How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?

[hso]

We have had a couple of folks show up and identify themselves as anti or RKBA-curious and the membership generally does all of us proud as long as the OP isn't accusatory and seems to be open to discussion. Mods have had to monitor those discussions closely and have been forced to delete some posts to allow the discussion to continue.

OTOH, we have had folks just show up to toss virtual gasoline around and they've been handled roughly until the thread was closed.

 

[hso]

Some forums feel like a Nazi concentration camp

With all due respect, unless you have a tattoo on your forearm that bit of hyperbole is not founded in reality.
An old friend of my family walked through these gates and offered that nothing was ever like a NAZI concentration camp when I foolishly made such a reference.

 

[Robert]

On whim I looked up your locked threads. I had assumed that their was one locked thread that would stand out as having been locked with a heavy hand.
1. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=555310&page=4
Art locked this thread, having admitted to the OP that no rules were broken (according to the OP), because after four pages of chest beating and bowing to the wishes of private property owners this thread was going around in circles with nothing to gain.
2. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=540555
hso states it was already under discussion. Pretty clear there.
3. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=433963
Seems Jorg thought the subject had been beat to death when it "was first introduced months ago". You'd have to take that up with him.
4. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=334660&page=4
Seems this was locked as it was political, intended or not politics are off topic.
5. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=332879&page=3
geekwitha45 explained that one pretty well I think. But again you'd have to talk to him.

In these 5 locked thread the reason for locking was clear, at least to my mind, in that the members taking part in the threads, except where noted, drove them off the rails as it were.

I always wonder about posters who think they know more about what is good for the forum than the mods or admin.

Interesting.

To me, if a discussion is with the rules, and the spirit of those rules, it should be left to it's own devices and die a natural death.

Even if it is to the detriment of the forum as a whole? Remember the 1st Amendment has no bearing here.

 

[ants]

Uh Oh. I hope this thread doesn't become one of those personal 'shootouts'.
We should all take a breath and get back to the original question.
I hope we're not about to answer that question negatively...

 

[BADUNAME13]

I have read:

When a consirvative doesn't like guns he doesn't own them

When a liberal doesn't like guns he try's to keep OTHER's from owning them.

IF your #1... that's fine

If your #2.... We have nothing to discuss, come and take them.

 

[JohnBT]

"How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners? "

Are you implying that we - the members - would be rude to a guest?

Or are you saying that you suspect the guests would be rude?

It takes two to have a civil discsussion.

I get the feeling after reading your words that you are assuming the turmoil would be caused by the members. Do you also believe that the anti-gunners are all reasonable people? Do you know any?

 

[Vector]

We have had a couple of folks show up and identify themselves as anti or RKBA-curious and the membership generally does all of us proud as long as the OP isn't accusatory and seems to be open to discussion. Mods have had to monitor those discussions closely and have been forced to delete some posts to allow the discussion to continue.
OTOH, we have had folks just show up to toss virtual gasoline around and they've been handled roughly until the thread was closed.

First let me say you are not a mod I ever remembering having an issue with on this subject. I fully appreciate the need to edit/remove posts rather than allow it to derail an entire thread. That said, some threads are arbitrary locked based on personal perception without any attempt to remove an offending post.

You will also have mods who come up with unwritten rules, or pull things out of thin air like "thread necromancy" as justification of their actions.

With all due respect, unless you have a tattoo on your forearm that bit of hyperbole is not founded in reality.
An old friend of my family walked through these gates and offered that nothing was ever like a NAZI concentration camp when I foolishly made such a reference.

Let me say that on the one hand I do not like the constant comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany as a slippery slope argument. However I also used the other extreme of Woodstock which you did not object to. Am I to presume you might find the analogy of over moderation more objectionable than that of one that is not well regulated?

In all seriousness you make a good point.

However, even with my aforementioned comment I do not try to be PC just to avoid offending those who might not like any reference to Nazi's.
I actually debated the term holocaust one time with a person who claimed to be a Jew. He insisted that no other man made extermination could be called a holocaust as Jewish people would be offended. When I pointed out that attempted genocide was not exclusive to the Jews, and other groups like Russians, Irish, Polish, etc. had all been subjected to their own historical holocaust I was called an anti-Semite. :banghead:

Now back on topic.

