Comments on: Too much tragedy for one thread

Too much tragedy for one thread

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:26:15 -0800

I respectfully suggest that we move the gun control discussion here. If for no other reason than to limit the in-thread argument on whether or not we should be commenting on gun control in-thread.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:29:36 -0800

I was just coming here to suggest that.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:31:24 -0800

Seconded.

By: dw

dw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:31:28 -0800

Wish I'd seen this before my last comment.

I hate how tragedy brings out the campaigners.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:32:59 -0800

I was afraid to come here and suggest this. But I'm glad you did.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:33:17 -0800

I guess, although the whole "we can't talk about anything we're not going to reach consensus on!" reasoning has never stopped us before.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:34:22 -0800

Is this where I can express frustration with this little gem:

An armed society is a polite society.

We could also do with fewer false, empty and stupid aphorisms like this.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:34:26 -0800

I don't think a gun control debate is really needed at all right now, but I agree it shouldn't be in the thread. I did reply to a couple of people who said that less gun control would have made things safer, and dios when he said that gun control advocates were apperantly delighted.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:34:47 -0800

Strongly against.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:34:58 -0800

Agreed. If we get the Mathowie blessings, we should probably link this from there with an explicit mention that it is for gun debate (some people may not click on the plain link "MeTa" because they will assume it's just a callout thread).

Probably best if Mathowie is the one who links it (if that happens), and also explains that no gun debate is permitted in that thread, as we now have a dedicated thread for it.

By: poppo

poppo — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:35:02 -0800

I'll start: An armed society is a polite society

The 19th century wild west and the caribbean of the 18th century are good examples of polite societies.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:35:03 -0800

I agree, no good can come from discussing gun control in that thread.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:37:19 -0800

Also, slightly off-topic, sorry, but I don't want to start a new thread for a simple question:

Mathowie, MeFi is all of a sudden really slow. Is it because the servers are getting pounded by people accessing that thread?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:37:24 -0800

*sprays room with bullets*

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:38:42 -0800

too soon, man. c'mon, really?

By: knave

knave — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:39:35 -0800

The 19th century wild west...

Old West violence mostly myth

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:41:54 -0800

"Strongly against."

Of course, because you just made an egregiously provocative comment.

I think that gun control is quite relevant and that a discussion of it and other relevant things would be fine...if it weren't absolutely inevitable that people will insult each other and be intentionally provocative and generally be fuckwits. That's not having a "discussion". It's not having a discussion wherever it happens (which is often for this type of thing on MetaFilter). But in that thread it's self-indulgent of those involved and disruptive for other people.

By: dw

dw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:42:18 -0800

I agree, no good can come from discussing gun control in that thread.

It's like going to a funeral of a lung cancer victim, standing on a table, and loudly demanding all smokers there quit on the spot. You think the message will go over well, but in the end it just pisses everyone off.

Hell, it'd piss me off, a non-smoker whose father-in-law died of lung cancer, whose non-smoker mother-in-law is in the recovery ward right now after having a lung taken out, and whose father died at 47 from a heart attack probably brought on by 35 years of smoking.

By: googly

googly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:42:55 -0800

An armed society is a polite society.

No, no, wait - its true! Because everyone is scared shitless that, if they do something that someone might possibly construe as impolite, they're going to get their heads blown off.

A polite society, but not one I want to live in.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:29 -0800

Probably for the best, yeah.

By: gomichild

gomichild — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:31 -0800

Also bugbread brought up a few good points in the original thread - perhaps it would be more effective to discuss the methods of what an individual can do - rather than just stating their position on the argument.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:41 -0800

First, I'm not so far removed from this tragedy to not be personally affected by it. But can we stop pandering to the individuals who aren't mature enough to have adult discussions about relevant topics?

I consider MeFi a great place to visit to read opposing and supporting opinions of a wide range of topics, both passive and controversial. I consider many of the regular participants in these discussions to be intelligent, rational, and worth 'listening' to.

But the frothing chorus of 'too soon' that usually follows a tragedy insults the ability of adults to carry on a discussion.

By: mattbucher

mattbucher — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:42 -0800

I vote that we start a thread discussing whether or not we can discuss how we can discuss how we should or should not discuss gun control. MetametametaTalk.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:45:46 -0800

My preferences have been lost and I am seeing the grey as grey for the first time in yonks. Weird, soothing, nearly brown grey floods me with nostalgia.

I agree this is the time to discuss, and this is the place, not the other thread. Thanks, Flo.

Sometimes anger and passion can actually provide insight (since we aren't making laws here). I mean, this is not the time for dispassion either. imo.

By: norm

norm — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:46:59 -0800

It's not like there actually WAS a gun control debate. A couple people said something about gun control, and then a bunch of people began the online version of hysterical shrieking about whether or not to discuss gun control. Seriously, I'm way too lazy to count, but I bet there's triple the posts about the meta-debate vis-a-vis anything remotely approaching a "debate" about gun control.

Whatever happened to these MeFi threads involving posting eyewitness accounts and unsubstantiated rumors during a crisis to keep people here updated on the actual events? This gun control business is quite the red herring.

This sort of thing is so very tragic, too. There's absolutely nothing good that can come of it. Bringing up gun control might be offensive to tragedy hating gun-lovers, but pretty soon I'm going to be hearing various people postulating how this must be God's will or something, and that will offend me far more.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:47:45 -0800

Color me extremely dubious of that "rebuttal" to Wild West violence— especially because they do things like citing on raw numbers rather than per capitas.
Further, you want an armed, polite society? Take a look at Chicago in the '20s and '30s.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:48:00 -0800

I'm sorry, but hiding comments re:gun control on metatalk as if they are something to be ashamed of is a bullshit choice.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:48:53 -0800

Like I said in thread, I'm of two minds about gun control. In the end it's not a big issue for me. It was just the "HOW DARE YOU?!?!" slap-downs that rubbed me in the wrong way. Again, as I said in thread, I agree with Bugbread (and Ethereal Bligh above).

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:49:11 -0800

The problem with everyone being armed is that not everyone is reasonable. Those who are reasonable, aren't reasonable all the time. [Not advocating more gun control]

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:49:37 -0800

It's not like there actually WAS a gun control debate.

Seriously. There was a debate about whether or not to HAVE a gun control debate in-thread, which has now turned into a MeTa on the debate to have a debate. It's like some sort of sociological... damn, can't remember the word. It's like that snake that eats itself. Begins with an "O."

