Shooty McGunpants

Given the events of last week, it is really inappropriate to "moderate" comments to this question, which announces (vaguely and without details or motive) a course of action that could very well be dangerous to public health. While requesting that responses be limited to those from people who agree with you is always counterproductive, here it is just stupid, and the moderators should either delete the question or leave on-topic comments alone. That. Is. All.
posted by Saucy Intruder to etiquette/policy at 2:00 PM (316 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I was just happy to see you.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:06 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

What the fuck? Totally valid question, move on.
posted by tristeza at 2:08 PM on April 24, 2007 [6 favorites]

Do some research on the "danger" to public health of legal, with permit, concealed carry, and then come back to us.
posted by knave at 2:08 PM on April 24, 2007

For the record, your deleted comment was

You really have to dress in business attire so that people assume you're a plainclothes cop. Shorts + t-shirt + gun = lunatic.

how a person could go about carrying a gun, daily, with casual clothing on, and not freak anyone out

Guns freak me out. I don't care if you're Joe Friday. Guns freak me out. Walking around with a gun in public for no reason freaks a lot of people out. I think what you are trying to accomplish is impossible, and to the extent I can say how bad of an idea this is without getting my comment deleted, this is a bad idea.

I specifically went back and forth with the OP about this question which he was concerned about asking. I asked him to wait a bit after last week. I offered to read the question for him. It's a very specific logistical question with a specific request to skip the ethical back and forth that always comes up in these threads.

Driving a car is dangerous to public health. So is drinking. So is fucking. So am I when I'm in a bad mood. I'm sorry, I know you clearly have strong feelings on the matter and I don't mean to poke fun, but there are ways to be somewhat off-topic and still respond to the question without derailing it and yours was on the far side of that. MetaTalk may be a better place to air your concerns. If you want to go back to the thread and talk about business attire without saying "guns freak me out" abd "this is a bad idea" over and over, please feel free.
posted by jessamyn at 2:08 PM on April 24, 2007 [7 favorites]

Look - I wanted to ask this question a few days ago, but thought better of it. I explicitly emailed Jessamyn asking for her opinion and go head. I had the blessing of a moderator, and honestly, I could give a shit less if you think this is a bad idea. I had a question I wanted answered, and so far, you're the only person who's disregarded my one request to not give me a lesson on how this is a bad idea.

So, WTF? I expected the MeTa, but after 10 comments? Jesus.
posted by plaidrabbit at 2:09 PM on April 24, 2007

I'm pro-gun control. I hate handguns. I don't think concealed weapons should be legal.

But the question is well phrased and well within the AskMe purview. The addendum at the end is phrased in such a way as to minimize any potential backlash.

I think the question is fine.
posted by lekvar at 2:10 PM on April 24, 2007 [6 favorites]

I'm not a big fan of guns, and am an even lesser fan of concealed carry laws. But the guy asked for specific advice about how to carry a concealed weapon, not if it was a good idea to do so. It was not ambiguous. I read the thread, but had nothing to contribute that was on-topic, so I didn't.
posted by rtha at 2:12 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

plaidrabbit, in general, MetaFilter is anti-gun, so this reaction was pretty much unavoidable. I thought your question was going well considering it took 10 replies to get a meta callout.
posted by knave at 2:13 PM on April 24, 2007

I think guns are one of the greatest threats to the health and safety of Americans, that concealed weapons laws are idiotic, and that anyone who thinks that carrying a concealed weapon is doing something to enhance their own safety and/or the safety of others is not only laughably wrong, but also a complete lunatic.

I also think this question was well thought-out, perfectly acceptable within the guidelines of AskMe, and very clearly and fairly asked that responders not get into an ethical debate about handguns. So I took a deep breath and moved right along.
posted by googly at 2:15 PM on April 24, 2007 [8 favorites]

I'm not for concealed carry (mostly) but I thought the question was fine. The asker wasn't asking to do anything illegal.
posted by drezdn at 2:16 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hey, part of the fun is thinking that someone might realize that you are concealing a handgun. Wear the shorts and t-shirt!
posted by found missing at 2:18 PM on April 24, 2007

Just wondering about these "concealed" permits... Does the permit allow you to conceal the gun you're carrying, or does it demand that you conceal it (so as to not cause a "person with a gun!" panic)?
posted by CKmtl at 2:19 PM on April 24, 2007

What a stupid call-out. The question isn't about what people think of guns.
posted by puke & cry at 2:19 PM on April 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

I was fully expecting the gun-hating whackjobs to come out of their caves, but was pleasantly surprised to see that it didn't happen.

You know, it's probably one of the best ask mefi questions that I've seen all day.
posted by drstein at 2:20 PM on April 24, 2007

You know, I was thinking of strapping some machetes to my hands. Is there an orchestra out there I can conduct?
Christ.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:22 PM on April 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

I'd pay money to watch a conductor direct an orchestra with machetes. Maybe there would be some kind of threat of dismemberment for missed notes.

/tacky
posted by Burhanistan at 2:23 PM on April 24, 2007

Word. Gun-hating whackjobs cause so much violence in our society.
posted by found missing at 2:23 PM on April 24, 2007

Given the events of last week, it is really inappropriate to "moderate" comments to this question, which announces (vaguely and without details or motive) a course of action that could very well be dangerous to public health.

And is also well within the law and askme guidelines.

If we're going to be arguing about "public health", maybe we should avoid censoring honest questions asked in an effort to avoid a situation in which the public health might be affected. Or, you know, we could pretend as if nobody nice ever carries guns blah blah idiotic blah blah lunatic blah blah we're in denial.
posted by vorfeed at 2:25 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

You know, I was thinking of strapping some machetes to my hands. Is there an orchestra out there I can conduct?

