Gun forum discrimination

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I expect it is because gun nuts are really nuts.

Or to put the issue more fully, I have found that just about everyone who is enthused about guns and gun stuff is extremely defensive about them to the point of illogic.

For example, a while back a JREF poster started a thread about silencers so I pointed out to him that he should be careful about such things since silencers are illegal. And within just a few minutes he pointed out to me that silencers are legal provided that one has the proper license for them, that the one makes the silencer for just that one weapon, and that that the silencer is not transferred (in other words, if you sell the gun, then the silencer cannot be sold with it).

So I checked the law, and it turned out he was quite right; silencers for firearms are legal, but just within a very narrow framework. Therefore I apologized and retracted my comments (the correction took about one hour to make).

And then, things got really weird. This poster demanded that I show him web sites that said where silencers were illegal, and how did get such a silly idea about how silencers are illegal, and so on. He also sent me several private messages on these topics.

So again, in both public messages and private messages I explained that my orginal statement was incorrect and if wanted web research done on incorrect legal opinions on firearm silencer issues, then he would have to do that himself since I was satisfied that my original opinion was incorrect. However, that really was never enough for him.

Eventually, this person dropped the topic; I am still not entirely sure, maybe he finally figured out that when I said my original legal opinion on firearm silencers was wrong I really meant that my original legal opinion on firearm silencers was wrong.

Further, a couple of days after I posted my original opinion about firearm silencers another JREF poster made some very defensive comments about it as well. So I pointed out to him that I had quicly updated that opinion and if he would bother to check my very next postin in the subject, then he could find out for himself. Note: I never did hear from this poster again, so I think that at least it did not take too very much effort for him to expand his understanding.

Anyway, these boring exchanges show how extremely defensive (to the point of illogic) gun nuts can be about their guns.

Their guns are symbols of their lost potency. A gun is a perfect phallic symbol, it expels a small bullet/seed that enters another body so when you talk of taking their guns they think you're talking castration.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by FenerFan

When I first read your post, I laughed at the line about 'combat tupperware' as I thought you added that in humour as an example of your open-mindedness. Because I have too much free time I googled it and learned something new. Thanks.

Although the term is used disparagingly by some, I meant it to be nothing more than a good-natured jibe in the long-running Glock vs M1911 vs whatever rivalry. Although I'm most definitely in the M1911 camp, the only gripe I really have against Glocks is they don't make one that fits my hand well...and between range and gun shop, I think I've held every model. So it appears that I'm genetically immunized against Glock Acquisition Disorder. I did however own, carry, and enjoy an H&K and currently own a Kahr PM9, so I don't think it can be reasonably said that I'm a polymerphobe or completely averse to the the 9mm round.

[Courier]

Perhaps I was being a little naive to expect that folks in a gun forum would be open to polite & intelligent conversation regarding guns and gun laws.

I shall keep all future comments in gun forums to those dealing with guns themselves and not politics.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by tsig

Their guns are symbols of their lost potency. A gun is a perfect phallic symbol, it expels a small bullet/seed that enters another body so when you talk of taking their guns they think you're talking castration.

Aw c'mon. At least some of us know the difference*.

*May be offensive to some viewers. Contains mild sexual content, that is, a bunch of guys in their skivvies, grabbing their crotches.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by Courier

Perhaps I was being a little naive to expect that folks in a gun forum would be open to polite & intelligent conversation regarding guns and gun laws.

I shall keep all future comments in gun forums to those dealing with guns themselves and not politics.

It depends on the forum, really. I've been on a few sites that are open to polite GC debate...with some of the pro-GC arguments coming from shooters/collectors themselves. Contrary to what some folks might believe, gun owners (and related forums) are no more a monolithic culture than are car owners. So, it pays (and further, it's polite) to get to know a forum before jumping in the deep end. Also consider that like JREF, those forums get their share of trolls and woo mongers and that your initial posts might resemble those of the trolls that came before you.

[Courier]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

It depends on the forum, really. I've been on a few sites that are open to polite GC debate...with some of the pro-GC arguments coming from shooters/collectors themselves. Contrary to what some folks might believe, gun owners (and related forums) are no more a monolithic culture than are car owners. So, it pays (and further, it's polite) to get to know a forum before jumping in the deep end. Also consider that like JREF, those forums get their share of trolls and woo mongers and that your initial posts might resemble those of the trolls that came before you.

