Should a female pro-RKBA advocate be subjected to terms like "gun-humper"?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Okay, granted, males shouldn't be subjected to any sort of name calling either but I find the imagery the term is supposed to conjure WRT females to be degrading and foul in the extreme.

I respectfully ask the pro-control side to refrain from using the term. All in favor, say, "Aye."

[Jgarrick]

1. As you say, no one should subjected to it, but the civilian disarmament advocates are so

over-emotional and childish on this subject that petty insults are all they have left.

Take heart...they wouldn't be so bitter if we weren't winning.

[HooptieWagon]

4. +1

Yes, when their argument is reduced to childish insults and name-calling... they lost.

[pablo_marmol]

48. The escalation of the shrill tone is another tip that things aren't

going well for the pro-restriction supporters.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Aye n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. It's not a term I would have ever thought to use

so it's pretty easy to refrain from using it in future as I have in the past.

The insults aren't useful. All you need to see are the daily tolls of the dead and wounded, the ever growing number of multi-victim massacres to know the country has a serious problem with under-regulated firearms.

[clffrdjk]

6. Hey, locally heroin use is on the rise, along with everything that comes with it.

Just about once a month I recognize a name in the obituary from an overdose. Do you have any suggestions for increasing regulations on heroin?

Also thank you for avoiding the name calling.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Several

although I doubt any would pass whatever legislators you have. I'd suggest having clinics where users could go to shoot up without fear of being arrested, in 'safe' (padded) rooms, monitored by healthcare personnel, in exchange for attending counselling to try and get them to decrease their usage and address whatever problems are leading them to use such drugs in the first place.

There would certainly still be people who wouldn't want to use such facilities, but at least for those who want to quit, it would be a positive step forward.

[clffrdjk]

12. So your suggestion for the heroin issue is to reduce regulations.

Hmm that's interesting.
So the answer to a problem is not always increased regulation.


As a side note I agree with everything in your post.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Well, no it wasn't. It was to add more.

Getting people to go to specifically licensed areas to shoot up is increased regulation, not decreased regulation.

The libertarian 'deregulation' option would simply be to decriminalize everything and let people overdose as often as they want.

[clffrdjk]

18. Sorry but yes giving them a spot to shoot up

Is reducing restrictions/regulations.
Yes you are adding words to the law but it is all just one big exemption.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. Hmmm.

I'm pretty sure that if you asked anyone on the right, they would consider that 'more interference in personal lives' and 'big government liberalism', not less. You don't 'reduce regulation' by adding new regulations. You'd still have the same penalties for anyone not using the facilities, plus you'd be adding layers of gov't regulation for those who use them, given that they'd simply be given a bit more 'freedom' temporarily as you worked to treat them for their addictions. It would essentially be a treatment program that you entered voluntarily, rather than being assigned to by a judge while on probation.

[clffrdjk]

21. Is this some kind of joke?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. No, I just disagree with you

that adding levels of complexity and regulation to drug usage somehow equates to 'deregulation'. From your early comments, it appears that you wanted to believe that I am inconsistent in how I would approach dealing with people killing themselves with drugs vs those who kill others with guns. Presumably you would then sit back and have a warm fuzzy that you had 'shown' that another 'anti-gun' person was hypocritical.

But let's go whole hog and compare the two as close to side by side as you can.

As I noted, I'm in favour of people who want to do drugs doing them in far greater safety, in government-regulated and run facilities. In exactly the same way, I would be fine with people who want to shoot guns doing so in far greater safety, in government-regulated and run facilities.

Ie, let people continue to have the 'right' to own guns, but to only use them in designated safe zones. Not to whip them out in movie theatres when they feel like being the 'cellphone police', or to shoot people who try to fight back against creepy guys stalking them at night when they're on skittles runs.

Have regulated state-run armories, not keep seeing, month after month, children shooting themselves because 'responsible gun owning' parents just happened to forget to lock a gun safe. Regulate guns as much as we regulate the vast majority of drugs.