Can I put in a request for some Switchblade Symphony?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:25 PM on April 24, 2007

Just wondering about these "concealed" permits... Does the permit allow you to conceal the gun you're carrying, or does it demand that you conceal it (so as to not cause a "person with a gun!" panic)?

In the US, it all depends on state law (and also city laws, in some places). So, the classic, "it depends."
posted by Forktine at 2:26 PM on April 24, 2007

Is it wrong that I scan the thread and make a note of who carries a gun, so I never make the mistake of pissing them off at a meetup?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:27 PM on April 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

Given the events of last week, it is really inappropriate...

You ever stop to think that the events of last week might be why somebody might decide to carry a weapon?

CKmtl: It depends on the state. In many states anybody can carry a gun openly (AK, ME, and PA come to mind). In those states, the permit allows you to conceal the weapon. Interestingly, Philadelphia has a ordinance that prohibits all open carry, making concealed carry your only option.

In other states, the "brandishing" laws are written in such a way that carrying a gun in an unconcealed holster is illegal, so a CCW is the only way to carry a gun at all. In these states, the CCW requires that you conceal the weapon.
posted by Netzapper at 2:27 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

By thw way you phrased to comment, you *knew* it was likely to be deleted and now you come over to Metatalk and get outraged about it?
posted by vacapinta at 2:27 PM on April 24, 2007

I don't think the OP should carry a gun around either. So I moved on and didn't comment in the thread! See, easy solution.
posted by grouse at 2:27 PM on April 24, 2007

I was fully expecting the gun-hating whackjobs to come out of their caves

We have, but, oddly enough, mostly in favor of the question.
posted by lekvar at 2:27 PM on April 24, 2007

The only problem I have with the question is the excessive capitalization.
posted by ldenneau at 2:28 PM on April 24, 2007 [3 favorites]

You ever stop to think that the events of last week might be why somebody might decide to carry a weapon?

Exactly. Which makes it half as well thought out and three times as fucking stupid.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:30 PM on April 24, 2007

I'd be in that orchestra, as long as you don't mind awful playing and I can sit in the back.
posted by edgeways at 2:31 PM on April 24, 2007

I hate guns.

I thought this was one of AskMe's best questions. I loved the well composed responses from gun carriers.

This call-out is fucking stupid.
posted by docpops at 2:32 PM on April 24, 2007

This is one of the stupidest callouts I can remember. Dangerous to public health? Take it up with the government - the guy's asking about a legal activity. If you don't approve, DON'T CLICK ON THE DAMN THREAD.

And one whackjob murderer doesn't make it any more or less a legitimate question (hell, if anything, how do I arm myself for personal protection in this gun-ridden country is even more relevant now).
posted by Dasein at 2:32 PM on April 24, 2007

I don't understand why a "waiting period" was advised, after the Virginia Tech massacre, before this question was posted.

He's talking about legal carrying of a handgun. Whether some lunatic just shot a bunch of people with handguns, seems entirely irrelevant to the question of how legally to conceal your own handgun.
posted by jayder at 2:33 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

The most recent issue of Reason magazine has an interesting article on "public health" and how it has come to include personal choices that have nothing to do with disease, aka gun control.
posted by Falconetti at 2:34 PM on April 24, 2007

plaidrabbit, in general, MetaFilter is anti-gun, so this reaction was pretty much unavoidable.

It is not unavoidable. MetaFilter is also generally regarded as anti-stupid; the expectation that people show some self-control, on the green especially, is not contingent upon the subject matter, even if the actual presence of said restraint seems sometimes to be.

I can not imagine a less inappropriate gun-related question being post to AskMe. A simple and polite disclaimer against out-of-line anti-gun rhetoric is only provocation to spout anti-gun rhetoric in IronyLand.

Driving a car is dangerous to public health. So is drinking. So is fucking. So am I when I'm in a bad mood.

One of these days I should register an extra account named "yeah, what jessamyn said".
posted by cortex at 2:34 PM on April 24, 2007 [7 favorites]

I was fully expecting the gun-hating whackjobs to come out of their caves. . .

Most of us gun-hating whackjobs don't live in caves. We live in nice houses and apartments in large, prosperous cities in which the populations (primarily) of our economically disadvantaged neighbors are being systematically wiped out by gun violence. You cave-dwellers mostly love your guns and say all kids of ridiculous shit about your "cold dead hands" and needing M16s and teflon ammunition to hunt deer.
posted by The Bellman at 2:35 PM on April 24, 2007 [10 favorites]

It may be irrelevant, but it does involve a modicum of tact.
posted by edgeways at 2:35 PM on April 24, 2007

Is it ok for me to say here that I would like to recommend to the OP that he conceal the gun up his ass? That would be my recommendation, but I'm sure it would get deleted in the Green.

I don't really mean it - as I don't have any real problem w/ people with CWP's... but it would just be really FUN to say!
posted by matty at 2:36 PM on April 24, 2007

Saucy Intruder, I like you. Your name makes me laugh every time I see it. That is, it started doing so once I started Property. Which is why it makes me sad to have to point out that your machete-conductor example, while probably making for a great Tim Burton movie, is a really inaccurate analogy for what you're trying to say here.
posted by Partial Law at 2:36 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

I guess I picked the wrong week to ask about concealing improvised explosive devices.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:37 PM on April 24, 2007 [6 favorites]

while probably making for a great Tim Burton movie

Oh great, I can see it now: Machete Man: Conduct On- THE MUSICAL. Broadway 2010. Buy tickets now.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:38 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Echoing what everyone is saying about your conflating the poster, someone with a permit to carry a gun, with a fucking psychopath that massacred a bunch of people. And your pronouncement that it's "inappropriate to 'moderate' comments" because of "public health" concerns is absurd.
posted by puke & cry at 2:38 PM on April 24, 2007

I don't understand why a "waiting period" was advised, after the Virginia Tech massacre, before this question was posted.