I think this is what is happening. Its usually a pretty quiet forum, and the vast majority of my posts have been strictly about guns, cleaning guns, purchasing guns, etc.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Courier

I think this is what is happening. Its usually a pretty quiet forum, and the vast majority of my posts have been strictly about guns, cleaning guns, purchasing guns, etc.

Can you provide links to the evidence you brought to the gun forum in question to support the claims you made there?

Ranb

[Courier]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Can you provide links to the evidence you brought to the gun forum in question to support the claims you made there?

Ranb

I'm not going to debate those topics here. Feel free to PM me about it if you wish.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Nessie

By motorcycle lane sharing, do you mean what we call filtering where you go down between stopped or slow moving cars?

On hifi forums questioning whether a cable can really improve sound quality is guaranteed to get a sharp response. I have been permanently banned from two such forums and had temporary bans from another two for asking just such a question.

Yes, exactly.

The woo about cord magic carries over into the musican world too, and after trying every single magic cord that came down the pike, I've come to the conclusion that it's all ********.

There are some advantages to using large guage amp to speaker cords, but it's about durabilty, not sound quality.

[tyr_13]

Want to start an argument quickly? Get kicked of of certain boards but fast? He's the line.

"Johnny Depp is a mediocre actor."

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Nessie

On hifi forums questioning whether a cable can really improve sound quality is guaranteed to get a sharp response. I have been permanently banned from two such forums and had temporary bans from another two for asking just such a question.

Yeah, that's because there really is a hearable difference between a $5/m cable and a $500/m cable. Any audio tech will tell you that. I'm skeptical that there's a hearable difference between a $500/m cable and a $5000/m cable.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Courier

Why do so many internet gun forums have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to folks who have a balanced & common sense view of gun control?

I remember my first day on the Internet...

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah, that's because there really is a hearable difference between a $5/m cable and a $500/m cable. Any audio tech will tell you that. I'm skeptical that there's a hearable difference between a $500/m cable and a $5000/m cable.

But not when double blind tests are done and wire from coat hangers is indistinguishable from the expensive cables.

There might be a measurable difference but measurable and noticeable are rather different.

Or is it just that blinded tests are inapropiate for determining auditory quality?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Redtail

^This. I got kicked off of a motorcycle forum because I asked a question about a Harley.

Really? That's sad.

I'd invite you to join mine (http://www.dilligaf.so), but it's basically UK based so you probably wouldn't be interested. My motto is "It's not what you ride, it's THAT you ride"

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

By motorcycle lane sharing, do you mean what we call filtering where you go down between stopped or slow moving cars?

Or as I call it, 'my daily commute'.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I expect it is because gun nuts are really nuts.

Or, resent being insulted. Don't you?

Originally Posted by Crossbow

...
For example, a while back a JREF poster started a thread about silencers so I pointed out to him that he should be careful about such things since silencers are illegal. And within just a few minutes he pointed out to me that silencers are legal provided that one has the proper license for them, that the one makes the silencer for just that one weapon, and that that the silencer is not transferred (in other words, if you sell the gun, then the silencer cannot be sold with it).

So I checked the law, and it turned out he was quite right; silencers for firearms are legal, but just within a very narrow framework. Therefore I apologized and retracted my comments (the correction took about one hour to make).

And then, things got really weird. This poster demanded that I show him web sites that said where silencers were illegal, and how did get such a silly idea about how silencers are illegal, and so on. He also sent me several private messages on these topics.

"Demanded" or "asked"? In either case, have you considered that the other party was genuinely interested in where you got your misinformation?

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Anyway, these boring exchanges show how extremely defensive (to the point of illogic) gun nuts can be about their guns.

Reminds me of the story about the two Zen monks who met a beautiful young woman in a fancy kimono at a ford. The younger monk carried her across the stream. The monks walked on in silence. After a few miles, the elder monk could no longer contain himself, and said: "You know it is forbidden to us to touch women" and the young monk said: "I put her down miles ago. Why are you still carrying her?"

