What terms can we agree upon as neutral labels for each side?

[GreenStormCloud]

I agree that it will help civil discussion, and maybe get rid of some trolls, if we set aside the terms such as "gun nut" and "gun-grabber". When I first started posting, even though I had lurked, I had illusion of shomehow being able to calmly discuss gun control with those opposed to guns. But so many promising threads turn into flame wars.

However, gun-control advocate and gun-control opponent are more than I like to type everytime I want to refer to one side the other. I have been calling my own side "gunnies", which no one has seemed to object to, but some might. So how about some suggestions for neutral terms that are short that we can use to refer to each side. I have consider GCA (Gun Control Advocate) and RKBAA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms Advocate) for each side. But that would leave new people wondering what I meant.

I shall give up the term "goblin" for "violent humans who prey on other humans". Violent criminals seems to be descriptive, but that is two words. Suggestions?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

2. Why have labels?

I'm for greater restrictions on handguns and fewer restrictions on long guns. I'm open to stricter gun control in high-density areas than in suburban areas. I'm for people having automatic weapons but requiring them to be kept in arsenals. There's more nuance in gun control positions than labels allow for.

Why not just say "people who oppose proposition X" for a particular proposition? Or why not leave the supporters and opposers out of it entirely, and just talk about legislation?

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Because the majority of posters do tend to fall into one camp or the other.

Your stated positions are for a tendency toward greater gun control.

[SteveM]

7. Some folks, by their advocacy and admission, fit the label.

On the "pro-2A" side, there are some who favor registering handguns (I do not), and those who favor having automatic weapons (I'm not so sure about going beyond the restrictions already set forth in measures controlling machine guns).

If the debate is set in terms of those who "oppose proposition X" or not, fine. But most of the posts by "controllers" are quite a scatter-gun approach of many propositions and calls for out-right bans.

Much of the "debate," as posed by the controllers, is over culture and morality, centering on the evils of guns, and the inhumanity of self-defense.

I would point out that the VAST amount of sound research, statistics, legal argument, etc. is presented by "2A-advocates." The "research" given by controllers is slim and repeatedly debunked; hence, the reliance on invective, condemnation... and outright calls for the banning of this forum.

Thanks for your outlook.

[Tim01]

18. I don't think you are being very nice.

I'm joking.

I know, it's hard to tell around here.

[SteveM]

3. I use "gun-controllers" or "controllers" as well as "prohibitionists"...

and "anti-2A", depending on how extreme the position. I don't think I've ever used the term "grabber."

For the other side, I use "pro-2A" and the cumbersome "Second Amendment advocates."

I don't know why you want to give up "goblin," though I prefer "crim," "thug," "HyperPunk" (for home invaders who KNOW armed people are present in the residence), etc. (Just doing my part to de-glamorize and de-romanticize violent goblins in search of political/cultural succor.)

[X_Digger]

4. GCA is also the 1968 Gun Control Act

Tough call.

Even on this subject, there are more than two sides- many levels, if you will..

On the 'pro guns' side:
- the "I've got mine, screw you" camp- those referred to on other boards as FUDs, or the 'Dove and Deer' crowd. They like their engraved benelli shotguns and marlin 30-30s, but would happily outlaw anything designed after 1950 unless it were bolt action and included a walnut stock.
- the "we're fine right where we are" crowd- I'd say a majority of regular posters in this forum fall into this area. More enforcement of existing regulations, uniformity of CCW standards, opening NICS to private sellers, etc..
- the "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand" fringe- They want many (all?) restrictions removed.

On the 'anti guns' side:
- the "I don't know what, but _something_ needs to be done" folks- Kind of vague on proposals, but they're very saddened / outraged at the level of gun violence that occurs.
- the "guns are okay in theory, but more more more regulation" crowd- perennial posters about the so-called 'gun show loophole' and whatever the latest meme is from the brady bunch. Frequently bring up the failed 'assault weapons' ban
- the "gunz are bad, ban!" fringe- embolden, kiddie porn, blah blah blah.


I don't know that one term for 'pro' and one for 'con' would fit.

[eqfan592]

6. This is a tough issue to put down any sort of easy labels for.

For instance, just about all of us here are "pro-gun control" to one extent or another. Not many around here are against getting rid of the background check system, for instance, which most would call a "gun control" measure of sorts. I dunno, just seems like it's going to be hard to place both sides of these argument into any sort of neat little box, especially when there really aren't two clearly defined sides to begin with, with the exception of the extremists.

[rd_kent]

8. Well, since the Second Amendment is a civil right, perhaps that is how this should be framed...

Those that are pro-civil rights, as in ALL civil rights and those that are pro-SOME civil rights, as in the ones they agree with.