[Eleanors38]

52. I agree with this approach to heroin addiction for

those who want to kick/reduce dependency. This gun hu---- used to assist with needle exchange programs when it was illegal to do so. The spread of HIV in Austin hit a hard ceiling with this approach. The man who started it all, a biker from Tacoma, died last year.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Not a bad idea

Maybe something similar for all addictions, including guns

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. "Maybe something similar for all addictions, including guns"

Power is also an addiction.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Very true

Addictions come in many forms

[blueridge3210]

63. Addiction

Is that an actual clinical diagnosis, or just a manifestation of your own prejudice and bigotry?

[Starboard Tack]

83. Statement of fact

No bigotry or prejudice involved. Some gun enthusiasts are addicted, just as some golfers are. Most of us do things in moderation.

[blueridge3210]

84. How would you define "addiction"? (NT)

[Starboard Tack]

85. Depends on the type of addiction

Physical addiction is quite different to psychological addiction, especially in terms of withdrawal. Heroine addiction is physical and withdrawal can be life threatening.
Nicotine is often physical, but not always. Most addictions are psychological, where the addict feels such a desire for something, that it drives their behavior. They feel incomplete or insecure when the object of their addiction is unavailable, be it a line of cocaine, sugar in their coffee or carrying a gun whever they go.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Does this count?

I think this should count.

[Starboard Tack]

92. Sorry, I don't have the bandwidth to play YouTube vids.

I'm on the road in rural Mexico and my connection is iffy.

[blueridge3210]

88. A lot of words

that don't really define anything. With regards to firearms, what behavior would, in your words, define addiction. A self reported feeling of "discomfort" in the absence of a firearm could be driven by the presence of a defined threat that the person is unable to deter w/o a firearm. I remember a previous discussion of the term "compulsive toter" to describer those persons who regularly carried while in public. It appeared that the intent was to describe public carry as an irrational act and the person carrying, by extension, as an irrational person. The only description of addiction with which I am familiar is one that defines addiction as ongoing behavior after past behavior has resulted in problems with the legal system, social or familial relations or employment.

[Starboard Tack]

91. Compulsive is a good word.

Carrying a gun out of compulsion, rather because of some credible threat could well be a component of an addiction, or it could be a symptom of something far more serious.. The true test for addiction in such a case, would be to examine the behavioral response of someone who forgets, or somehow loses possession of their gun.
Many folk just carry out of habit, some carry because of a genuine sense of vulnerability, but we're talking about those who carry addictively. There is a difference. Nothing necessarily to feel embarrassed about, but definitely something worth pondering.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. It doesn't bother me, really. I simply dismiss the person using it as a simpleton.

It's just one of many useful red flags for me.

[bowens43]

7. gun fetishist probably more accurate.....

[spin]

9. If a target shooter is a gun fetishist, is a golfer with a low handicap a golf fetishist or ...

a bowler with a high average a bowling fetishist?

[flamin lib]

10. Depends on the depth and intensity of the involvement. nt

[beevul]

14. In other words, only people that care enough about the issue to be vocal.

By that standard, vocal committed anti-gunners are "control fetishists".

Glad you agree.

[NYC_SKP]

16. They are, there are fetishists on both sides of the issue.

I'd say that Kevin DeLeon of California is a gun fetishist.

He has an unhealthy preoccupation with "ghost guns" and other fanciful mythical guns, it seems.

[spin]

20. A typical gofer might go to a golf course several times a month. ...

A typical bowler might belong to a bowling league and occasionally go to the bowling alley to practice.

The typical gun owner goes shooting perhaps once or twice a month and unlike what I often see posted here on DU, he does not sit in his living room fondling his firearms every night.

In my opinion, it would be unfair to say that the typical bowler has a bowling fetish or the typical golfer has a golf fetish. It would also be inaccurate to say that the typical gun owner has a gun fetish.

[flamin lib]

36. See post 10.

When bowling balls kill 30,000 people a year and bowlers lobby to get more bowling balls in circulation and insist on carrying them in public or believe that more bowling balls make everybody safer in the face of 30,000 dead people I might give your comparison some credence.

Til then see post 10.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. So, the fact that a thing leads to a certain threshhold fatalities qualifies it for

your legislative regimen? Is this standard applicable to all things or are there other qualifiers?