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:49:54 -0800

“I don't understand the whole concept of ‘politicizing’ something. Everything is politicized. Everything occurs within a political context, is affected by politics, and affects politics. Whenever someone writes ‘Let's not politicize this’ I see ‘Let's decontextualize this and pretend that it happened in a vaccum so as not to make anyone feel bad.’ ”—Pope Guilty

Politicize is not the best choice of words. A better way to express the objection is to say that it's offensive to utilize certain things as a means to score partisan political points. Yeah, that's an easy and suspicious accusation to make against something someone else says that you disagree with. However, I agree with strong gun-control and I can identify some pro-gun-control comments in that thread I think are more about scoring partisan points than well-intentioned discussion.

By: adipocere

adipocere — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:51:08 -0800

I'm still voting for the evils of Dungeons and Dragons. Laugh if you want, but you'll find out some student was playing in the steam tunnels and had a plastic sword. And a stack of Magic: The Gathering cards.

At least, that's how it worked out at my school. We had a much smaller shooting, the kid involved had been to one (1) session of the gaming club. Result: gaming club closed.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:51:30 -0800

Because everyone is scared shitless that, if they do something that someone might possibly construe as impolite, they're going to get their heads blown off.

I realize that the quote in question comes from the unimpeachable Robert Heinlein, but it's just plain stupid in the real world. Look at the most armed societies in today's world: Afghanistan, the Sudan, Somalia, Colombia. Not exactly places of gentle manners, affable summers and hail fellows well met, these.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:52:49 -0800

I'm sorry, but hiding comments re:gun control on metatalk as if they are something to be ashamed of is a bullshit choice.

We're not ashamed of gun control debate, we just don't want that thread to turn into a shrieking shitpile about the propriety of a gun control debate. There is a difference, and a big one.

And grapefruitmoon, it's Ouroboros, I think.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:53:36 -0800

Various sources are reporting that the shooter had a DAO-12, which has been designated by the BATF as a Class 2 destructive device with "no sporting purpose." As a result, the weapon is not easily purchasable in the United States and requires special documentation before a civilian in the United States can obtain it. Either the shooter had the necessary documentation or was in possession of the DAO-12 illegally. Although this is no more than conjecture, the likelihood that the shooter had the proper permits for that weapon seems small. It's not at all clear to me that a handgun ban would have prevented this particular shooter from obtaining a gun or guns.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:55:35 -0800

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:56:04 -0800

As I said in the other thread, to actually believe juvenile slogans like "an armed society is a polite society" is to actually believe there's no plausible chance of a horrific disaster. If your personal opinions on owning guns are so simplistic they fit on a bumper sticker, you're too stupid to have one. Sorry.

This isn't some bizarre "I need to protect myself because I'm in a rough neighborhood" stuff. The only thing ANYONE knew was a guy with a gun was running around shooting people. Now imagine that, only with a few dozen people ALL carrying guns.

And this issue does need to be confronted immediately because the demands to let everyone have loads of guns have already started, and if it isn't slapped down immediately, we're dealing with another PATRIOT Act.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:56:58 -0800

cortex - Really? because from where I sit it seems like a tacit endorsement of the position shooting not being a gun control issue, and that anyone who argues that it is is being impolite and should be hurried off to the grey, where no-one looks.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:58:41 -0800

Metatalk is the perfect place to have a debate about having a debate...

Too me, there are two problems with having the gun debate discussion in a thread like that... The first is that like the abortion debate most people already have their opinions on the issue made up and will likely just see this event as more brief that their side is right. In the end they use the thread to just show how much they believe in their cause and trade rhetorical jabs with the flagwavers from the other side.

The other reason is that the event thread is more of a news related one, the type that brings an "eyes of the world" to places like metafilter, to let a thread which has some great details about the event including first person experiences is a dis-service to the site.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:59:12 -0800

Or maybe a society that's truly devoted to protecting personal freedom will have a slightly higher crime rate. And maybe that's an okay sacrifice to make.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:59:13 -0800

we just don't want that thread to turn into a shrieking shitpile about the propriety of a gun control debate

Don't all threads turn into shrieking shitpile of something these days? It sounds like you're trying to manufacture a 9/11 solemnity metafilterhistory thread to show how civil and great we all are.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:59:37 -0800

to the grey, where no-one looks.

Metafilter isn't a soapbox, so why does it matter?

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:01:36 -0800

from where I sit it seems like a tacit endorsement of the position shooting not being a gun control issue

This isn't congress/senate/foxnews. Thanks.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:02:10 -0800

“It's not like there actually WAS a gun control debate. ”—norm

I count 19 comments that are directly advocating a gun-control position in that thread before matthowie's comment.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:02:37 -0800

*sprays room with bullets*
posted by quonsar

For someone complaining about sensationalistic "media hos" and "hyperbole" and "pieces of shit" in the other thread, that comment is pretty damn pathetic, quonsar.

I get it; you're probably making a "satirical" point, deflating what you perceive as being a pompous or irrelevant MeTa.

Or you're just being an asshole who could stand to think before yammering himself.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:03:15 -0800

Artw, I can't convince you otherwise if that's your interpretation, but from where I sit it seems more like an explicit acknowledgement that stress + outrage + bad timing + ill-considered provocation can lead to a great big mess in a thread that doesn't need to be one.

And a lot of people look in the grey. And it's not a ban on gun control discussion in general. And it's not a topic we've avoided in the past in general circumstances. Etc. Considering not having an in-thread conversation and, more importantly here, raging meta-conversation, under the worst possible circumstances is pragmatism, not topic-avoidance.

NationalKato's comment strikes home, but it's both the raging arguments and the raging "too soons!" that this move responds to.

By: pandaharma

pandaharma — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:03:36 -0800

My own random thoughts on this based on recent events in my state...

Utah has a very large number of concealed weapons holders in this state, but none of those people were able to stop the recent massacre in Salt Lake City.

I'm personally against gun control and like the idea of conceal carry, but I don't think VT's ban on concealed weapons necessarily did anything to make this situation worse. I would think an ordinary civilian with a pistol probably wouldn't have been able to react in time. The massacre in Utah was stopped by a shopper with a gun but he happened to be an off-duty policeman.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:03:49 -0800

Maybe the answer is to delete and/or move the shrill, insensitive comments but allow the intelligent discussion to continue. It seems to me that those comments come from the same members regularly.