[krispos42]

9. The issue most people are facing is what constitutes "reasonable" restriction.

In other words, most of the discussion is not whether there should be a line, but where the line should be drawn.

[brendan120678]

10. How about, similar to the abortion debate...

we call those who favor allowing people the choice to be armed, pro-choice, and those who wish to severely limit a person's right to chose to own and carry a firearm anti-choice.

:hide:

[slackmaster]

11. I'd go for "pro-choice" and "pro-disarmament"

:rofl:

[MisterBill45]

12. In all seriousness...

Everyone should grow a skin.

This is an extremely controversial, emotional topic. Ad Homs are going to get thrown here and there and "offensive" words are going to get used. It's the way of human critters.

Censoring words or names is IMO a very bad idea. Come on guys, WTF we're the LIBERALS fer cryin out loud! We should be the grownups, which means sticks and stones etc.

Go ahead and offend me! I'll get over it. I'll tell you I'm offended, and if I'm able to call you on it with some eloquence, you'll either be shamed into stopping it, be labeled a troll or in the end, get banned for being a jerk.

I'm absolutely opposed to censoring "hate speech" or anything other such notion. It's an illiberal notion that promotes people's precious little feewings over the principle of free expression. It stands opposed to centuries of enlightenment ideals and makes hypocrites of anyone who calls themselves a liberal and supports such a notion. Voltaire would be ashamed of us!

Define what's uncivil. Go ahead, try to do so. It's an inherently subjective standard that has no value beyond preserving people's feelings. Guess what? No one has a right not to be fucking offended.

I'm offended all the time. Somehow I manage to avoid slitting my wrists.

Intentionally starting a flame war or using an ad hom IN PLACE of an argument is one thing. Using a term like gun-nut? Guess what? I consider myself a gun-nut. Feel free to call me one all day long. You can call me a gun-crazy or an asshole while you're at it. I'll consider the source and MOVE THE FUCK ON.

I know it's hard to mod a forum. But CONTENT, not word choices, should determine civility. I try to be respectful of others even when I disagree with them but I'm not always going to meet that mark. I don't expect you will either, regardless of the topic.

I am a grownup and can handle words I don't like. I grant you the same respect.

We aren't children here. Mods, I ask you to please reconsider.

Respectfully,

Bill

[PavePusher]

13. Oh, you're just trying to ruin a perfectly good round...

...of political correctness...

:evilgrin:

[MisterBill45]

14. I posted in the wrong place

I'm new here so forgive my ignorance, but WTF is with the pansy (as in coward) attitudes? Has no one here read their liberal/radical history? Emma Goldman? Jack Reid? Hello...Bueller? anyone?

We're supposed to be the firebrand wild-eyed champions of the people and of freedom and personal liberty and for keeping the monied interests in their place. Did everyone here grow up in the 80s or something?

The unions that TOOK UP FUCKING ARMS against the capitalists... would they all be banned here because they "offended" someone?

Please enlighten me. I'm seriously confused. Found the site and was all excited because I didn't have to deal exclusively with a right-wing wacko gun site. (In fairness, some of the wackos are pretty nice folks, just woefully misinformed on politics). Now I'm wondering if this is some kind of feel-good PC BS site pretending to be liberal or the real deal. So far I'm seeing an awful lot of totalitarian instinct masquerading as "compassion" while very UNsubtly saying that people of color are inferior and need to be "protected" from their own decisions. PLEASE tell me I'm wrong:(

-Bill

[Tim01]

15. "PLEASE tell me I'm wrong :("

Can't help you. Sorry. Maybe somebody else can.

[Artie Bucco]

16. Hey this is 2000 fucking ten

Everyone on the left thinks we get change by becoming vegetarians and holding hands in protests.

In all seriousness I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[SteveM]

21. I eat at a vegetarian restaurant and, at 61, hold hands at every opportunity...

and I have 2 deer in the freezer.

Frankly, I'm tired of the same balderdash you can see on most any other Fordchevvy gun site.

[spin]

17. While I see your point ...

a lot of discussions here turned into name calling. Throwing insults at another poster is a futile waste of internet bandwidth and probably contributes to global warming.

Many of the posters who are strong advocates of draconian gun control resorted to "drive by" posts that accused gun owners of having short penis syndrome and owning firearms to compensate for their lack of size. Gun owners were accused of being ignorant rednecks or dangerous people with a desire to kill other people in order to live out their violent fantasies.

The pro-gun advocates often allowed anger to interfere with their fact based arguments and hurled insults back.

Many good discussions turned sour and after reading through the posts, I would feel a desire to take a shower.

It's worth a try to elevate the level of discussion in the "gungeon". (This term has also been criticized.)