 

[rozziboy18]

red v blue and such aside, sometimes we as a group take offence when we

we shouldent. when people come here and ask questions that maybe against

our beliefs, they shouldent all be written off as trolls. sometimes its a person

raised different than us and and have different beliefs than us. now there

are some out there that i refer to as reactionist. people hell bent on getting

a rise out of anyone out there. im not talking about them, im talking about

someone that is just trying figure out why we believe what we do, to try

and find some common ground. when we great them with a witty retort of

why they are wrong they bounce back to you with one as well. thus fanning

the flames and getting the post canceled. we will have to learn to be tolerant

and patiant with them and answer any questions they my have, so that they

can make a informed decision on where to go form there. as long as we beat

them down with what we think is funny and hurtfull coments, we will be

looked at as republican nuts, and they will remain anti gun.


thanks for working with my poor grammer. im trying to improve my vocabulary and become better at writing my replys. i dident pay attention in school because of girls and i had better things to do and im paying for it:banghead:. im taking classes at walter state to further my learning and not seem like such a imbosol when i write.

 

[Vector]

"How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners? "

Are you implying that we - the members - would be rude to a guest?

Or are you saying that you suspect the guests would be rude?

It takes two to have a civil discsussion.

I get the feeling after reading your words that you are assuming the turmoil would be caused by the members. Do you also believe that the anti-gunners are all reasonable people? Do you know any?

I know a few who are reasonable, but maybe not rational.
Seriously, I do know a couple of people who are anti-gun to one degree or another that I respect.

As to the subject in general, I think my experience on this board has been one of limited tolerance when I go against the grain so to speak. I've also had civil and respectful discussions locked that were in their infancy without a real opportunity to evolve and for either side to be enlightened or persuaded. So if that can happen to someone like me, I find it hard to believe that an avowed anti-gunner could come here and have a reasonable chance to articulate their position or have the time to be persuaded to our way of thinking.
That would be as to say both the forum members and certain parts of the moderation team would be the culprits. However as you point out it takes two to Tango, so I am certain some just like taking a stick to poke us with on the anti side.

 

[Vector]

If I go over to my friends house for dinner, and don't have a gun, most of my friends will offer me one of theirs. I guess it depends on what sort of people you associate yourselves with.

I cannot imagine why your friends would feel the need to arm you for dinner if you failed to bring your own gun.

Presumably you said that tongue in cheek?

 

[hso]

I also used the other extreme of Woodstock which you did not object to. Am I to presume you might find the analogy of over moderation more objectionable than that of one that is not well regulated?

No, you're to presume that I agree with you to the extent that some forums here barely require any moderation or any sort because the version of "THR-hippies", members that voluntarily uphold more of the ideals of THR, are the usual participants in those Woodstock-esque forums. General, Legal and Activism (one I happen to moderate) are the toughest forums to moderate because of the constant shouting past each other and the insistence on being right (having their way) of some participants. Those forums get the heaviest moderation in reaction to this. NFW (the other I moderate) hardly requires any effort because the folks there can disagree while remaining civil and even friendly. When someone comes in and muscles their opinion around, the "regulars" pretty quickly deal with it without a lot of effort on my part.

The discussion in this thread keeps being pulled back to the topic of the particulars of a thread of your's that was closed instead of the original topic of whether an anti would be treated with civility. It is a good question, but it seems to have been reasonably answered with examples where anti's or curious folks were engaged by members who treated it as a teaching opportunity instead of a mudslinging contest.

 

[KBintheSLC]

It shouldn't be surprising that anti-2nd views on THR get "shot down" quicker than a Zero over Okinawa. Don't feel bad though... I bet you will be greeted with the same, or worse, animosity if you post a pro-2nd comment on something such as the VPC website.

 

[Dravur]

Vector..
In reply as to why I would carry in a private home, in a maternity ward...etc

the gun is safer with me than it is locked in my car. Simple as that really. If someone doesn't want me to carry in their home, they can ask me to leave or leave it in the car. I will make my decision based on that.

But... the gun is safer on me than it is locked in my unattended vehicle.

 

[Gouranga]

In my short tenure here I have seen about a dozen anti-gunners come on here. Those who are respectful and polite will find the posters here respectful and polite in return. Those who are inflammatory and rude find their thread locked and/or deleted.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my position(s). You know what they say about opinions...and we all have them. I try to be respectful and I enjoy a healthy debate.

Are them mods sometimes heavy handed? Maybe. But no matter what they do they lose. Lock it and people get ticked, allow an inflammatory or nowhere discussion to continue,they get grief for that.

 

[Justin]

First let me say you are not a mod I ever remembering having an issue with on this subject. I fully appreciate the need to edit/remove posts rather than allow it to derail an entire thread. That said, some threads are arbitrary locked based on personal perception without any attempt to remove an offending post.