I wasn't part of that conversation, but if I had been I'd have suggested the same thing. Mefi (as a subset of America-centric conversation in general) has been pretty high-strung about guns the last week or so. that's not to say that the question would have been incorrect in any absolute sense last Wednesday, but it'd definitely be more likely to produce heat instead of light, and capture a more emotional and less useful set of responses.

Giving something a few days to cool down can do wonders; if it's not urgent, there's no real reason not to.
posted by cortex at 2:38 PM on April 24, 2007

'kay, I'll come out of my cave just long enough to say that I think it's hilarious/terrifying that there are places in which carrying guns is so normal that your question is about what clothes are best to wear with it/hide it.
Astounding.

Chococat --- your reasoning is fallacious. You are way too eager to leap to a "frightening" conclusion, when the question does not justify your leap.

How does the fact that he is asking how to conceal a weapon imply that he lives in a place "in which carrying guns is ... normal"?

Couldn't the situation, just as likely, be that he lives in a place where carrying weapons is so unusual, that he knows nobody who actually carries a gun, so he has turned to AskMe to ask the question?
posted by jayder at 2:40 PM on April 24, 2007

MetaFilter: a really inaccurate analogy for what you're trying to say here
posted by PugAchev at 2:40 PM on April 24, 2007

What, exactly, are you calling out here? That the asker requested that people not shit in his thread, or that you did anyway and got called on it?
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:41 PM on April 24, 2007 [5 favorites]

Given the events of last week, it is really inappropriate to use dead kids to justify your whiny MeTatalk post.

Yes, yes it is!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:41 PM on April 24, 2007 [5 favorites]

hell, if anything, how do I arm myself for personal protection in this gun-ridden country is even more relevant now

How about hand grenades? Tastefully concealed, of course.
posted by timeistight at 2:42 PM on April 24, 2007

The zero-tolerance moderation of AskMe is one of the reasons I gave up answering questions. The whole place is a fraud of joyless forced civility that I don't want to be part of.
posted by cillit bang at 2:42 PM on April 24, 2007 [6 favorites]

::shoots cillit bang dead::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:43 PM on April 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

Unless the poster is explicitly asking for help doing something illegal (and it is extremely clear from this question that CC is perfectly legal in the state where the poster lives), then it doesn't need to be Meta-ed. Or judged.

AskMe is for answers, not sermons. Sometimes they're required for a given question ("Is this a dumb thing to do?" comes to mind) but this was a specific request for specific help with a specific problem. If you don't like the problem, answer another question.
posted by Malor at 2:43 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

should have previewed: cillit, somehow, I think it manages to soldier on without you. :)
posted by Malor at 2:44 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think AskMe querists should be allowed to delete answers from their posted threads.
posted by cribcage at 2:46 PM on April 24, 2007

And bellman, somewhere between those two extremes -- right between the gangbangers and the right wing wackos, is where this question sits.

The OP doesn't talk about his occupation, but there's lots of occupations where he could be recognized while weeding his front yard by one of his less-hinged "clients" -- i.e. working in mental health facilities where guys like the dude who shot up Virginia Tech get sent, or a halfway house for druggies. If he lives anywhere remotely near 'work', there's a decent chance that one of the people he's dealt with professionaly could get violent and come after him while he's out on the town. I'd pack too if that was the case.

And I'll third the "What jessaymn said". Someday, someone's going to have to do a study on "gun-phobia" ... the fact is that out of all the causes of death, you've got like a .007% chance of dying from being assaulted with a weapon -- and that includes knives, blunt objects, cars, skullfuckings, and every other type of assault, not just guns. So the whole outrage about guns being "dangerous to public health" is bullshit.

Of course, it's also not as easy to get enraged about cancer or heart disease, neither of which are a prized posession of a group that stereotypically is ideologically opposite from the majority of MeFi's population.

Just like the need for gun control, I think we need to look at the deeper and more complex issue.
posted by SpecialK at 2:46 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Hey, I got taglined! Fancy!
posted by Partial Law at 2:47 PM on April 24, 2007

[NOT QUERIST]
posted by found missing at 2:47 PM on April 24, 2007

zero-tolerance moderation

From the other side of the fence, I have to tell you that the number looks a good bit bigger than zero. Zero tolerance for completely out-of-line non-answers, sure.
posted by cortex at 2:48 PM on April 24, 2007

By far, the worst part of any of these threads was jessamyn's snide:

Driving a car is dangerous to public health. So is drinking. So is fucking. So am I when I'm in a bad mood.

That comment is awful because it makes a significant statement about gun control, but in a forum where debate on the matter would be unwelcome.

You should know better, Jessamyn.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:49 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wonder what MeFi would be like if obtaining banning privileges required only a cursory background check through your recent comments and a 3 day waiting period.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:50 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

The zero-tolerance moderation of AskMe is one of the reasons I gave up answering questions.

There's plenty of tolerance. As an example, DU is allowed to give the worst possible answers in every single thread, and nobody ever says "you know what, DU has never made a useful answer, ever. We should shut him the fuck up."

Well, nobody with moderator privileges anyway.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:51 PM on April 24, 2007 [7 favorites]

in a forum where debate on the matter would be unwelcome

I don't get this at all. Can you elaborate?
posted by cortex at 2:52 PM on April 24, 2007

in a forum where debate on the matter would be unwelcome.