By: gomichild

gomichild — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:04:26 -0800

that anyone who argues that it is is being impolite and should be hurried off to the grey, where no-one looks.

Except for those hundreds of people who comment here?

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:05:18 -0800

Just for the record, I'm going to puke the first time I hear some idiot on CNN/FOX/NBC talk about how media savvy the kids are these days in their endless exploitation interviews and what a marvel the internet is in getting so much information disseminated so quickly.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:05:23 -0800

I appreciatwe your reasoning, but it still seems a lot like a ban on general discussion of gun control to me. You may not want it to be, but you've established a precedent here.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:06:22 -0800

“Really? because from where I sit it seems like a tacit endorsement of the position shooting not being a gun control issue”—Artw

I recall one or two commenters making that argument. Most of the people who spoke against a gun-control debate did not.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:08:17 -0800

And grapefruitmoon, it's Ouroboros, I think.

Yes! Thankyou! That's it exactly.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:08:33 -0800

Metafilter isn't a soapbox, so why does it matter?

Well, Metafilter is a discussion site. To make certain topics taboo, particularly when the topic is related to other topics that aren't taboo, isn't really community advancing IMO (although the fact some topics always turn into shitpiles doesn't really help my argument).

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:10:25 -0800

I'm sorry, but hiding comments re:gun control on metatalk as if they are something to be ashamed of is a bullshit choice.

It's not about 'hiding' them, anyone can see. It's about preventing the thread from being derailed.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:12:08 -0800

*sets hook, reels Alvy Ampersand in*

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:12:37 -0800

“Maybe the answer is to delete and/or move the shrill, insensitive comments but allow the intelligent discussion to continue. It seems to me that those comments come from the same members regularly.”—NationalKato

Yes, and your suggestion answers this objection:

“But can we stop pandering to the individuals who aren't mature enough to have adult discussions about relevant topics?”—NationalKato

I'm not in the "this discussion shouldn't happen at all today" camp, nor that it shouldn't happen even in that thread. But I do think the "being an asshole" ratio is going to be very high in that thread if there's a discussion of gun-control. Moderating the thread more heavily than usual would answer that problem. But there will be people objecting to that, too.

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:13:15 -0800

It's not at all clear to me that a handgun ban would have prevented this particular shooter from obtaining a gun or guns

It's not so much the specific gun types as the fetishization of them in US society as a symbol of power.

Lots of people keep and use guns with extreme respect, but in a country where portable cannons are as patriotic and commonplace as mom and apple pie when a nutcase comes unhinged chances are that's what they'll reach for.

The incrementally more severe restrictions on smoking are designed to gradually turn the habit into a socially repugnant activity. A similar path with guns would achieve the same effect.

If guns for everyone is the answer, give me an example... then, let's temper that with counter-examples.

By: and hosted from Uranus

and hosted from Uranus — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:13:55 -0800

You may not want it to be, but you've established a precedent here.

A precedent that people should take their axe-grinding elsewhere when there are dead people in close proximity of people posting in the thread? Yeah, I can live with that.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:14:16 -0800

I think there's probably an official gun ban in Bagdad, too.

By: adamvasco

adamvasco — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:14:54 -0800

As an ignorant foreigner maybe someone could explain to me why a college student needs access to not only one but possibly two handguns. Can anyone make the argument about why there should not be gun control given the violent death rate in USA as opposed to European countries. I mean its not that we in Europe haven't had enough practice at killing each other. Neither do I understand the handwringing continuing here about whether or not to have a gun control debate. The poster has asked for one why can't we oblige?

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:15:28 -0800

By: norm

norm — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:16:27 -0800

I count 19 comments that are directly advocating a gun-control position in that thread before matthowie's comment.

Did you count the meta-debate comments, too? Can you put it in a spreadsheet?

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:16:59 -0800

Heinlein had all the philosophical acumen of a gnat. I loved his 'aphorisms' when I was 12.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:17:39 -0800

It's about preventing the thread from being derailed.

Exactly - it's an endorsement of the position that any discussion of gun control is a derailing. Which is very odd given that no widely available firearms would equal no shooting and therefore no thread at all.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:17:50 -0800

It's not about 'hiding' them, anyone can see. It's about preventing the thread from being derailed.

It was not a "derail". Good lord, what else *is* there to talk about in that thread? Yet, it could be construed as *insensitive* which is why I support moving the discussion here (or, apparently, moving the discussion about the discussion) here.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:18:28 -0800

A complete ban on handguns would be a nice start toward reducing gun violence. More murders are committed in the US with handguns than with any other weapon. People aren't killing each other with long guns, in general.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:18:37 -0800

this is where breathing is good.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:20:21 -0800

On the meta-gun-control subject, the New York Times's The Lede blog just posted this:

Gun Control Subplot | 2:20 PM ET Predictably, gun control has emerged as a major subplot in this story. Under Virginia law, many college campuses are gun-free zones, including Virginia Tech. Last year, a piece of legislation sought exceptions for licensed gun owners, but it didn’t make it out of the statehouse.

President Bush’s press secretary relayed his first comments on the subject, saying that he “believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.'’ That was after he expressed “deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident.”

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit observes: that “these things do seem to take place in locations where it’s not legal for people with carry permits to carry guns.” Andrew Sullivan doesn’t think this is an appropriate time to have the debate, but many other were on the other side of the argument as well, including some of our commenters below. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more on this.

Bush's (press secretary's) comment really, really pissed me off. Asshole.

By: Malor

Malor — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:22:02 -0800

Rumple: how about 32 fucking dead people? That might be a good topic of discussion.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:22:39 -0800

Thepinksuperhero, to me moving the discussion to metafilter allows the conversation to continue without derailing the original post. This is acknowledging that it can be discussed, just pointing to where it should be discussed (more than fair I think).

But Metatalk isn't a place to discuss gun control, either. It all depends on what your definition of "derail" is. To me, a discussion of gun control fits well into a post about a crime that involves guns. Just because some people would rather not talk about it does not make it inappropriate for the thread. On preview, just what Rumple said: It was not a "derail". Good lord, what else *is* there to talk about in that thread?

A precedent that people should take their axe-grinding elsewhere when there are dead people in close proximity of people posting in the thread? Yeah, I can live with that.