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Ranb

The JREF forum is at its core anti-gun in the way it is moderated.

Really?

Quote:

While most of us would not play along with anyone who supports ridiculous notions we see from the birthers, truthers and other whack jobs out there, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to some otherwise rational people on this forum to post irrational claims about guns, gun owners and gun law. Never mind that no rational person would believe that the federal government bans (insert any type of gun here) possession by civilians, they just make it up and think the people who read the forum are stupid enough to believe it. Then when someone objects, the inquiring person is sometimes subjected to insults and /or demands that they provide the evidence to prove the irrational claim wrong instead of the usual standard of the person making the original claim doing so.

What does that behaviour (even if true) have to do with the moderation of the forum?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What does that behaviour (even if true) have to do with the moderation of the forum?

Because at least one moderator here engages in the behavior I described and another moderator told me that the behavior was completely acceptable but my objections to it were not. This behavior has been the subject of several threads.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by tsig

Their guns are symbols of their lost potency. A gun is a perfect phallic symbol, it expels a small bullet/seed that enters another body so when you talk of taking their guns they think you're talking castration.

When I think of Kim Rhode, your sentence makes me laugh.

Ranb

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Ranb

When I think of Kim Rhode, your sentence makes me laugh.

Ranb

This?

Kim spoke at the 2012 Republican National Convention, introducing several other Olympians on the stage. She has long been a voice for the Log Cabin Republicans.

Rhode collects antique first-edition children's books and rebuilds classic cars, including a prized 1965 AC Shelby Cobra. She married Mike Harryman in 2009.[7]

Doesn't seem like a gun-clucher to me so she probably doesn't suffer from paranoia like most gun porn proponents.

[Ranb]

You were responding to a post about gun enthusiasts. Now it is "gun-cluchers"? Why move the goalposts?

So yeah, you still make me laugh.

Ranb

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Ranb

Please do not feed the troll

[joobie]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Oh yeah. A "snakes have eyelids" bumpersticker.

if i see a man with that bumpersticker, i'll kill him.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah, that's because there really is a hearable difference between a $5/m cable and a $500/m cable. Any audio tech will tell you that. I'm skeptical that there's a hearable difference between a $500/m cable and a $5000/m cable.

There isn't a difference between lamp cord and $500 cable of the same gauge. I think you'd be hard pressed to even measure the difference with a network analyzer.

Double blind tests have demonstrated this fact numerous times. There is yet to be a double blind test to demonstrate otherwise..

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by tsig

Their guns are symbols of their lost potency. A gun is a perfect phallic symbol, it expels a small bullet/seed that enters another body so when you talk of taking their guns they think you're talking castration.

Whenever I hear this traditional stereotype, I always think of my friend, "The Magnet."



The above pic is he, shooting my 1918A2 BAR - amnesty registered in 1968, it has been in my family since WWII.

The Magnet worked for a different agency than I, but we met in the 80's and have been fast friends since. He retired from his agency at about the same time as I, and moved out of state. We're from the same ethnic background, and share similar childhood experiences and upbringings. This pic is taken about 15 minutes away from his current residence.

"The Magnet" is so named because for whatever reason, hitting the gym 6 days of the week (in the pic, he's over 60) or what ever, he's always been an absolute magnet to women of the most adventurous type - IE, if he and I went out and met two girls, I'd meet a nice good looking girl and he'd meet a nice good looking girl who'd want to get gangbanged while wearing a chicken suit hanging upside down from a chandelier - no ****.

We once went to a LE convention together, and it was at the time that OC (pepper spray) was first introduced.

We went to a booth where the product was being demonstrated by a very attractive normal appearing young lady in conservative dress, and within 5 minutes of speaking to her, The Magnet had arranged for her to come to our room - again- no ****.

His "Magnetic" personality wasn't the only thing that drew wild women in his direction.

What makes him a great man in my eyes wasn't his ability to pull wild women (apparently) out of thin air, it was how he conducted his life from even before he was a man.

TM planned to join the Marines after high school.

Bad fate intervened.

His father suffered a series of bad heart attacks, and died in his senior year. He was an only child.

His father made him promise to look after his mother.

He did.