What are you taking about? It's here in MetaTalk, where such discussion is supposed to take place and in fact is taking place. It's a direct response to the OPs assertion in this thread. I don't even understand what you are objecting to.
posted by jessamyn at 2:53 PM on April 24, 2007

This is one of the worst complaints about a thread I have read.

The lead post seems to imply that Saucy Intruder has the right to bitch out the question asker without moderation because guns are bad.

Please.

He doesn't need to explain his motive or to justify his choice to carry in any way. But the concern for the 'public health' is touching all the same.
posted by BigSky at 2:54 PM on April 24, 2007

good thing at least half of the "worst callout ever" police squad aren't packing.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:55 PM on April 24, 2007

This thread isn't about gun control, it's about whether the question belongs, and whether Saucy Intruder's objections are reasonable.

Your comment was a standard pro-gun preaching point.

There's no reasonable way to respond to it, as nobody is in this thread for the purposes of discussing the overarching theme of gun control.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:56 PM on April 24, 2007

+1 BigSky
posted by SpecialK at 2:56 PM on April 24, 2007

SpecialK: And bellman, somewhere between those two extremes -- right between the gangbangers and the right wing wackos, is where this question sits.

As far as I can tell, The Bellman was responding to drstein's snarky use of "gun-hating whackjobs", not the AskMe OP.
posted by CKmtl at 2:56 PM on April 24, 2007

Bang bang, he got shot down
Bang bang, he hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, TPS shot him epon-hysterically down.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:57 PM on April 24, 2007

This thread would be more entertaining if there were more guns.
posted by smorange at 2:57 PM on April 24, 2007

I think AskMe querists should be allowed to delete answers from their posted threads.

I disagree. AskMe is as much a resource for the community as it is for the querist. It's not the querist's place to dictate pre hoc the desired answers he or she is looking for.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:58 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wonder what MeFi would be like if obtaining banning privileges required only a cursory background check through your recent comments and a 3 day waiting period.

Probably not much different, if the punishment for unjustified bans included getting banned yourself.
posted by knave at 2:58 PM on April 24, 2007

I was going to ask about korean takeout restaurants, but "given the events of last week," I figured it was innapropriate.
posted by signal at 2:58 PM on April 24, 2007 [3 favorites]

good thing at least half of the "worst callout ever" police squad aren't packing.

They've got armadillos in their trousers.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 2:59 PM on April 24, 2007

>Your comment was a standard pro-gun preaching point.
> There's no reasonable way to respond to it, as nobody is in this thread for the purposes of discussing the overarching theme of gun control.

And Saucy Intruder included a standard anti-gun preaching point in her callout, which opened that part of the topic up for discussion.
posted by SpecialK at 3:00 PM on April 24, 2007

[QUEERIST]
posted by ericb at 3:00 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

SpecialK , actually assault with firearms caused about 7% of deaths (2003)
posted by edgeways at 3:00 PM on April 24, 2007

a standard anti-gun preaching point in her callout

Which is what?
BTW, I only throw like a girl.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:01 PM on April 24, 2007

There's no reasonable way to respond to it, as nobody is in this thread for the purposes of discussing the overarching theme of gun control.

MeTa is, notably, not as topic-driven as AskMe. The reasonable way to respond to it that is escaping you is to respond reasonably to it.
posted by cortex at 3:01 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wonder what MeFi would be like if obtaining banning privileges required only a cursory background check through your recent comments and a 3 day waiting period.

Probably not much different, if the punishment for unjustified bans included getting banned yourself.

And if you were banned for unjustified banning, you couldn't then buy another account and come back. Unless you're a buddhist, you don't get do-overs on real life. ;)
posted by SpecialK at 3:01 PM on April 24, 2007

MeTa is, notably, not as reason-driven as AskMe.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:02 PM on April 24, 2007

which is still a small number comparatively, but not insignificant.
posted by edgeways at 3:02 PM on April 24, 2007

it's about whether the question belongs

No, it's about whether it was inappropriate to moderate SI's comment in a thread that SI thought was inappropriate. SI thought the thread was inappropriate because it was a danger to public health. Maybe I didn't connect enough dots: AskMeFi also has a ton of threads on public-health-ish topics and threats to same, such as driving and fucking and drinking. Thus SI's assertion that this is a public health issue is far-fetched.

I'm not pro-gun, I'm anti anti-gun-hysteria and I live someplace where guns are more of a fact of life so I'm more used to them possibly.
posted by jessamyn at 3:03 PM on April 24, 2007

SpecialK , actually assault with firearms caused about 7% of deaths (2003)

Huh? I'm looking at your link and I don't see that anywhere, except that possibly assault with firearm constituted 7% of all assaults.
posted by knave at 3:03 PM on April 24, 2007

Shooty McGunpants? Are you totally fucking high or what? What the fuck is wrong with you?
posted by loquacious at 3:04 PM on April 24, 2007 [4 favorites]

In fact, the pretty picture says your odds of dying by firearm assault are 1 in 314 (0.3%).
posted by knave at 3:05 PM on April 24, 2007

a fraud of joyless forced civility
Odd, you describe it so appositely, but I didn't see you at our last management meeting, cillit bang
posted by Abiezer at 3:05 PM on April 24, 2007

SpecialK , actually assault with firearms caused about 7% of deaths (2003)

Edgeway, instead of being so eager to call my point out, go back and read that -- your link says deaths due to injury. However, between heart disease, obesity, emphysema, and other diseases and "public health" issues, you've really only got a .007 chance of dying -- 17,000 of 2,448,000 or so.