Mmmm, I don't know. I do hope Metafilter will be sensitive to those dealing with tragedy, but we are not a comfort station. If someone is deeply affected by a topic, it's probably best they stay away from internet discussions of said topic.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:23:54 -0800

Yes, yes, quonsar, you're quite the trolling provocateur and we're all impressed. Can we all just get a pass on the asshattery for a while? Imagine us responding with plaudits about how incisive you are or something.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:24:41 -0800

...there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.

Yes, wait 'til the shooter finds out how much trouble he's in for bringing a gun into a gun-free zone. Plus all them murders he's done, too.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:26:29 -0800

> It's about preventing the thread from being derailed.

Exactly - it's an endorsement of the position that any discussion of gun control is a derailing.

No, not exactly, and that was my point (and, I'm presuming, delmoi's): we're using the word "derail" in two different ways.

You're taking "derail" to mean "discussing an unacceptable topic, e.g. gun control".

I'm using "derail" to mean "fermenting really, really ugly clashing under the noses of people damned upset by a sudden awful thing that many have more or less direct connections to".

There's no reason a decent discussion of gun control's impact on and relevance to this situation couldn't take place in that thread, but that's not what was shaping up. The desirability of a theoretical good discussion does not vouchsafe the worth of an actually shitty one.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:27:39 -0800

Rumple: how about 32 fucking dead people? That might be a good topic of discussion.

Clearly separable from why they are fucking dead.

By: jamjam

jamjam — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:28:01 -0800

An armed society is a polite society.

The chorus of 'after you, Alphonse' (in Arabic) is so deafening you can barely hear the bomb blasts when you walk the the streets outside the Green Zone.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:28:36 -0800

*nets klangklangston*

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:30:03 -0800

I'm sorry, but hiding comments re:gun control on metatalk as if they are something to be ashamed of is a bullshit choice.

No, making comments re:gun control under these circumstances, as the facts come slowly in-- which may actually be something to be ashamed of-- is the actual bullshit choice. If you're worried that not enough people read MetaTalk to make sharing your opinions here worthwhile, GYOB.

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:31:41 -0800

Rumple: how about 32 fucking dead people? That might be a good topic of discussion.

Yes, let's just have a thread full of dots. Useful. If we don't talk about why someone had access to that kind of gun, when will we talk about it?

Arbitrarily limiting the discussion to prayers, dots, and "omgs" is what is juvenile.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:31:44 -0800

Exactly - it's an endorsement of the position that any discussion of gun control is a derailing.

And it is a derailment of that thread. Which does not mean that this a bad time to discuss gun control, or that m, j, & c are tacitly supporting an anti-gun control position. You seem to be confusing the fact that this is a necessary debate with idea that it's necessary to have it in that thread. It isn't, and part of the reason to move the debate elsewhere is that it will be more, not less, productive outside of a thread where people are trying to get their heads around the human cost of this event.

By: Manjusri

Manjusri — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:32:01 -0800

I'm somewhat on the fence about gun control, and thus very interested in the topic and the discussion and links some of the more intelligent and reasonable members here would provide. Moving the debate about having such a discussion here was a good move, and I'll say that I think that now is exactly the right time for someone to construct a good post for the blue.

By: norm

norm — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:32:08 -0800

By: dw

dw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:32:30 -0800

Oh wait, it's not gun control that's the problem, it's video games. Never mind.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:33:22 -0800

Is quonsar drunk? How far does he have to take his little game before he's banned from Metafilter? That's not a rhetorical question, either - I honestly don't know how the whole banishment thing works. I just know that his/(her?) comments just seems so out of place from everyone else here (both on the MeFi link and this one). I guess joking about 32 recently deceased people is not as bad as someone trying to sell you something? Is there, like, a time-out button where he doesn't get to post for a week or something? Or maybe he's just looking for his own MeTa thread...

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:33:35 -0800

I do hope Metafilter will be sensitive to those dealing with tragedy, but we are not a comfort station. If someone is deeply affected by a topic, it's probably best they stay away from internet discussions of said topic.

I agree. Completely.

If I were grieving, the Filter would be one of the last places where I looked for support. I don't think anyone here really tries to be insensitive, but everyone around here is pretty outspoken and even in the best of circumstances, opinions clash. We just can't have nice things, like a thread about a recent disaster that doesn't become a clusterfuck. Heated discussion we do well - we just don't pull off reverence very well at all. There are just too people who come to the party and end up pissing in the pool.

I hardly see this as unique to MetaFilter either - it's what happens on the interblags. Take away the immediacy of interacting with another human being, replace it with a keyboard, and you've got yourself a recipe for insensitivity.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:34:20 -0800

quonsar, when the fish recognizes the lure as being a cheap bit of plastic, sighs, shrugs and gets into your boat for want of anything else to do, it doesn't really count as a "catch".
But I must admit, your L'il Cap'n Hat^TM is darling.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:34:42 -0800

No, making comments re:gun control under these circumstances, as the facts come slowly in-- which may actually be something to be ashamed of-- is the actual bullshit choice.

Why?

Please expand on your argument that discussing gun control after a shooting is bullshit, and your cryptic commets about "facts" coming in (I have half an idea where you are going with that, but I'd like to hear it).

By: peeedro

peeedro — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:35:29 -0800

EB: Bush's (press secretary's) comment really, really pissed me off. Asshole.

Me too. What is this statement supposed to mean?

'Certainly, bringing a gun into a school domitory and shooting ... is against the law and something someone should be held accountable for,' [White House deputy press secretary Dana] Perino said.

Who is it that should be held accountable? Once we figure that out, will they actually be held accountable?

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:35:31 -0800

Artw writes "it still seems a lot like a ban on general discussion of gun control to me."

A dedicated thread expressly for the purpose of discussing gun control looks like a ban on discussing gun control??

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:35:47 -0800

Balisong typed "I think there's probably an official gun ban in Bagdad, too."

Iraq = the new Godwin

Hey look, can we just create a new thread for the gun control debate to actually take place in? We now have two threads for arguing about the existence of the gun control debate.

Here's an intentionally bad idea, presented to encourage the development of new, better ideas. How about if we have permanent threads for hot-buttom issues? Whenever an interesting article looks like it's about to nosedive into an abortion argument, someone just posts "argument already in process" link to the most recent comment in the Abortion thread. Arguing continues where it left off, and the discussion about the current post continues unabated.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:36:02 -0800

To me "Derail" simply means "lead the discussian away from what most posters want to talk about" Even if it's not ugly.

I think what most people want to do in that thread is discuss news and that sort of thing. How many people died, whats going on on the ground, why specifically it happened. That sort of thing.

