none at all) to respond to the same stimulus and for the discussion to reflect their level of experience. The humor of cartoons also contributes - laughter is important but humor can also disarm us of our assumptions and help us to look afresh as something. Many of the cartoons you might use as a stimulus, will be quite explicit in the main issues they bring to a groups agenda, they are at the very same time very open ended. They provide an opportunity for members of a group to explore those aspects they see as most important.

more
http://www.developmenteducation.ie/teachers-and-educators/using-resources/cartoons.html

or you can just dismiss them as "idiotic"

[GGJohn]

132. The ones you do post are all anti gun, and IMO, are idiotic.

[GGJohn]

117. My guess is that the group he hosts is sooooooo boring,

he has to come over here and stir shit up, then skedaddle back over to the protected group where he can gloat all he wants without pushback.

[Lizzie Poppet]

143. I suspect you've not the slightest clue about sociopathy.

But do carry on: amateur psychoanalysis is always good for lulz.

[blueridge3210]

144. That wouldn't be the only thing

EM has no clue about. But, it certainly is in the top 10.

[Duckhunter935]

94. I guess it's the

"sleazy innuendo" as he throws that accusation out there without any substantiation. I think that is another low from the controller side. Goes right in with the name calling and the other insults that are posted in his group.

Just proves the post that I agreed to in his group that got me blocked was indeed correct. Too bad he is just too scared to admit that fact.

[Duckhunter935]

92. "glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread"

please point them out or publicly apologize to all in this thread. That kind of over the top bullshit is just not called for. You make the accusation, come on, let's here who you are talking about.

I see you are back to the childish posting of a cartoon instead of actually having a civil debate. Well at least you should be thankful the host here allows you to post, shows your true colors. That is quite unlike you handle "castle bansalot"

[blueridge3210]

95. it's all he has.

And, when one does not have facts then resort to childish, broad-brush insults. Business as usual for some.

[Duckhunter935]

96. yep, really sad actually

you would think a host would be above that but in this case, I guess it is not so.

[Duckhunter935]

99. guess he ran away

not surprised

[blueridge3210]

100. I have to wonder

it there is something that drives the host of the GCRA group to act like this. First it was Sec Mo w/ his Google Dump and refusal to discuss anything (and the pride he took in his refusal to discuss anything with firearm owners); now the new group host can only engage is passive-aggressive broad-brush smear attacks and again refuse to actually discuss any issues. It's as if having their safe-haven/echo-chamber isn't enough; they have to try to control or shut down the debate in this group as well. Weird.

[Duckhunter935]

102. I agree

and I had to show him it was only the controller side that is breaking the GD SOP and even then he would not accept it as fact.

[beevul]

103. Hoyt was blocked for less. N/T

[Duckhunter935]

104. 7-0 to let that insult stand

I am ashamed sometimes, I would love to see the comments if they left any

JURY RESULTS

Someone else already alerted on this post before you alerted on it, and only the first alert was sent to a Jury. A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of the post on Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:32 PM, and voted 0-7 to keep IT. Please note that even though your alert was not sent to a Jury, it has been forwarded to the Administrators who review all alerts.

[Electric Monk]

105. 7-0 eh? Yeah, you should be ashamed. Perhaps you would feel more at home on ar15.com.

Part of the reason I don't always answer is I don't feel a need to dignify you (or beevul, etc) with a response. I answer when I want to, if I have something to contribute.

[Duckhunter935]

106. never been a member

do not go to that site and have been a proud DU member for over 6 years, that even looks longer than you have been a member.

So you should really apologize again for insulting a long time DU member. I doubt it will ever happen though.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. Ehh, warmed-over McCarthy style innuendos (along with pompous self-righteousness)...

...have always been a feature of certain anti-gun sorts here. I think it's caused by the realization
that their dream isn't going to happen any time soon (if ever).

So they take it out on us. Don't let them make you angry, feel sorry for them
-as any reader of Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" can tell you, that sort *needs* a Cause
to feel fufilled.

Still and all, it's a shame that they seem bound and determined to drive the
Democratic Party over the cliff with them...

[Duckhunter935]

109. Thanks, no I am not angry

more along the line of disappointed. I guess I just do not pass his purity test to be a member of DU. Too bad I am and I know it pisses him off.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. "I answer when I want to, if I have something to contribute."

Do, please, feel free to start contributing at any time now.
It would be a most welcome change...

[Duckhunter935]

110. Why yes it would

but even if he does not, he is showing how petty some are with the call outs of the posters in this thread without and evidence and when called out they change the subject or run away. I think it just shows how bad the controller side can be. This is really true when the hos from the other gun group comes over to this group to intentionally insult members. I would think a host would be better than that but I must be wrong.

[GGJohn]

112. That's a the problem with you,

you rarely have anything of substance to contribute here, it's usually broad brush smears, thinly disguised innuendos, or outright insults.

[Duckhunter935]

119. You are then breaking the group SOP

I wish you would hold yourself to the same standard that you apply in your group. You rarely contribute to the topic but post insults to the members here, a clear violation of the group SOP.

[beevul]

137. How does that song go?

"Meet the new boss...".

[LiberalLovinLug]

120. If you really want my comments here they are

Be careful what you wish for:

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While my sympathies lie with the cartoon poster, and enjoy seeing the gun nuts hop up and down, I think its over-reacting taking offense at the word "idiotic". Respond back if you are called an idiot, and show you are not.

[Duckhunter935]

121. Thank you

for being forthcoming. Those are the comments from the alert on my post and I thank you for actually looikng at the content of the post. The comments I would like to see are the ones for this post

"Just ask the glib sociopath gunthusiasts in this thread"

this one is a direct insult to the posters in this thread made by the host of the other gun related group. I think that is over the top myself.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159159#post85

[LiberalLovinLug]

139. Oh...okay

A coincidence. 2 hidden posts, involving the same 2 posters, in the same thread, where they both went 7-0. go figure.

[Duckhunter935]

140. Hidden?

They were just alerted on but allowed to remain unhidden

[LiberalLovinLug]

141. sorry unhidden

My point was that there were two alerted on, involving the same posters, with the same 7-0 result.

[Warpy]

101. I will leave any area where I see some open carry asshole toting a gun

because there is no way to tell which ones are just garden variety assholes and which ones are nutbags bent on mass murder.

They don't come labeled, you know.

I do see holster bulges from time to time and they don't bother me much unless I see the person go for the gun. Then I leave.

[oneshooter]

135. So you avoid being around LEO's ans security people. n/t

[sarisataka]

136. Think it through...

how many people about to commit a crime will openly carry a gun in a holster vs carrying it concealed until they commit the crime?

[Lizzie Poppet]

142. Sure can tell the author is white.

Given that she said a badge would have made her feel safer...