Strangely, that agrees with your number. Who woulda thunk?
posted by SpecialK at 3:06 PM on April 24, 2007

I have little to no love for handguns, legal and practical arguments for why private citizens in a democracy need to have them. I also don't love the virulent and very common "STFU and get out of the thread" strain of AskMe militancy. I think, like cillit bang, that it makes the green an often extraordinarily tiresome place.

But it's been decided. AskMe is not for political warfare. That's the way the community wants it and your comments, Saucy Intruder (always loved that handle, btw) were a full-frontal political assault on the question. And you know it. Whether you choose to couch it in euphemistic "public health" language or not, you essentially rode in, both with your comment but especially with this thread and said "fuck you for asking this question, it makes me sick" which is, needless to say, out of bounds.

This, SI, from a person who agrees with you in principal and who is also enraged about the relative silence (in big public fora) regarding gun control issues in the past two weeks.
posted by kosem at 3:08 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

(Note, not a math major. I think it' s .007%. My calculator spit out some weird data when I asked it the question.)
posted by SpecialK at 3:08 PM on April 24, 2007

Are you totally fucking high or what? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Mother??
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:09 PM on April 24, 2007

I think, like cillit bang, that it makes the green an often extraordinarily tiresome place.

And I think it makes the green one of the most useful resources on the planet. Go figure.
posted by knave at 3:10 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

SI's assertion that this is a public health issue is far-fetched.

Driving, fucking and drinking are behaviors that have epidemiological consequences, no doubt, but few would equate the deliberate shooting death of another human being with 99.9% accidental causes of death, which are a side effect of driving an automobile, having sex or drinking alcohol. The only purpose (wrt the question) to the use of a gun is killing or badly hurting another living person. Of course it's a public health issue.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:10 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

troglodytes! ha-ha!
posted by taliaferro at 3:11 PM on April 24, 2007

I wonder what MeFi would be like if obtaining banning privileges required only a cursory background check through your recent comments and a 3 day waiting period.

Much, much quieter.
posted by timeistight at 3:15 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

The only purpose (wrt the question) to the use of a gun is killing or badly hurting another living person...

In self defense, a pretty reasonable thing to do, IMO. The disarmed students of VT were unable to do what was legally possible just a few years earlier, and somehow that's a good thing?
posted by knave at 3:15 PM on April 24, 2007

knave: I think that's right, too. Its usefulness derives from its on-topicness, and what I consider to be joy-killing moderation is probably necessary. Which is why you don't see me schrying gevalt about it. But I never was a schryer.

Also, I think guns are a public health issue, too. But not in the conventional sense, and adopting that position is a strong political statement which requires exposition, probably not in the green.
posted by kosem at 3:16 PM on April 24, 2007

Vest up, everyone!
posted by Dizzy at 3:17 PM on April 24, 2007

Adding to the chorus: I'm pretty much totally anti-gun-ownership, yet thought the question was fine. In fact, I was pretty impressed by the non-inflammatory tone. (And Netzapper, the next time i see you at a Meetup, I will ask you if that's a harmonica in your pocket.)

Tacos, Saucy was the one who brought up the "guns are a public health issue" thing. Jessamyn referenced the opposing "dangerous to public health" rhetoric, but acknowledges that she's being flip. Check the context. Meanwhile, you seem to be telling her that she's not doing this "commenting in MeTa" thing correctly. Huh?
posted by desuetude at 3:20 PM on April 24, 2007

few would equate the deliberate shooting death of another human being with 99.9% accidental causes of death, which are a side effect of driving an automobile, having sex or drinking alcohol. The only purpose (wrt the question) to the use of a gun is killing or badly hurting another living person.

Are you saying plaidrabbit is going to deliberately shoot someone? Because that's what SI was calling out, the specific case of one specific person carrying a gun.

You can also use a gun to scare the crap out of someone, without killing or injuring them.
posted by 23skidoo at 3:21 PM on April 24, 2007

Most of us gun-hating whackjobs don't live in caves. We live in nice houses and apartments in large, prosperous cities in which the populations (primarily) of our economically disadvantaged neighbors are being systematically wiped out by gun violence.

I can't wait until one of your disadvantaged neighbors burglarizes your nice apartment.
posted by jonmc at 3:24 PM on April 24, 2007 [6 favorites]

From a public health point of view, the discussion of fanny-packs and cops' attitudes toward them put that thread firmly on the plus side.
posted by jamjam at 3:24 PM on April 24, 2007

Oh, sorry, I missed the part where plaidrabbit wasn't planning to put any bullets in the gun.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:24 PM on April 24, 2007

Everyone is clearly entitled to their opinion on private gun ownership and concealed carry - I have some serious ambivalence on the matter myself - but of all the reasons to be concerned there's no cause to conflate CC with the VT massacre (or the NASA shooting or...).

As far as I know there's not a state in the union that issues permits without requiring training. I think I have a somewhat unique prespective on this, having been through the armed security guard class about four years ago (don't ask) and the NRA-sponsored CCW class last night.

For one thing, I think equating the actions of a whacko with people who set out to undertake legal training and licensing is questionable. You can certainly be skeptical that additional armed individuals in that mix would have made things less bloody, but none of the people in that class last night (or the ASG class I took long ago) were there because they were interested in shooting people indiscriminately. They opened their wallets to the tune of $100+ to do what was necessary to comply with the law when there's nothing stopping a person from simply showing a pistol in their pocket and walking around without state sanction.

Beyond that, the message repeated over and over again in both last night's class for private citizens and the class I took for licensed security guards was this: YOU ARE NOT A POLICE OFFICER. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TRAINING OR LEGAL RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN AN ARMED CONFRONTATION. IF AT ALL POSSIBLE YOU SHOULD WITHDRAW TO A SAFE LOCATION AND CALL 911.