Wrote off the Corps. looked at LE as an alternative, joined his local county agency.

Bought her a house before he bought his own.

Took care of her until her health failed. paid out of his own pocket to keep her in the top care facility available.

Her funeral looked liked a KILD LE funeral, he (and she) were in such high regard.

Sterotypes may make certain people feel better, but reality may vary.

[Ranb]

Courier,

How are things on the front lines of your gun forum?

Ranb

[lopeyschools]

Originally Posted by tsig

Their guns are symbols of their lost potency. A gun is a perfect phallic symbol, it expels a small bullet/seed that enters another body so when you talk of taking their guns they think you're talking castration.

Cool story bro

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Courier

Perhaps I was being a little naive to expect that folks in a gun forum would be open to polite & intelligent conversation regarding guns and gun laws.

Given your unwillingness to tell us what you actually said, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the unnamed forum and assume you were acting like an asshat.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by BStrong

The above pic is he, shooting my 1918A2 BAR - amnesty registered in 1968, it has been in my family since WWII.

...screeeech*

You have a legal, transferrable (well, outside CA anyway), for-reals BAR?? iAy Caramba!

[Beady]

Originally Posted by tsig

Their guns are symbols of their lost potency. A gun is a perfect phallic symbol, it expels a small bullet/seed that enters another body so when you talk of taking their guns they think you're talking castration.

Umm, I'm strictly a target shooter. I shoot at steel targets with lead bullets. Not only is there no penetration, the bullets shatter and the pieces are repelled.

What does *that* say about my phallus, and what people are trying to take from me?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Beady

Umm, I'm strictly a target shooter. I shoot at steel targets with lead bullets. Not only is there no penetration, the bullets shatter and the pieces are repelled.

What does *that* say about my phallus, and what people are trying to take from me?

Why obviously that it is tiny and releases only water!!!!!

You haven't been paying attention and you SHOOT a GUN!!!!!!!

I have no idea, though, what they are trying to take from you.........

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

...screeeech*

You have a legal, transferrable (well, outside CA anyway), for-reals BAR?? iAy Caramba!

My first real job (as opposed to chores) as a kid was cleaning cosmoline off MG's that my father dewat'd and sold.

When I relate facts about the pre-68 gun culture, it's beacuse I lived it.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Beady

Umm, I'm strictly a target shooter. I shoot at steel targets with lead bullets. Not only is there no penetration, the bullets shatter and the pieces are repelled.

What does *that* say about my phallus, and what people are trying to take from me?

No doubt tsig will equate the steel plate to a hymen and use that to further demonstrate your inadequacies as a person and a marksman.

Ranb

[leftysergeant]

I can move freely about most of the Gun Boards Forum, but it really gets in the fan in the politics sub-forum.(Accessible only by permission.)

They are still a little more tolerant of liberals than other boards I have seen.

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by Courier

Why do so many internet gun forums have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to folks who have a balanced & common sense view of gun control?

Many of them seem to not tolerate anyone who dares to advocate for reasonable amounts of gun control and this is disturbing.

I suppose it might be a form of reciprocity reference gun control forums for the zero tolerance policy when it comes to folks who have a balanced & common sense view of RKBA.

Many of them seem to not tolerate anyone who dares to advocate for reasonable amounts of personal security and this is disturbing...

[Ranb]

Most people who advocate for gun bans on gun forums do so without any supporting evidence at all. If a person says for example "I think machine guns should be banned" and they do not offer a reason why or only say that no one should own them, then this is trollish behavior. Expecting a cool reception for such behavior is irrational.

On the other hand if that person presented a well reasoned argument along with crime data, it might be debated in a civilized manner.

Ranb

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by 3point14

So these people believe that only gun owners can discuss or have an opinion on gun control measures? I think that's fallacious on their part.

Hmm, that doesn't follow.

I'm sure they're quite aware that lot's of non-gun owners have strong opinions about gun control, but a forum by gun owners for gun owners may not want every thread dominated by gun control debate. It's more likely that they want their forum to be a place where people who enjoy guns can meet and talk with other people who enjoy guns. Towards that goal, it's perfectly reasonable to weed out the people who just want to argue for gun control all the time.