[flamin lib]

41. Public safety. Guns ain't safe. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Okay, so let's suss this out.

1) Assuming a US population of 330 million, what is the threshold of annual deaths wherein a thing is deemed to be a public safety hazard?

A) 5,000

B) 10,000

C) 15,000

D) 20,000

E) 25,000


2) Does this include

A) Self-inflicted deaths

B) Deaths inflicted by others

C) Both

[flamin lib]

53. You asked the question,you answer it. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. I asking you to justify your declaration.

You said guns are a public safety issue. I want to know, what is the definition of a public safety issue? At what point does a thing, anything, become a public safety issue? If you cannot (will not?) define that then perhaps you should revisit your declaration.

Perhaps I'm just a suspicious-Missy but I can't help but think it's not so much an objective standard such as X + Y = Z but rather more of a subjective "I don't like X and I shall disingenuously declare Y to disguise my intent." The latter is hardly a basis for democratic government or even sensible regulation.

[flamin lib]

57. Ya know what? I don't engage in assinine excchanges .

If it saved a single child I'd take every gun you own.

Congratulations, you're number three on my ignore list.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. You make a declaration and you demand this declaration serve as the basis of law

that will be used to regulate, confiscate, fine and imprison people -- but then you storm off in a petulant huff because someone asks you to define the terms by which you presume to wield this power.

How telling.

[HALO141]

64. Authoritarians

... are the same everywhere.

[blueridge3210]

66. I guess he really told you, huh?

Wait, he's ignoring you, so he didn't tell you? But, he told you he was ignoring you so he did? But if he's ignoring you how would he know? I really shouldn't have slept through Philosophy class in college.

[Straw Man]

65. And ...

If it saved a single child I'd take every gun you own.

... if it didn't, would you leave me the fuck alone?

Somehow I doubt it.

[oneshooter]

71. Run away!!!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. Rather than taunt I'm genuinely curious to know how their terms are defined.

To be perfectly honest, and not merely goading, I doubt they understand the implications of what they want. I think theirs is a reflex reaction to the admitted tragedies we see day-in and day-out but we are talking about the force of law here. We are talking about empowering the state with the authority to take property and destroy lives.

Such things cannot be trust to vague definitions because those with power -- especially uncontested power -- cannot be trusted for very long. The power WILL be abused.

If they will not define what it is they want to the point of saying, "Here and no further," then we are left to assume they imagine no limits to their right to intrude into the lives of others.

[blueridge3210]

82. I would be curious if they would hang around to exchange ideas.

Instead, what I see repeatedly is, *blanket statement* - then a reply pointing out a logical fallacy or incorrect terminology (not "magazine v clip, but for example, an inaccurate description of a firearm incident as self defense or "stand your ground&quot - followed by the poster storming off in a huff often with the obligatory "welcome to ignore".

[shedevil69taz]

94. Since you may not have seen this since you said you were putting NU UNI on ignore...

"You make a declaration and you demand this declaration serve as the basis of law that will be used to regulate, confiscate, fine and imprison people -- but then you storm off in a petulant huff because someone asks you to define the terms by which you presume to wield this power.

How telling."

You're welcome

[spin]

38. Firearms can and do cause tragedy. Firearms can also save lives and prevent crime. ...

Something most gun control advocates simply ignore.

Here's an interesting statistic for you to consider from a liberal source that strongly supportsa gun control.

Defensive Gun Use
By JULIET LAPIDOS APRIL 15, 2013, 5:02 PM

***snip***

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I will agree that the NRA's figure of 2 million or 2.5 million DGUs may be far too high but I also suspect the the figure in the VPC report is far too low.

I also found the following information interesting although unfortunately it didn't recieve much media attention (if any) except by the conservative press.

CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
July 17, 2013 - 10:54 AM

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

***snip***

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

I will admit that few people murder others or commit suicide with bowling balls. On the other hand, few people defend themselves with a bowling ball.

But our discussion started with an attempt to define the definition of what a gun fetishist is. You mentioned that it would depend on "the depth and intensity of the involvement." That sounds reasonable to me but somewhat vague.