Personally I think it's a shame every gun owner doesn't get that training, and their opposition to mandatory training is one of the reasons I don't think I could ever bring myself to join the NRA, despite the fact that I sometimes target shoot at their range and think very highly of their training courses. Personally I am concerned by the idea of a lot more people armed and about, but having now been through two different classes I am on the fence if I think it would be worth it to have more people with that training.
posted by phearlez at 3:25 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

there's lots of occupations where he could be recognized while weeding his front yard by one of his less-hinged "clients"

The OP is a "law student." And lawyers who deal with violent criminals are frequently threatened or attacked by the people they deal with. Prosecutors and defense attorneys whose clients feel they weren't adequately defended or were sold out. (Frequently meaning relative to other occupations.) Which is why states/cities that are loathe to issue CCW permits routinely make exceptions for lawyers (and judges, and police).
posted by Martin E. at 3:25 PM on April 24, 2007

knave: The disarmed students of VT were unable to do what was legally possible just a few years earlier, and somehow that's a good thing?

According to that wiki, the two 'armed students' were also law-enforcement types, who were presumably trained how to take down armed suspects / assailants. I'm not sure it's 100% correct to assume a regular Joe or Joan Student would react the same way, just because they have a gun.

Not that that really has anything to do with the question...
posted by CKmtl at 3:26 PM on April 24, 2007

Oh, sorry, I missed the part where plaidrabbit wasn't planning to put any bullets in the gun.

I guess that was right after the part I missed where a loaded gun has to be fired.
posted by 23skidoo at 3:26 PM on April 24, 2007

Y'all make a solid point in noting that the OP specifically asked not to get into any sort of debate on the merits of carrying concealed weapons. But I think the request itself is almost a challenge to those of us who, like SaucyIntruder, were made extremely uncomfortable by the question.

While I appreciate that the OP waited some time before posting, I simply don't think that's a long enough time given the magnitute of what happened, and I found the question infuriating. Before I even got to Saucy's link over to here, I was upset and angry that someone would ask this question, and while it may have gone a bit too far, I think Saucy's response was pretty much in line with what I would have wanted someone to say.

Seeing the reaction over here has done little to make me feel better. In particular, I am appalled at the poster who noted "I was fully expecting the gun-hating whackjobs to come out of their caves." I mean, jesus, we're a week after a bloody massacre and nobody is talking about gun control. The pro-gun lobby seems to have the issue pretty much under their control. Gloating ridiculous crap like this just adds salt to what are still fresh bullet wounds.

In any event, while I'm a bit torn on whether the comment should have been moderated, I certainly applaud Saucy for pointing out another option: Just don't do it.
posted by saladpants at 3:26 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I guess the question is fine, although a little creepy, somehow.

I guess I try and gear the question to the audience; since I know a lot of coding folks are on here I don't worry about asking a question about coding (even if it's 'just' CSS). But surely if someone's got a specifically specialized question that's guarenteed to kind of freak most people out about - oh, I don't know, gun holsters? - you'd go to a more niche kind of community - I'm thinking there are no shortage of gun forums online, right? Not all questions here have to be lucky charms and rainbows, but it might help to gear questions to an appropriate forum. If the folks here are too left wing, pro gun control, well... you can always ask for your 5 bucks back, right?
posted by rmm at 3:28 PM on April 24, 2007

I don't know why people continue to have this debate. I, and others, railed many times against the idea that a question's premise should be accepted without question by those responding--and were soundly rebuked not only by the moderators but by the majority of people that responded to that line of inquiry. I'm sure there are others like myself that find it somewhat dubious to completely negate dissent as per an AskMe question's premise (especially when so many "tough love" answers are marked as best answers in interpersonal relationship threads). However, the matter is essentially settled as a point of debate, so belaboring the point is not only useless, but really quite annoying.

The best--and only--recourse is to completely ignore threads like that, lest you become one of those hang-wringing types that spend all their time railing against the evils of Metafilter. Whenever I find myself unduly worked up over a MeFi issue, I remind myself that Metafilter is 90% fantastic and 10% utterly, soul-crushingly annoying, and I can't accept that balance, I'm going to end up overdosing on pain meds and red wine before my thirtieth birthday.
posted by The God Complex at 3:30 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sorry, "if" I can't accept that balance. There really should be a brain-check function coded into Firefox that goes off whenever your brain gets ahead of your fingers and you miss an important word!
posted by The God Complex at 3:31 PM on April 24, 2007

The disarmed students of VT were unable to do what was legally possible just a few years earlier, and somehow that's a good thing?

If gun control is seen as a public health issue, basically you have people walking around who can very easily hurt themselves and others without much effort.

At least with driving, we have licenses and policing of public highways and roadways to ensure compliance with responsible driving practices, as well as financial responsibilty for the vehicle.

With fucking and drinking, we have age of consent and serious penalities for non-compliance, both for the facilitator and violator. If you deliberately give someone HIV, you can be tried for murder.

We have very little enforceable infrastructure in place for responsible gun ownership beyond cleaning up dead bodies, whether for self-defense or otherwise, and so putting deadly weapons into people's hands is entirely like knowingly encouraging TB patients to walk around unquarantined, infecting as many people as possible. These consequences were demonstrated more than adequately by the fact that Cho was able to obtain weaponry despite chronic mental health issues.

That said, consideration of this as a public health matter is different from a discussion about community etiquette. But there are certainly disease-like consequences from arming the populace without any restrictions, especially from arming mentally unstable people, and a comparison with unrelated behaviors doesn't quite work.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:32 PM on April 24, 2007 [3 favorites]

But I think the request itself is almost a challenge to those of us who, like SaucyIntruder, were made extremely uncomfortable by the question.