Having a huge flame war in that thread would prevent it from happening. That's the problem.

Sites like slashdot or digg or dailykos have threaded discussions, where talks can go way off on tangents. That has it's plusses and minuses, and in general I prefer metafilter. But when something like this happens, multiple threads can be a good thing. People who want an abstract discussion about policy can have it, and people who want a more grounded thread can have that too. I think it's a good idea.

--

As far as the gun control debate goes, it's intresting that pro-gun people are right out of the gate with "Well, if everyone had guns, this wouldn't be a problem!" Even if it had been legal to carry guns on campus, I doubt they would have done much other then add to the confusion. The guy was obviously a pretty good marksman, and frankly I think the majority of students wouldn't be carrying guns around anyway. But the police, not knowing who the real shooter was might have shot some people by accident.

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:27 -0800

quonsar has been a bit of a dick in the metatalk thread, but his acerbic criticism of the media coverage, over in the blue, has been spot-on.

Color me morally conflicted!

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:38:51 -0800

Please expand on your argument that discussing gun control after a shooting is bullshit,

Out of respect for the recently departed. This should be obvious to anybody raised with a shred of decency.

By: Fuzzy Monster

Fuzzy Monster — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:41:53 -0800

An armed society is a polite society.
posted by tadellin

Ah yes, quite right. Why, just the other day I was warming up a spot of tea with my Walther PK when Mumsy stepped from her sitting room and implored, "F. Monster, by chance do you happen to have a spare ammo clip? I am cross-stiching a sampler and simply must dot the 'I's in the proper fashion." I, being a Gentleman, produced the requested clip for her M1 Carbine and Mumsy happily finished the aforementioned sampler, pausing to reload only once.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:42:51 -0800

Saucy Intruder writes "If we don't talk about why someone had access to that kind of gun, when will we talk about it?"

I dunno. Get talking! That's what this thread is for!!

For fucks' sake, we spend half the blue thread debating about whether or not we should be debating gun control, and then when we get a thread for the express purpose of discussing this topic that so many people think should be discussed, instead of moving the discussion of gun control over, instead we now spend this thread discussing whether or not this is a good place to discuss gun control.

If y'all want to talk about it so goddamn much, then Why Aren't You?

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:43:25 -0800

if there had been a gun control discussion in that thread, it would have looked something like this:

user1: you see?! this is why I'm for gun control! This wouldn't happen if no one had guns!
user2: there are reasons to believe otherwise.
user3: yeah, you're an asshat, asshat.
user4: don't call him an asshat, fucktard.
user5: guys guys, let's please stay on topic. the topic is that guns are evil and so are people who want to own them.
user1: well, that's not quite what i was saying.
user3: it totally was, asshat!
user6: first of all, anyone who doesn't want a gun is asking to be killed. by me.

and on and on. the desire to discuss a political pet peeve or soapbox immediately upon hearing about a tragedy is not the desire that foments rational or constructive discussion. It is a desire, however unconscious, to grind axes and adopt a self righteous pose.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:43:37 -0800

'Certainly, bringing a gun into a school domitory and shooting ... is against the law and something someone should be held accountable for,'

I for one am encouraged that the Bush administration is aware that dormitory shooting sprees are illegal.

With an exemption for the Executive branch, of course.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:44:08 -0800

I realize that the quote in question comes from the unimpeachable Robert Heinlein

But he didn't mean what's commonly thought. When he wrote that, it was well understood that he meant "An armed society is a society in which a man can fuck his daughter (who is also his mother) raw regularly and with great enthusiasm."

Personally I prefer the Anthony Corollary: A society in which little girls display their panties is a society in which I get to see more panties.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:44:08 -0800

I think the departed have other things to worry about than whether the means of their dispatch is being discussed on metafilter.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:44:26 -0800

Please expand on your argument that discussing gun control after a shooting is bullshit

It's like yelling at someone whose kid just drowned about pool safety. It's an important topic, clearly relevant to the situation at hand, but unless the goal is to get a lot of people pissed off, it's not the right time and place for it. We had to be really pesty about Israel threads because any thread on Irsael or Palestine would instantly become I/P Conflict threads because for people for whom those are important issues, there is no talking about Israel without discussing the conflict. That's a valid opinion to hold as an individual, but it would be nice if it wasn't the way things always went on the site.

As it is, it's almost impossible for this site to discuss certain topics without it turning into an inevitable fight. That's a shame. MetaTalk is the best place for a discussion on gun control that really doesn't belong in an ongoing live coverage type of thread abotu a shooting tragedy. It has a "nyeah nyeah" tone to most of it. We've discussed before about enforced civility and we maintain that we don't want to have codes of conduct etc. But people also need to have some internal civility monitor that tells them that thread and that topic are not suited for a bunch of gun control derails. Partly this is understanding the nature of that thread -- it's going to be more of a thread where we find out more about the event as it goes on, etc -- and partly this is understanding the site. The site is not just for fighting about hobby horse topics and some threads are not places for that sort of argumentation to happen.

This has nothing to do with my political beliefs about gun control for what it's worth.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:44:31 -0800

Out of respect for the recently departed. This should be obvious to anybody raised with a shred of decency.

I don't think it's that easy. No one would start up a gun control debate in a room full of mourners, but this isn't that situation, this is the INTERNETS. We left our decency in our other pants. These pants, they just have quonsar's fish in them.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:44:50 -0800

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:45:22 -0800

Most people suffer from the delusion that the appropriate response to any stimulus is to unconsciously generate and broadcast an opinion on the matter-- bonus points if it is one that reaches beyond the actual subject at hand and connects to some larger issue in a display of wisdom and advocacy.

Some people are just more capable of turning that reflex on or off at will than others, so as not to be perceived as total assholes.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:46:23 -0800

If y'all want to talk about it so goddamn much, then Why Aren't You?

Because hiding the discussion here was itself a derailing move?

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:48:16 -0800

I also think part of the problem is the "gun control discussion" in that particular blue thread is that it hard to openly mourn and discuss the emerging facts of the event while certain soapboxers loudly condemn eachother with moral equivocations - such as "if guns were illegal, then this would not have happened. therefore, if you support the second amendment, you are partly to blame for what happened at virginia tech."

this is why claiming that this is a "particularly good time to talk about gun control" seems fucking ridiculous to me. the implied animosity, which as grapefruitmoon implies, is what the internet is all about, should be parsed out, and there's no reason why we can't argue here about it.

i personally lean towards packing some heat.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:49:22 -0800

Because hiding the discussion here was itself a derailing move?