Is a person that goes to the range once or twice a month a gun fetishist. Does he qualify if he owns five or more firearms? Does knowing the difference between and AR-15 and an M-16 or if he can tell you what the ".30" and the "06" means in the term .30-06 prove that he is a gun fetishist?

[flamin lib]

42. I can post studies that refute your studies but you'd not recognize any more

Than I recognize yours. Dueling studies is a waste of time and intellect.

[spin]

44. As I said, I do understand that firearms can cause tragedy but I also realize that they also ...

sometimes save lives or stop crimes in progress.

My own mother used a tiny S&W LadySmith revolver to stop a man who rushed her as she was walking home from work one night in the 1920s time frame. He most likely intended to rape her but when she fired two rounds over his head, he turned and ran.

She kept that firearm as a memento hidden in a drawer in my parents' bedroom. Of course I found it as a young child and would play with it when my parents had left the home. Fortunately my father anticipated that this would happen and had removed the firing pin.

A close family member committed suicide with a handgun several years ago. She had no real reason to do so. She had been prescribed a drug called Lexapro by her GP as she was having difficulty sleeping. One of the side effects of this drug is suicidal thoughts and some people report an almost overwhelming desire to end their life when first taking or quiting this drug. While I can't attribute her suicide to the drug, I do feel that more research needs to be done on the relationship between such medications and both suicide and mass murders. My personal opinion is that while such drugs can and do help people, perhaps they shouldn't be passed out like candy for minor problems.

A co-worker of mine was shot in the leg while resisting a mugger. The 9mm round damaged the femoral artery and he almost bled out before he was taken to a very close hospital.

One of the two studies I mentioned is from a source that strongly supports gun control.

Violence Policy Center


The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) educational organization working to stop gun death and injury through research, advocacy, education, and collaboration.[1] Founded in 1988 by Josh Sugarmann, a native of Newtown, Connecticut,[2] the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a public health issue affecting the whole population, rather than solely a criminal matter.[3]

Organizational background[edit]

The VPC has drawn the attention of Congress to gun-related policy issues by distributing its published research and analysis, and numerous US gun violence prevention organizations have used VPC reports and terminology to advance local and national gun control initiatives.[4] The VPC is known mainly for its in-depth research on the firearms industry, the causes and impacts of gun violence, and regulatory policies to reduce gun violence. [3] The VPC advocates for pro-gun control legislation and policy that is usually opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other national or state gun lobbyists.

Since the VPC has no official membership fee, it relies on donations from the public and foundation support. The primary foundation donor to the VPC is the Joyce Foundation, which also supports other gun violence prevention organizations including the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the American College of Preventive Medicine.[5] The VPC publicizes its research through the news media and through coalitions with other advocacy organizations.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center

You can read the report from the VPC at http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf and verify that even this pro-gun control group admits that firearms are used by victims to try to deter violent crime and property crime.

The study from the CDC is fairly unbiased. You can download the report at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=11 but there is a charge.

HUMAN NATURE
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND LIFE.JUNE 24 2013 10:29 AM

Rethinking Gun Control

Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.

By William Saletan

***snip***

The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

***snip***

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

***snip***

These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

I will agree with your statement in post 42:

I can post studies that refute your studies but you'd not recognize any more than I recognize yours. Dueling studies is a waste of time and intellect.

We will never agree on the gun control issue. I fear you like many other gun control advocates feel that the evil caused by firearms offsets any good. Until most strong gun control advocates are willing to accept that firearms can be and are used for legitimate self defense, we will get nowhere.

The debate reminds me of our government's efforts to criminalize marijuana over the years. We were told there was absolutely no legitimate use for this drug. It was simply evil. It had to be banned.

Now we are learning that there may well be some legitimate medical uses for this "terrible" drug.

[pablo_marmol]

49. ".....he does not sit in his living room fondling his firearms every night."

Speak for yourself, sir! My 1911 is SUCH a sexy girl!

[Warpy]

11. Well, I actually prefer the kinder and gentler "gunloon"

for both sexes of gun idolator, but if the foo shits....

Mostly I try to stay away from them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. If human rights are idolatry I am an unrepentant heathen

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. Constitutional rights are not 'human rights'.