To produce this result we need to develop terms to describe the pro and anti-gun contingents that both sides accept. At the same time we don't want to spend time typing long descriptive terms such as "those who advocate draconian gun control laws and confiscation" if a simpler substitute could be found. Something simple like "gunnies" and "anti-gunnies" or "pro-gun people" and "anti-gun people".

One big problem is that most people fall in between the extremists. In my case, I strongly support RKBA but I would like to see all firearms purchases including private sales required to go through an NICS background check.

Give the moderators a chance. If they succeed in a fair compromise, we should have a lot of really good discussions in this sub-forum. It will be far more interesting than posting on those "right-wing wacko gun sites" you mentioned.

When I do post on those sites I normally discuss technical issues of various firearms and shooting. I avoid the politics of the issue. Most of the posters on those sites are convinced that all Democrats want to confiscate firearms. They buy into Republican propaganda and ignore the fact that Republicans have sold out gun owners in the past.

[MisterBill45]

19. Stop being reasonable! :)

I HATE when that happens. :)

Jokes aside, it's not the drive-by insults I'm taking issue with. Those are, as I said, ad-hom attacks DEVOID OF CONTENT.
Rightfully those should be deleted, the posters warned and if repeated, banned. That's not a discussion, it's a name-calling fest.

What I'm asking the mods to reconsider is the idea of WORDS being worthy of banning/deletion. Words are often useful. Even cuss words and ad homs. I'm not offended by being called a name and anyone who's grown up enough to post here should be thick-skinned enough to get over being called gun-nut or short-peepee syndrome or whatever. Hey, even my wife and I, avid shooters and RKBA absolutists, joke about the big-bore folks compensating. It's all in good fun, and if not, well, I can cope with it.

There is a big difference between using a name/ad hom in a post and using a sigle-line ad-hom with no content in a reply. It's not hard to tell the difference.

I get the distinct feeling, having looked over this section of DU, that the complaints were about the latter. If the mods want to focus on those, then great. No complaints form me. It's a -as you said- "drive-by" ad-hom attack.

If I post something with content and in the process call you a gun-nut or grabber, or brady bunch etc. that's not a post devoid of content. It's using a name as short-hand to show my perception of your position. the idea that I should have to instead use "The Brady Center for Prevetion of Gun Violence" is silly. It's downright childish over-sensitivity to object to "the brady bunch."

If you can't handle an ad-hom, don't post on a controversial subject on an internet forum. Nothing in life is free. You don't get free speech and at the same time get to hide behind your precious sensitivity. It's insulting to the very notion of a free citizen.

I understand your desire to ensure a worthwhile dialogue. But sometimes the best dialogue comes out of an insensate comment. If you censor that, you miss all the good which might have come form it.

This is the nature of free speech. We've covered this ground in CENTURIES of blood-strewn battlefields and the books and writings of hundreds of years of enlightenment philosophy. All I'm asking is that the mods not pee all over victories that have been bought with the blood of better people than all of us in the name of not hurting some coward's precious little feelings. Grow up, that's all I'm asking of everyone.

[SteveM]

20. I think most people in this forum are quite aware of the stuff you're talking about...

and think there should be something very different than jousting matches between folks who think they know how best to put down others, employing the usual flame-banter of the internet. Folks might disagree on whether or not it is a smear to call the VPC the "Brady Bunch" (I don't think it is a smear), but that is secondary.

"If you can't handle an ad-hom, don't post..." For most here, it's not a question of "handling" the attack, it's a question of diverting from the main topic: Second Amendment rights, proposed restrictions, and frankly, winning the pro-gun-control side over to the pro-2A side, or as close as possible. The rest of the fire and brimstone can be put into 2 categories:

(1) Bull-in-the-ring (from an old football drill): "C'mon, I can take on ANYTHING you can throw at me because I stink better!"

(2) Starting a fight in an empty barroom (needs no explanation).

Welcome to a (hopefully) different forum.

[SteveM]

22. Two important considerations about "increased civility:"

(1) Since, IMO, the worst offenders in regards ad hominem attacks, personal insults, and backwards Freudianism are the extremist gun-controllers, then "their side" will "suffer" the most by having to curb their attitude;

(2) Since, IMO, the chief tactic of some of these extremists is to "stink up" this forum with their rhetoric and thereby create a "plague on both houses attitude" from others who might drop in on occasion, then to remove this tactic from their arsenal would be beneficial not only to the debate, but to pro-2A folks as well.

It's these "occasionals" who are critical to the debate in DU, the Democratic Party, and in the nation as a whole. Let them see who makes a good argument on Second Amendment rights, not who can blow longest and hardest when you can find that anywhere.

My goal? Not to out blue-streak someone else (that's gratuitous), but to rid the Democratic Party of its profoundly self-destructive addiction to gun-control culture war. The Party platform should read. "The Democratic Party fully supports the right to keep and bear arms."

(Note period in last sentence)