Not everything is about you, Mulder.
posted by phearlez at 3:33 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm going to end up overdosing on pain meds and red wine before my thirtieth birthday.

If you want to overdose, I recommend vicodin and whiskey over pain meds and red wine. I mean, go out in style, man.
posted by jonmc at 3:33 PM on April 24, 2007

rmm, that objection has been raised in the past, but AskMe has continually shown it has a knowledgeable, intelligent group of gun owners. I'd consider other forums as well, but I wouldn't categorize AskMe as incapable in this regard.
posted by knave at 3:35 PM on April 24, 2007

As far as I know there's not a state in the union that issues permits without requiring training.

Alaska and Vermont both allow anyone (with a clean criminal record, no history of mental illness, who aren't drunk, etc) to carry a concealed handgun without applying for a permit or undergoing any kind of training. (And, curiously, Alaska also issues permits so that an Alaskan resident visiting a state with reciprocal-permit-agreement with Alaska will be able to carry with a permit that is honored in that state).

their [the NRA's] opposition to mandatory training...

I'm not overly familiar with the NRA, but I would imagine their opposition to mandatory training along the lines you mention (ie when lethal force is legal and called for) is because the majority of gun owners own guns for sporting reasons (so this instruction would be superfluous) with home protection as a pleasant side-effect, or for home protection where the rules are typically vastly different (and most state's laws much more forgiving) than use away from home.
posted by Martin E. at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2007

But I think the request itself is almost a challenge to those of us who, like SaucyIntruder, were made extremely uncomfortable by the question.

How is that request different from the requests that are made any time a conservative hotbutton issue comes up, like abortion or prayer in school?! Then, the requests not to turn it into a politically charged debate MUST be honored -- but god forbid anyone bring a liberal hotbutton issue up, because then it's a challenge!
posted by SpecialK at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

And I think it makes the green one of the most useful resources on the planet. Go figure.

Yeah, but only because it's successfully turned its users into question-answering robots.
posted by cillit bang at 3:38 PM on April 24, 2007

I'm going to end up overdosing on pain meds and red wine

Hey that's me most nights -- especially when I drop in to visit MeFi.
posted by ericb at 3:40 PM on April 24, 2007

cillit, there are a million places on the internet, including the blue and the grey, where you can argue until your fingers fall off. Why do we need one more?
posted by knave at 3:41 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, but only because it's successfully turned its users into question-answering robots.

Why is that a bad thing?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:42 PM on April 24, 2007

We have very little enforceable infrastructure in place for responsible gun ownership beyond cleaning up dead bodies, whether for self-defense or otherwise, and so putting deadly weapons into people's hands is entirely like knowingly encouraging TB patients to walk around unquarantined, infecting as many people as possible.

What. The. Fuck? So this whole discussion about what concealed carry permits are and do, and what kind of training is required and how you need to take that training frequently was COMPLETELY LOST ON YOU?

And on top of that, teenagers steal cars that they're not licensed to drive all the time and kill people. And all we can do then too is clean up the bodies.
posted by SpecialK at 3:42 PM on April 24, 2007

Jessamyn: let me connect the dots for you:

Stated purpose of the thread:

it's about whether it was inappropriate to moderate SI's comment in a thread that SI thought was inappropriate.

Your comment on gun control:

driving a car is dangerous to public health. So is drinking. So is fucking. So am I when I'm in a bad mood.

I'm anti-hysteria too, but your comment equates the danger of guns to driving, sex and PMS. This is an extremely, and unnecessarily divisive thing to say, in a thread about whether or not some moderation was appropriate.

It takes a strong pro-gun stand in a place where opposing voices cannot argue back, without looking extremely out of place.

You know it was a dumb thing to say, because you felt the need to apologize in the next sentence, when you really should have just used the delete key.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 3:44 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

yes, SpecialK, because MeFi is such a rightwing bastion. Me, Matt, jess, and cortex were just discussing that on the way to our John Birch Society meeting yesterday. I understand, you're thirsting for a 'look! I'm being repressed!' moment. You'll have to try harder.

Actually, it's more of a "Bah, I'm bored with work. Hmn, I have this can of gasoline, and look, there's a fire!" **FWOOSH!**
See? Instant amusement!
posted by SpecialK at 3:44 PM on April 24, 2007

jonmc--
Please send Vicodin and whiskey asap.
I'll pay for postage.
posted by Dizzy at 3:44 PM on April 24, 2007

If you want to overdose, I recommend vicodin and whiskey over pain meds and red wine. I mean, go out in style, man.

Ew, whiskey. Perhaps we can find some common ground. Horse Tranqs and and expensive italian port?
posted by The God Complex at 3:44 PM on April 24, 2007

Whether or not plaidrabbit was going to use bullets is irrelevant. Unless you have some evidence that he is a psychopath or criminal, then his ability to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, is not in any way the danger that you're making it out to be, certainly not to the "public health." To have jumped in with your arm-waving, hand-wringing anti-gun spiel in a place where it was specifically requested that such digressions not occur was out of place, and Jessamyn was right to pull the plug.
posted by Dreama at 3:45 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think it' s .007

:pulls out Walther PPK:
posted by Totally Zanzibarin' Ya at 3:46 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I would, Dizzy, put my tongue keeps missing the stamp.
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on April 24, 2007

Port is from Portugal.
Vicodin was used by Vikings.
Just saying.
posted by Dizzy at 3:47 PM on April 24, 2007

You don't like whiskey? You pee standing up or sitting down, punk?