There actually are human rights accepted around the world, and 'the right to bear arms' isn't enumerated among them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. The right to one's private conscience is still a human right even if the

rat bastard tyrants and naïve nation-states in the other parts of the world fail to admit as much. So too is the right of self-defense.

[spin]

27. Perhaps we would live in a much more peaceful world if more nations were actually willing ...

to trust the honest, responsible and sane citizens in their countries enough to allow them to own firearms.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. I have no issue with the 'honest, responsible, and sane citizens'

owning firearms. I just think far more people already own firearms in the US than can be considered 'honest, responsible, and sane'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. So few men are capable of governing themselves. Fewer still are capable of governing others.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. If you say so.

But we have empirical evidence that plenty of existing gun owners are not responsible, in the daily careless shootings of bystanders, themselves, or their children who they carelessly let get ahold of their guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. And we have empirical evidence that those who make and enforce and judge laws are

vain, corrupt, incompetent, malicious, arrogant and deceitful. Their victims are piled in the history books of every land and time.

And they ALL have guns.

[beevul]

39. Only if you ignore part of the evidence.

"But we have empirical evidence that plenty of existing gun owners are not responsible, in the daily careless shootings of bystanders, themselves, or their children who they carelessly let get ahold of their guns."

All the examples posted here, plus all the ones that aren't, ALL of them. Every last one.

Every single statistically recorded example of an irresponsible gun owner, makes up less than 1/10th of a percent of all gun owners.

The empirical evidence shows overwhelmingly, that its not the guns that are the problem, or even the gun owners.

Its a tiny tiny sliver of a percentage of gun owners.

If you are unwilling to factor that in, your "empirical" evidence is selective at best.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

43. Fine.

But the same applies to drivers, to people who use power tools, etc.

All sorts of 'accidents' are committed by a tiny sliver of those who use various dangerous tools.

And the more dangerous such tools are, the more restrictions we place on their use. Even though only a tiny fraction of the people using them will ever harm themselves or others with them. We require licensing, training, recurring recertifications,
have complex sets of protocols for use kept in manuals onsite required by OSHA.

But if you live in some states, any yahoo without a criminal past can buy and use a gun, without any training, with few regulations, no licensing, no ongoing recertifications. And they can turn around and give it to anyone else, or sell it. Likewise with no oversight.

Why can't we simply require as much oversight and regulation of firearms and firearm users as we do cars and drivers? Only a tiny sliver of either will kill or maim someone, yet guns are simply given a pass as compared to cars.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. "they can turn around and give it to anyone else, or sell it"

The illegal prescription drug market operates on the same basis but we don't harass people with presumptions of criminal intent.

[beevul]

46. Red herring.

"And the more dangerous such tools are, the more restrictions we place on their use. Even though only a tiny fraction of the people using them will ever harm themselves or others with them. We require licensing, training, recurring recertifications, have complex sets of protocols for use kept in manuals onsite required by OSHA."

What rules exist on a jobsite are not the rules that govern private ownership and use of anything.

"But if you live in some states, any yahoo without a criminal past can buy and use a gun, without any training, with few regulations, no licensing, no ongoing recertifications. And they can turn around and give it to anyone else, or sell it. Likewise with no oversight."

Welcome to the ownership of private property. Did this just now occur to you? What "oversight" is there when you buy or sell a vehicle? Or a compound bow. Or a crossbow. Or a gallon of gas.

"Why can't we simply require as much oversight and regulation of firearms and firearm users as we do cars and drivers? Only a tiny sliver of either will kill or maim someone, yet guns are simply given a pass as compared to cars."

Watching this particular trainwreck - this argument you're making - is something I've become accustomed to. You aren't the first to make it, nor the first to misunderstand the issue, and therefore misrepresent the reality of the situation.

Riddle me this batman: Is one required to get a background check to buy or own a car?

Riddle me this batman: Is one required to be licensed to own a car or to use it on ones own property?

You, like so many before you, are confusing ownership with public usage.

We already have a license to have a gun in public in most places. Its called a concealed carry license.

Oversight and regulation of vehicles and drivers does not apply to usage on ones own private property, generally.