Please realize that in many cases staff members have enough experience to be able to see when a thread is likely to go downhill and may close it before the whole thing crashes and burns.

Granted, this is something that often requires a judgment call on the part of the staff member. That said, if you have an issue with a thread that's been closed, there's certainly nothing wrong with dropping a message to whoever closed the thread inquiring further about it.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I cannot imagine why your friends would feel the need to arm you for dinner if you failed to bring your own gun.

Presumably you said that tongue in cheek?

Yes. It is figurative language intended to point out my friends are not offended if I carry at their place, and they are welcome to carry at mine. To use less figurative language, but an actual example of something that has happened, I have dropped in on a friend on a weekend, and some spontaneous social drinking occured. My friend was willing to put my gun with his in the safe, the evening's festivities proceeded, and I picked it up the next day. One could argue my gun was as welcome as I.

That said, if I have a friend who would be offended by it, I would in all cases except those where I would anticipate a need (unimaginable rare), respect his/her wishes in order to avoid giving offense.

 

[Vector]

That's unfortunate, because one of the biggest missions of this site is to have tolerance for those who don't support the second amendment and gun ownership.

This site exists partly to educate and advocate safe and responsible gun ownership. That means that if someone has no experience with guns or gun culture, they can come here to learn. If we all had the same "zero tolerance" attitude that you seem to have, we'd be talking into a vacuum and doing nothing worthwhile for the shooting community at large.

I think yours is one of the best posts and well thought out on the subject.

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that extreme points of view in some threads are not conducive to reasoned discussion. So while a extreme view from a pro-gun person might be more palatable to the membership and moderators, it should not be dealt with differently more than a dissenting point of view. All that will do is turn off those who might otherwise have been persuaded to a more moderate way of thinking.

 

[smallbore]

Personally, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Just don't try to force feed me your opinions.

 

[jdowney]

Such is the problem with big, popular forums on any subject, seen it a bunch of times. Some smaller forums are better at civility, some are not. Bottom line for me is that any forum is like the owner's house. Do you want a bunch of people you hardly know hanging around and having a big pissing match in your virtual living room? If they're having a civil and informative discussion however, its all good.

The key to civil discussion is being able to see the other guy's point of view without thinking that in doing so you're agreeing with it. If I can't even comprehend someone's opinion, I generally am not interested in the discussion. Why look for pointless argument on the net? I can get that at home

 

[mustang_steve]

I've debated it many times, and it is the same arguments over and over.

In the end, the most common one I've seen is "What gives YOU the right to decide who dies?"

My response has been "I would only do such in defense of my own life or the life of my family, so...would you value a criminal's life over your own? Would you value their right to live over your family's solidarity and functionality? Would you put their emotions below the criminal's want to your life, and possibly bodies ( in the case of home invasion rapists)? So who has the greater rights, the criminal or the lawful citizen who had to use force to stop the threat created by the criminal's actions?"

Usually it ends with a "....well...." response. "Well...." responses as I call them have no real meat, it's just someone making a degrading opinion about your beliefs, and usually starts with "well...." and goes from there.

There's not much new ground to cover with us debating antis openly on the forum, as all their answers are right here in searchable format. Not that I wouldn't welcome a good debate on a freash angle on the RKBA, I just feel that too many people want a debate based on a dead horse.

 

[oldbear]

kaferhaus

And that doesn't mean I have no tolerance for "liberals". I know several that are very liberal (some are close friends) but they're not anti 2nd amendment, anti CCW nor are they for registration or "amnesty" for illegal aliens.

Well there may be hope for us after all. I'm moderate to liberal in my social views, but conservative in my financial views. I carried two revolvers to work everyday for 27 years. Now retired I don't leave the house without a weapon on my person or in the car. My views on illegal aliens is simple. I don't blame then for wanting to be here, but do it the right way, and please don't demand that I learn to speak your language; you came to the country of my birth so I expect you to learn my language.

As for firearms, I don't see any need to open carry, if CCW is an option.

I don't understand the need to carry a weapon in your own home unless you have some very bad people after you or you on the run from the law. If either is the case find a better place to hide.
If a store owner does not want you to carry a weapon on his property, that is his right. If you don't like it shop somewhere else.
If you are a guest in someones home, unless they are another "gun nut" leave the gun at home or in the car.
Other than the fact they are a HOOT to shoot, I see no reason that the armed citizen needs a fully automatic weapon.
I believe that the folks who carry two or more handguns with multi reloads may have some serious paranoia problems.
I also believe that if you use a gun in the commission of a crime any sentence passed by a court should be doubled.
I believe that the armed citizen should have a duty to retreat whenever possible, unless doing so would put their life in danger.