Bullfuckingshit. Put up or shut up.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:49:22 -0800

hermitosis - maybe metafilter shouldn't have comments at all?

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:52:47 -0800

It all comes back to "don't be an asshole." The computer monitor in front of you isn't an exemption from participating in the real world.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:53:05 -0800

As an ignorant foreigner maybe someone could explain to me why a college student needs access to not only one but possibly two handguns.

Nobody needs hardly anything. Nobody on the planet needs access to an automobile, or an aircraft. Nobody needs access to a television or telephone.

People want access to handguns primarily as frivolities or collectibles. They're neat pieces of industrial engineering, little bits of mechanical widgetry. I'm told that putting holes in targets and watermelons and the like is fun, and I see no reason to doubt the people that tell me so. Some people maintain that they own a pistol for some vaguely self-defense related reason, but these people are almost universally either delusional or unwilling to admit that they own a pistol for frivolous reasons because admitting this would be impolitic.

People have access to a handgun or two because handguns are, in the civilian population, for the most part well-regulated frivolities, much like a fast car or motorcycle. Like fast cars and motorcycles, they can also be self-evidently dangerous and kill their users and bystanders from time to time.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:53:54 -0800

Artw: reading your comments made me feel like this is a very good idea.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:54:02 -0800

Artw typed "hermitosis - maybe metafilter shouldn't have comments at all?"

Comments don't kill people.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:54:12 -0800

It all comes back to "don't be an asshole."

Metafilter really needs this posted somewhere in calm, soothing colors.

By: well_balanced

well_balanced — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:54:35 -0800

The guy was obviously a pretty good marksman

Well, if he actually had a DAO-12 then literally everything in the general direction of the barrel would have died. If he did have one I'll be fascinated to learn how he got a hold of it. Understand that there is NO firearm in existence more suited to this kind of slaughter. I bet if you asked a dozen experts what the worst case scenario would be they wouldn't be telling you about machine guns--it would be a nut with one of these. It is really difficult for me to imagine even a legitimate law enforcement use for one of these things.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:54:45 -0800

Bullfuckingshit. Put up or shut up.

Backatcha. Loudly condemming a subject of debate and then shiting it to the grey is more likely to produce an argument over the move than the original subject. That's just how it is. Put up or shut up.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:55:16 -0800

grapefruitmoon writes "I don't think it's that easy. No one would start up a gun control debate in a room full of mourners"

There are posters in that thread with connections to VT who are very likely to be in mourning. It may not be a physical room, but that doesn't mean you have to invoke the "FEELINGS DON'T MATTER ON TEH INTERNETS" card.

Creating a separate thread for those interested in this debate was a fine solution. So get cracking, people. I want to read this fucker.

By: buzzman

buzzman — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:55:46 -0800

Another time, another day. And never argue after 10:00 pm, or before bedtime.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:56:23 -0800

And like fast cars, they can also be put to criminal purpose fairly easily.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:56:57 -0800

Too me, part of the reason for not discussing gun control with regards to that thread is that no one knows enough details yet to use any of it in there arguments. What type of guns were used? Were they purchased legally? To try to use it as evidence to prove your point is to jerk your knees.

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:00:05 -0800

The thing about the DAO-12 shotgun appears to just have been a wikipedia prank. No actual newswires mention it; they all say that two regular handguns (9mm and 22 cal) were recovered.

By: peacay

peacay — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:00:13 -0800

I find the notion of describing a university as being gun-free or not pretty disturbing just on, you know, general principles.

Just because this is a discussion board on the internet doesn't mean people can't find some solace in sharing an emotionally charged event with others that they 'know' here. I think a lot of people have found some degrees of help at times because they were able to share the experience here. It may not be the warm and fuzzy cuddle from a close friend but just knowing others have similar feelings about something can be helpful/ameliorating/calming or the like. Not always of course but...sometimes.

And thanks malthas. It was fortunate that the gun debate was removed to here or else I might have missed your comment.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:00:28 -0800

Lesson learned:

When people say "discussing gun control is important right now", they really mean "it's important, but not as important as discussing the administration of MetaFilter".

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:01:47 -0800

monju writes:

As a result, the weapon is not easily purchasable in the United States and requires special documentation before a civilian in the United States can obtain it. Either the shooter had the necessary documentation or was in possession of the DAO-12 illegally.

Here's a picture of the DAO-12. Continue discussing "gun control".

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:02:25 -0800

Most people suffer from the delusion that the appropriate response to any stimulus is to unconsciously generate and broadcast an opinion on the matter.

This site, and half the internt, would not exist if this were not so. What's your point?

It's like yelling at someone whose kid just drowned about pool safety.

No, not really, although I'm sure some people would beg to differ. This is A tragedy, it is not OUR tragedy. For those who do have personal connections to this tragedy, my heart goes out to them, but we shouldn't curtail discussion just because it could upset people. The most upsetting thing about this story is that it happened. Let the discussion go where it may; if people get too upset, they should step away.

On preview: There are posters in that thread with connections to VT who are very likely to be in mourning. It may not be a physical room, but that doesn't mean you have to invoke the "FEELINGS DON'T MATTER ON TEH INTERNETS" card. Why not? It's true. This is a discussion site and not a place to come for sympathy and I think the former should trump the latter, mostly because it usually will.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:02:42 -0800

Exactly, drezdn. Thats what makes it such a sore subject, I think-- it's pointless to have a debate on the matter when all we know is the bare minimum. Some people like like the sound of their own puffed-up quacking.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:03:51 -0800

"Backatcha. Loudly condemming a subject of debate and then shiting it to the grey is more likely to produce an argument over the move than the original subject. That's just how it is. Put up or shut up."

So... You don't want to talk about gun control, but rather want to bitch about moderation? Well, OK, your position was noted and dismissed. You can stop now.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:04:32 -0800

bugbread - cause and effect.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:05:47 -0800

As to the argument that this tragedy is in some sense essentially related to gun control, I think that's very questionable. These kinds of shootings are outliers and it's not clear to me that other cultural factors aren't more heavily involved than gun availability. In contrast, the numbers of suicides with guns, especially handguns, and a number of common crimes are far more relevant to the gun-control debate.

By: wheelieman

wheelieman — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:08:01 -0800

Artw, you can certainly disagree on here, but why cant you do it in a respectful way instead of put up and shut up?