If I so desired, I could take a vehicle, remove the seatbelts, put aircraft landing lights on the roof, smash out the other lights, the windshield, remove the doors, and do 130 mph across any private property I have authorization to do so on, without a license, insurance, registration, plates, or any other paperwork. And it would be completely legal .

That is the difference between usage in public, versus usage in private.

Before you start harping on us, you need a firm grasp and an accurate understanding of the issue. You do not have that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. Riddle me this

Unless you're shooting in an underground bunker, how are you absolutely certain that the bullets you fire are going to magically stop at the boundary of your private property?

[oneshooter]

89. Because I have a 60' tall x 200' long dirt berm as a backstop. n/t

[blueridge3210]

90. You shoot into an earth berm or some form of backstop.

The lack, thereof, is what keeps me from shooting on my property. While I could do so legally, I could not be comfortable with the potential consequences if someone were walking through the 80 or so acres behind my house.

[rrneck]

15. If use that terminology you have my permisison to cuss me for it. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. The lord and master of Castle Bansalot hath given forth his pronouncement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172142479#post2

[SecularMotion]

26. So you're saying that the female of the species is even more of a delicate flower than the male?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. I strongly doubt you would be so bold as to graphically describe what the term implies.

So drop the pretense of speaking in bold terms -- especially since you never muster much courage to actually discuss what you want other to think you believe.

[NYC_SKP]

33. "Gun Humper" and "Delicate Flower" are terms created to divide and intimidate. Very progressive!

Who knew?



Either term, when used, identifies the user as a loser of the argument and as an immature wannabe who doesn't have a clue about what it means to be progressive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "terms created to divide and intimidate"

Well, I don't feel intimidated and I doubt the pro-rights faction only develops a sense of solidarity from the on-going insults.

I'm just curious as to when blatant sexism -- especially after being politely asked to refrain -- became desirable.

[NYC_SKP]

35. Nor do I, but I'm confident that's the intent. Also, to generally stigmatize 2A supporters...

...by associating supporters with the KKK and other bigots.

That act, itself, is a form of bigotry.

The sexism comes with the broader bigotry from such groups of people.

Sad that a few wear it as a badge of honor.

[Eleanors38]

56. Some very rarefied forms of sexism are OK on DU.

[NYC_SKP]

60. Racism and classism, as well.

For example, what is meant by the reference to "excessive banjo music" in this thread if not an allusion to poor Southern white folks?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=142259

[ileus]

40. Of course you should...you're the "uncle tom" of female liberals.

always remember most all the insults are hurled in hopes of getting a progressive 2Aer banned.

[hack89]

47. Respect is not in their lexicon. Don't forget that we are the same as the KKK in their eyes. nt

[Feral Child]

51. Seriously?

You want us to treat females as if they were different from males? Are they too weak to endure the same scorn as a man?


I'm hoping this is a joke, conflating the Gun Wars with the Gender Wars, but with a sly wink.


Tell us it's a joke, Nuke. You're not really both a gun-humper and a misogynist, are you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. Please explain why it is OK to use sexually degrading terms towards anyone.

Male, female, straight, gay, transgendered, religious, atheist...anyone.

It's no secret that one of the most significant reasons to protect the 2A is to allow people to defend themselves personally from such things as sexual assault. It is a violation of the person that invades their body and destroys them on a personal level.

To claim someone is a "gun-humper" is to claim that their efforts to safeguard their personal protection from such violations is a false front to instead act out a desire to substitute a penis for the barrel of a gun and thrust it into their body for the purpose of sexual gratification.

"She's not really anti-rape, she all about shoving the gun barrel up her ****. I bet she's at home every night just bucking an' moaning on the biggest caliber she can find. She loooooves it."

THAT is what you're claiming you have the right to say and only a coward would pretend otherwise.

[Feral Child]

67. It sounds like you've called me a coward.

At least indirectly. Did you call me a coward?

Ironic, that. First, because you don't seem to have the nerve to say, "Feral Child, you're a coward." 2nd, well, it isn't particularly brave to call a person a coward when you're very far away and using a keyboard to launch your insult.