Sir, if you disagree with some of my beliefs please let me know,as I'm always willing to consider opposing views. All I ask is we keep any discussion civil.

 

[benEzra]

I have read:

When a consirvative doesn't like guns he doesn't own them

When a liberal doesn't like guns he try's to keep OTHER's from owning them.

This is the type of generalization that IMO is not helpful. I would go into why I think it is false in both directions, but will avoid going there and simply point out that this type of stereotyping is not appropriate for THR. There are certainly other gun forums in which "Go Team" type flamewars are tolerated, even encouraged, and those forums are a more appropriate venue for such.

This board is called "The High Road" for a purpose. The raison d'etre of this site is to be a place for a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums. That does mean that posts consisting of personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are strongly discouraged here.

If someone has trouble expressing his opinion on a particular aspect of RKBA without resorting to ad hominem arguments, stereotyping, finger pointing, or losing focus, then he should work on his debate skills until he can. He will be a much more effective advocate for our side.

 

[Erik M]

I avoid attempting to convince people online because I know for a fact it is a popular pastime of 'trolls' to agitate the pro-gun community with this very argument. I'm glad this board is moderated ina fashion that keeps this behavior to a minimum because I visit other information sites who's naive management let that type of behavior run amok.

I avoid it IRL because I do not feel that I should have to explain every asinine detail of my personal convictions to convince someone to adopt beliefs similar to my own.

 

[TrakHack]

I am very new to this board and I would not consider myself to be in "lock step" with the majority here. I'm not male, I'm not Republican, and until a couple months I would probably be classified as neutral or slightly "anti" second amendement. Oh, and the new-found affection I do have for guns seems to extend only to revolvers; definitely not "typical" from what I can tell.

My personal experience is members here are generally well-educated, well-spoken (or well-written, I suppose), and are here to share their experiences and opinions in a helpful manner. I haven't gotten the impression at all that people here are incapable of independent thought and are victims of "group think", but rather that they respect the right of others to disagree with their opinions.

From what I have seen, people posting here can usually explain exactly why they believe what they do on a specific topic; they've thought about it and made an intelligent, informed decision. If someone explains why they hold a particular belief or opinion and you still choose to argue and question because you disagree with their explanation, I think that *is* stirring the pot. Either that or reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit...

Anyway, as someone completely new to firearms my experience with THR has been entirely positive. Based on this experience, I do think someone joining the board to have a genuine conversation with the intent of learning and understanding would be able to be part of a civil conversation here regardless of topic. As bulletin boards go, THR is one of the least hostile environments I've experienced, and the moderators do a nice job of keeping it that way.

 

[BADUNAME13]

Please take this as literal, in an attempt to learn and not an attempt to be snide etc:

This is the type of generalization that IMO is not helpful. I would go into why I think it is false in both directions, but will avoid going there and simply point out that this type of stereotyping is not appropriate for THR. There are certainly other gun forums in which "Go Team" type flamewars are tolerated, even encouraged, and those forums are a more appropriate venue for such.

This board is called "The High Road" for a purpose. The raison d'etre of this site is to be a place for a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums. That does mean that posts consisting of personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are strongly discouraged here.

If someone has trouble expressing his opinion on a particular aspect of RKBA without resorting to ad hominem arguments, stereotyping, finger pointing, or losing focus, then he should work on his debate skills until he can. He will be a much more effective advocate for our side.

I cannot find it, but that passage included the same statements concerning:
Homosexuality, chairity, and many other topics.

It would seem to me, that it is the liberals (Please note, I do NOT say Democrat and Republican) Who are doing EXACTLY that.

I have had enjoyable discussions with people with very liberal views on a variety of topics.

You do NOT have to agree with me, just be able to backup your views to have me respect you and your viewpoints.

Despite your 'tongue and cheek' insult/attack in your final paragraph (Yea, it was in a 'nice way' but that's what it was')

I was NOT 'chest thumping' or anything of the sort.

Last I checked it WAS the Liberals who wanted to take away our gun rights.
NOT the consirvatives.

I have NO issues with the 'Pink Pistols' or any other group... so long as I don't see it.

Oh, the reasons cops do profiling/stereotyping is because it WORKS.

I welcome your (serious) thoughts on the subject, Iam open to the possibility to the fact that we are miscomunicating, or I do not understand something you are saying...