By: and hosted from Uranus

and hosted from Uranus — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:08:08 -0800

This is a discussion site

You keep saying that. No, it isn't. Not primarily. And if it was, it would be even more important to show some decorum in the face of such a huge tragedy.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:09:48 -0800

adamvasco writes "As an ignorant foreigner maybe someone could explain to me why a college student needs access to not only one but possibly two handguns. "

Why should he have a need greater than target shooting or the macho look they give is gun cabinet?

By: popechunk

popechunk — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:10:29 -0800

ROU_Xenophobe has it exactly.

is MF acting screwy for anyone else? I'm getting lofi, server rejects, etc.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:11:13 -0800

I have a headache from all this. I would enjoy reading some compelling gun control debate now.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:12:00 -0800

ThePinkSuperhero writes "Why not? It's true. This is a discussion site and not a place to come for sympathy

Exclusively? Really? Not a community at all?

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:12:22 -0800

A lot of people close to newsy incidents come here to share the little additional information they're privy to as well as to add to the lamentations. No need to make them wade through more than the usual amount of crap in order to do so-- especially since what they have to contribute to the thread is probably more relevant than OMG GUNZ SUCK AMIRITE?

It's pointless to try to protect everyone's feelings-- we're all adults here-- but certainly if something snowballs into an obnoxious derail then it should land, well, right where it has.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:12:51 -0800

You're not alone popechunk.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:13:40 -0800

There are posters in that thread with connections to VT who are very likely to be in mourning. It may not be a physical room, but that doesn't mean you have to invoke the "FEELINGS DON'T MATTER ON TEH INTERNETS" card.

Did you know that before reading the thread? Was there any way to know for sure that there were people with connections who would be reading what you said?

Also, to get back to a point that I made earlier: Would YOU post to MetaFilter if you were grieving? If so, what kind of response would you expect?

I'm not trying to advocate that people act like assholes just because this is the internet, I'm saying that this is a very different kind of social interaction from a clearly defined space that says "MOURNERS ONLY." This is, as The Pink Superhero says, a discussion site. Separating out the political from the personal into the grey and the blue is fine, but saying "Why the fuck are you talking about this ANYWAY don't you guys know that people have FEELINGS?" is ridiculous. We have feelings. We also have opinions. And this is where most of us come to share our opinions. As for feelings, I've seen enough flameouts to leave mine at the door.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:14:39 -0800

“Why not? It's true. This is a discussion site and not a place to come for sympathy and I think the former should trump the latter, mostly because it usually will.”—ThePinkSuperhero

Not that this applies to you, but I'm curious about whether any of the same people that advocate “vigorous” discussion of gun-control in that thread are those who objected to “vigorous” discussion of Kurt Vonnegut in his obituary thread. It's not at all clear to me that those who, in one thread, advocate the rough-and-tumble rationale aren't those who, in another thread, argue against people being insulting and hurtful. Maybe not. But it sure seems to me that it often comes down to whose ox is being gored.

“is MF acting screwy for anyone else? I'm getting lofi, server rejects, etc.”—popechunk

Yeah, I'm having trouble, too. Matt, is MeFi being heavily loaded and do you think it's related to the shooting thread?

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:14:49 -0800

People, the DAO-12 thing came from some schmuck on Wikipedia. OK?

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:15:40 -0800

wheelieman, it was me who said "Put up or shut up" first, in response to Artw's "Whaaa! I don't want a grey soapbox, I wanted a blue!" shtick.

It's pretty slick, actually; he gets to pretend to be the persecuted truth-teller-to-power and all it took was a little petulance and a lot of disingenuousness, without once having to back his shit up - hell, without having to even express his point in a clear, productive manner.
Bravo.

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:15:56 -0800

This is a discussion site.

I don't know if I buy your "Metafilter: To Infinity and Beyond" argument, ThePinkSuperHero. For what its worth, I respect the people who put in the time to regulate this site. But at the same time, I get my shit deleted all the time.

I do not share your default position (anymore, at least) that just because I said it, it will stay up.

But this is all beside the point. MetaTalk is a good place to raise these meta-issues that are yes, important to talk about, and yes, arguably related to the thread. And more importantly, by isolating the people who actually want to talk about gun control - you can have a more civilized conversation about it. As opposed to getting stuck in between gears.

At the end of the day, we are all here to digest information. Let the people that own this site be in charge of how that works.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:15:58 -0800

is MF acting screwy for anyone else? I'm getting lofi, server rejects, etc.

I think it's just heavy, heavy load from the big news. The lofi is probably the stylesheet include timing out on page load, for example.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:17:26 -0800

You keep saying that (this is a discussion site). No, it isn't.
We always discuss big news, whether it's "best of the web"or not. This shooting is not "best of the web", but it is big news that people feel compelled to discuss. And we're discussing it and that makes this a discussion site. I understand some people like to pretend it isn't, maybe so they can feel smarter than the average web user or something, I don't know.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:19:15 -0800

Well, I just thank my lucky stars that I got to see this demonstration of the Awesome Dios Mind Force:
Because it is disgusting to see people see a tragedy and immediately think "Sweet! A data point to help me argue for my preferred political view!"

Who else could divine the immediate thoughts of people he only knows as members of an internet forum? People for whom he apparently has no sympathy whatever! A truly unique talent.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:20:17 -0800

edit: You keep saying that (this is a discussion site). No, it isn't.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:21:21 -0800

Yeah, but what the custom css in member profiles?

By: and hosted from Uranus

and hosted from Uranus — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:22:50 -0800

TPS, I was referring to the community aspect more than the links aspect, though I also meant both. I didn't make that clear.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:24:47 -0800

*prompts strangling-Brandon-Blatcher control debate*

By: avriette

avriette — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:28:10 -0800

I'm really too upset to contribute to this thread other than to suggest people read Going Postal by Mark Ames (of eXile fame). It's a well-researched (if poorly written) book on why these sorts of things happen. Random spouting about guns and laws isn't going to fix anything. Learning about how and why these things happen just might.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:28:17 -0800

I'm curious about whether any of the same people that advocate “vigorous” discussion of gun-control in that thread are those who objected to “vigorous” discussion of Kurt Vonnegut in his obituary thread.

I can't say as I object to "vigorous" discussion - if you have an opinion and you can express it without flinging your poo, go for it.