I make no such claim, re: "gun-humpers". I don't like the term, it's an attempt to equate gun enthusiasts to sexual perverts, thus "marginalizing" them. I prefer the term "Otaku".

I never allude to females in terminology suggesting sexual intercourse, consensual or not. I think of females, and refer to them, as humans. Some humans I like and agree with, some fill me with revulsion, but whether they sit or stand does not influence that reaction.


That said, any derogatory statement I direct toward people applies equally to males or to females. I don't think of females as weak little "frails" that need my protection. There's a special type of misogynist that plays that game.

You know, your description of the alleged fantasy is both graphic and intense. Are you sure that you're not the one indulging in imaginary violations?


I am, btw, a gun-owner but not otaku. I have a carry permit and do carry at times, though very rarely. I decry fanatical gun enthusiasts and walk a very mid-road track on gun-control. At the same time the "grabbers" (a derogatory and sexual imagery indulged in by fanatical gun otaku) are, in my opinion, naive crusaders and Puritans that can see no value to firearms at all. Both extreme sides are borderline neurotic and extremely boorish.

You need to get control of your anger. It colors your logic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. "I make no such claim"

Then the term does not apply to you.

I do not think people of color are frail but I refrain from making fried chicken, water melon and welfare jokes about people of color.

I do not think homosexuals are frail but I refrain from making jokes about them working in the shipping warehouse of confectioners.

It's a civility and appreciation of the person thing.

You know, your description of the alleged fantasy is both graphic and intense. Are you sure that you're not the one indulging in imaginary violations?

pig

You need to get control of your anger. It colors your logic.

I asked -- fairly politely, I believe -- that those indulging in such terms not use them because I find them offensive. Surely, no one has had their ability to argue in favor of gun control negatively or unfairly impacted by such a request.

[Feral Child]

70. It's difficult to talk to you

because you jump around so.

Your examples of racial remarks and homophobic references is a false equivalency. You're not suggesting that racist jokes are only objectionable when directed toward females, yet you only object to females being classified as "humpers". You seem very unconcerned about your brothers being categorized so.(Please do not comment on your visualizations of male "humpers" and their perversions; TMI from your last revelation.)



Your example of homosexuals is so hashed as to be incomprehensible. Are they to be offended by referencing them as brawny warehouse workers? Are female homosexuals supposed to be put-off by mention of candy? It's impossible to discern, and thus, to address that particular monologue.

"pig" I'll come back to that ungrammatical retort in a bit.

I advised you to maintain calm in order to express yourself adequately. How you mistook that as a response to your OP is simply baffling. I meant the incoherent rage in your spittle-soaked tirade in post #54. When you post in anger, you lose the moral high-ground, even if it once existed. If you start out from an unstable premise, continuing to preach in anger renders your stance to pathetic infancy.

Jujitsu, Nuke. You never see an angry Judoka. Discussion requires balance, not a balls-to-the-wall attack. When you lose your temper you become controllable and your opponent dictates the arena and dominates the discussion.

Which brings me back to the stand-alone "pig". It's possible you glanced out the window and noticed a porcine interloper 'mongst your seedlings, but I rather suspect it refers to my inference that the intensity and graphic detail you provide in your imagined description suggests that your are projecting your own inner visualizations on others.

You reacted in anger. It was neither eloquent nor conducive to clarifying your point. It was merely nasty and puerile.

You'll never effectively communicate whilst harboring such uncontrolled emotionality. Rather, it makes you appear irrational and hysterical. Perhaps it feels good to vent in that way, but that's merely intellectual masturbation.


Finally, you've never addressed my real concern about your OP: It's off topic and rude. It does not "Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence." It merely expresses your pique over someone else's choice of expression.

It should have been locked by a host before now. I find it insufferably rude to interject your pet concern into a "Group" discussion.

I believe there is a Group that would find your topic to be absolutely within the Purpose of the Group. I believe that you are actually an active member of that Group. Had I launched a thread in that Group to discuss gun violence in schools, for example, a host would quite properly lock it.

If you feel the need for a wider audience, your topic is certainly "general" enough for GD.