That said, I think a lot of us are quick to stoop the lowest common denominator in "heated" discussions. It does make things trickier, that's for sure. Anyhow, no I don't object to people voicing unpopular opinions.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:29:11 -0800

well_balanced writes "If he did have one I'll be fascinated to learn how he got a hold of it. Understand that there is NO firearm in existence more suited to this kind of slaughter. I bet if you asked a dozen experts what the worst case scenario would be they wouldn't be telling you about machine guns--it would be a nut with one of these."

Actually as shot guns go it's a pretty poor choice. The magazine isn't removable so reloading is a lengthy process. And it's bulk makes it hard to conceal. A nice sawed off semi auto clip fed weapon would be a lot more appropriate.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:31:37 -0800

grapefruitmoon writes "Did you know that before reading the thread? Was there any way to know for sure that there were people with connections who would be reading what you said?"

Huh? No. I'm not psychic. I tend to, you know, read threads. I guess I'm not getting your point. I thought the discussion at hand was whether it was a good idea to move the gun control debate here. That there appear to be people in the original thread who are close to the events at hand, and are probably looking for useful info or even sympathy, is one of many good reasons for the shift.

Would YOU post to MetaFilter if you were grieving? If so, what kind of response would you expect?

No. But then again I'm a very private person. It really has nothing to do with my conception of MeFi.

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:32:14 -0800

artw writes:

Please expand on your argument that discussing gun control after a shooting is bullshit, and your cryptic commets about "facts" coming in

I'm beginning to agree with other people that you are simply avoiding stating a position on an issue that you insist you state a position on.

The "facts" that are not clear:

Was the gunman a student, ie did he know his victims?

Was this a premeditated attack?

Were the weapons used bought legally?

It's not even clear what context these events have taken place in. NBC is reporting that the gunman chained the doors of the building shut. Maybe this is not an incident of just "going postal".

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:37:22 -0800

I'm against gun control. I'm a reasonable man who believes in the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution. I use my guns responsibly, and anyone who says otherwise is getting filled with lead.

By: rtha

rtha — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:39:06 -0800

If y'all want to talk about it so goddamn much, then Why Aren't You?

Because hiding the discussion here was itself a derailing move?
posted by Artw

So, Artw, how's that post for the blue coming along? You are putting together a good "Gun control: yea or nay?" post, right?

By: grouse

grouse — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:43:55 -0800

President Bush’s press secretary relayed his first comments on the subject, saying that he “believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.'’

Bush believes that all laws must be followed? What an incredible shift in administration policy.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:46:07 -0800

phaedon - so baiscally we shouldn't discuss how easy access to firearms in american society leads to murder/suicide sprees that would be otherwise unlikely to happen on the off-chance the guy was using the super-shotgun from quake? Riiiight.

I'm getting the clear sense that some of you were hoping he was using that weapon just so you could make this argument...

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:50:36 -0800

As an ignorant foreigner maybe someone could explain to me why a college student needs access to not only one but possibly two handguns.

Target practice and defense of self and country are the usual arguments. Also, (this obviously doesn't apply to most college students), there are many civilians for whom handguns are daily-use items: hunters, farmers, ranchers, back-country campers, security guards, rent-a-cops, etc. Count me as chuckling at the "nobody needs a handgun" argument above -- sure, in the sense that nobody "needs" anything more than shelter and food, but there are certainly people whose handguns are practical items, not a frivolity or a collectible. I agree that they're not the majority, but they do exist.

Can anyone make the argument about why there should not be gun control given the violent death rate in USA as opposed to European countries.

First of all, let me suggest that the culture has a lot more to do with this than the guns. There are several European countries in which a comparable percentage of households own guns -- Norway, Switzerland, and Finland are all above 20% due to their national defense policy, yet their homicide statistics are mostly in line with similar countries in Europe. Canada isn't European, but they have nearly as many guns as we do, including lots of handguns, and they don't have nearly the same homicide problem. And some countries (like Scotland and Northern Ireland) have few guns and a high homicide rate. Take a look at that chart, and see if you can still make the argument that gun possession in a country has a direct relationship to its number of homicides.

That said, the main reason why gun control won't work is that America has a long history of gun ownership, to the point where that particular cat is just not going back in the bag. There are millions of legal handguns in this country. I'd guess that there are easily five thousand or more in my small town of 15,000 people. And given the American spirit of resistance and self-defense, there's no way that everyone (or even a significant portion thereof) is going to voluntarily surrender their guns to a ban. It's more likely that hundreds of thousands of guns would go "missing", thus removing even the possibility of government management or oversight. IMHO, the situation we have right now (registration, background checks, and some mostly-reasonable laws that the majority of gun owners comply with) is a lot better than what we'd have if we attempted a handgun ban -- the gun show circuit does NOT need to be any more circumspect than it already is, and we're not going to like the results if we force people to choose between their guns and criminality.

In short, trying to ban handguns in America would be like trying to ban rocks in the desert, and the last thing America needs is yet another unenforceable, Constitution-defying excuse to put even more people in prison.

By: Espy Gillespie

Espy Gillespie — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:50:58 -0800

Have any of the posters in the original thread that have direct connections to Tech asked people not to talk about gun control? As a former Tech student and someone with a number of friends there, I'd like to say thank you to the righteous defenders of the emotionally traumatized, but a (possibly) inappropriate discussion of gun control is pretty low on the list of bad things happening today.

By: modernnomad

modernnomad — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:53:28 -0800

>Please expand on your argument that discussing gun >control after a shooting is bullshit,

Out of respect for the recently departed. This should be obvious to anybody raised with a shred of decency.

So after the next bombing apparently perpetrated by al-Qaeda we shouldn't talk about terrorism? All we should do is have a series of "." and "OMG 500+ people died its sooooo sad!"??

Are we all fucking children here? Do we no longer dare to speak about "big issues" that we might disagree on? Are our feelings all so fragile that we can't bare to have someone posit a different position to what we hold to be true? What the hell is going on?

By: phaedon

phaedon — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:56:20 -0800

I, for one, don't think its a good time to share my "opinions" on gun control as they relate to this case, because most of the assumptions I'll end up making are totally baseless.

Talking about this, however, on Meta, I'm sure is not meant to discount your efforts to do so.

For what its worth - on philosophical grounds, I'm pro-gun, but I do support acts such as the federal Assault Weapons Ban. I don't plan on using today's events as a platform for proving my point, but let's just say if I had to wait for the other guy to make the move, I wouldn't.