Please self delete your OP and then re-post in a legitimate venue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. "You seem very unconcerned about your brothers being categorized so."

The first sentence of the body of the OP and other subsequent statements refutes this nonsense.

(Please do not comment on your visualizations of male "humpers" and their perversions; TMI from your last revelation.)

Which proves exactly the point I've been trying to make.

THANK-YOU!

The term is offensive and degrading to such a degree that those who employ the term would never dare to express it in literal terms. They hide behind euphemisms but the intent to instill repugnant mental imagery is the same as if they were righting letters to Penthouse forums.

I find it insufferably rude to interject your pet concern into a 'Group' discussion.

Typed without so much as a hint of irony. You're certainly free to abandon the thread at your earliest opportunity and this thread will cease to be a concern for you.

Discussion requires balance, not a balls-to-the-wall attack.

Your pretentious sermonizing would carry more weight if your fabricated moral outrage weren't so subjective in its application. You give a free pass to those who abandon discussion in favor of lobbing sexually degrading insults. Then you come in to the thread to voice your grievance rather than discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence. Apparently you feel entitled to air your grievances about subject matter and rhetorical modalities but deny that right to others.

I rather suspect it refers to my inference that the intensity and graphic detail you provide in your imagined description suggests that your are projecting your own inner visualizations on others.

Please feel free to provide your interpretation of what the term "gun-humper" implies.

[SQUEE]

69. Awwhhh aint that cute, but not as slick as you think.

aside from firearms, I also have a few otjer cultural interests, and your oblique reference, otaku, ain't fooling no one.

Feral? hardly, I have rarely seen a more tame tom.

A lot can be read into a persons choice of avatar.

[Feral Child]

72. Whatever are you talking about?

[SQUEE]

73. Verbiosity.

I find psuedo-sophistry to be banal and pedantic.

Just calls 'em as i sees 'em.

[Feral Child]

75. OK.

You call them, then.

Have a nice weekend.

[SQUEE]

79. you too!

It's beautiful here in Tennessee.

[Eleanors38]

59. Sexism: It's not just for discussing in feminist groups.

Perhaps the metaphorical humping women would engage in doesn't employ the barrel as Nuclear suggests, but the "cocking piece" on revolvers, some semi-autos, and old Mule Ear shotguns. It does seem safer, and there are a wide variety of styles and sizes to choose from.

[Feral Child]

74. Whether her complaint has merit or not

she needs to post in the appropriate Group or Forum.

I don't like the term "gun-humpers". It's a cheap way of saying something ugly that has no valid point in discussion.

"Otaku", translating roughly as "fanboy" or "fangirl", is the term I prefer. It denotes the fanatic enthusiasm of certain fixated owners without succumbing to the over-use of any sexual metaphors.


As I pointed out to Nuke, the clumsy pervert-tag is trite and should be equally offensive to any gender. Where she lacks validity is mistaking that it is more offensive to one, special, gender.

Again, as I pointed out to Nuclear Unicorn, I'm a middle-of-the-road kind of guy, I own a couple of guns and take one to the state parks when I walk my dog because there are coyote populations here. They are a tool designed primarily to kill, and, like any tool, they can be misused or abused.

I most particularly do not want to think of them in terms of "humping" or "grabbing".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. "she needs to post in the appropriate Group or Forum."

This is where the insult is lobbed, thus this forum is the appropriate forum. Since GD is not an acceptable place for gun-related discussions the term couldn't possibly be used there, now could it? Rules and all.

[SQUEE]

81. And you would be less than honest to

NOT admit there is an undertone of perversion as applied to the term Otaku. Especially amongst Anime watchers. I think you are attempting to be sly.

[Eleanors38]

93. Fair enough, a reasonable outlook...

The increase in female gun owners (around 20%, now) makes the aspersion "gunhumper" somewhat illogical. But in the big picture, it is just a hateful expression, one which has unfortunately earned hide-proof status on DU because the language against gun-owners has become so extreme, "gunhumpers" is considered acceptable. And when someone complains about it (or any of the other smorgasbord of nastiness) that complainer is termed a "delicate flower."

I don't bother to alert. It does no good. And those using such expressions know it.