I pee sitting down myself, mainly because all the whiskey makes it difficult to aim

Seriously, dude, you must not be drinking the right whiskey. *passes Jamesons*
posted by jonmc at 3:49 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Lemme call my FedEx gal to help with that.
We're burning daylight!
posted by Dizzy at 3:49 PM on April 24, 2007

You're going to lick your FedEx girl? Check with her first, dude. Chicks like that. Decorum and all that shit.
posted by jonmc at 3:51 PM on April 24, 2007

(I used "gal" casually, sans irony. I have become my father.
Has anyone seen my Bermudas and black kneesocks?)
posted by Dizzy at 3:51 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

In self defense, a pretty reasonable thing to do, IMO. The disarmed students of VT were unable to do what was legally possible just a few years earlier, and somehow that's a good thing?

A lot of reasonable people would argue that a large number of students with guns would simply mean that every campus would have a small number of accidental deaths each year, and a few more drunken murders/attempted murders.

Thus instead of having an occasional 30 person tragedy, there would be frequent 1-2 person tragedies.

Many of these answers could probably be determined using statistical inference from areas with differing gun laws and carry rates, but the NRA has been unwilling to fund anything resembling legitimate research that backs their opinion.

Given the amounts of money they have, that's tantamount to them admitting that they know they're lying.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 3:51 PM on April 24, 2007

cillit, there are a million places on the internet, including the blue and the grey, where you can argue until your fingers fall off. Why do we need one more?

I'm not suggesting threads on the green become arguments, but you should be staying on topic because you want to, not because cortex is standing behind you with an electric cattle prod. I realise this is inevitable for such a popular website, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem.
posted by cillit bang at 3:52 PM on April 24, 2007

I'm not old enough yet to want to develop a strong whiskey habit. I'm still young enough to down Euro and Japanese beers at an alarming rate and not show too many of the belt-line consequences...

But if I'm ever in New York I'll make an exception, just for you ;)
posted by The God Complex at 3:54 PM on April 24, 2007

You can drink and not get fat?
H8t u.
posted by Dizzy at 3:56 PM on April 24, 2007

I'm honored. I also just saw Fudgie The Whale dancing to 50 Cent on TV. I'm not sure whether that's the peak of civilization or merely delerium tremens.
posted by jonmc at 3:58 PM on April 24, 2007

I just read the words and gained ten pounds, jonmc.
Type celery so I can fit back in me Bermudas.
posted by Dizzy at 3:59 PM on April 24, 2007

(also, TGC, whiskey's not about taste. Taste is what you endure to get the wonderful afterburn. Mmm, Jamesons. My ancestors were not the most illustrious people, but they made great hooch.)
posted by jonmc at 4:00 PM on April 24, 2007

In self defense, a pretty reasonable thing to do, IMO. The disarmed students of VT were unable to do what was legally possible just a few years earlier, and somehow that's a good thing?

Of course, one could much more reasonably make the argument that some mentally unbalanced twit shouldn't so easily be able to purchase several handguns in a short--or really any--period of time, and that this is the actual root cause, not the fact that all of the university students weren't armed to the teeth.

Of course, then we wouldn't be echoing NRA talking points, so we'd have to find a new script, or whatever, and possibly question some very antiquated and uniquely American notions about self-defense. So it goes.

But, really, that's so entirely beside the point. If this guy wants to legally pack his heat and needs a safe way to hide it in his shorts, I suggest some sort of garter holster. Case closed.
posted by The God Complex at 4:00 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Stop dithering!
I thought about Oreos and can't see my feet!
posted by Dizzy at 4:00 PM on April 24, 2007

It takes a strong pro-gun stand in a place where opposing voices cannot argue back, without looking extremely out of place.

When your original assertion finally finishes the slow creep from the unqualified "unwelcome", past "looking extremely out of place", all the way to "basically being kosher for a typical Metatalk thread, esp. as evidenced by the other comments in this very thread and other recent discussions", this comment will start making sense to me. Right now you sound like you're picking a fight with jessamyn, not making a reasonable objection.
posted by cortex at 4:01 PM on April 24, 2007

Many of these answers could probably be determined using statistical inference from areas with differing gun laws and carry rates...

It's been done, redone, analyzed, and reanalyzed. The National Academy of Sciences (IIRC) called together a special panel to get to the bottom of the net effect...and found that the quite extensive and sophisticated research did not point to a definitive net effect. In other words, to the best of our knowledge, different laws, ownership rates, carry-rates, and so on facilitate some crimes while hindering others and the net effect on public safety is a big fat zero. Ban them all, let everyone have them, or something in between, but the chance of a random person being injured or killed stays pretty much the same.

...but the NRA has been unwilling to fund anything resembling legitimate research that backs their opinion. Given the amounts of money they have, that's tantamount to them admitting that they know they're lying.

No, any research they directly funded would be immediately dismissed as tainted. Thus they'd be throwing money away.
posted by Martin E. at 4:03 PM on April 24, 2007

I have a relative who's a cop. When we go out for dinner or whatever, I always forget he's strapped with a Glock .40.

You can wear a T-shirt btw, but there's a reason off-duty cops often wear those cheesy-ass Hawaiian-style short-sleeve button-downs over them. And why plain-clothes cops buy blazers off the rack. Ill-fitting = less obvious bulges.
posted by bardic at 4:05 PM on April 24, 2007

And why plain-clothes cops buy blazers off the rack. Ill-fitting = less obvious bulges.

I'm sure if you live in Philladelphia, Vegas, New York, or especially Chicago, you could find a tailor that's used to having to account for obvious bulges...
posted by SpecialK at 4:08 PM on April 24, 2007

On my old commute there used to be a gun range in the same strip mall as a roller rink(no joke). I always had a vision of the skaters dithering about the rink to the tune of Swan Lake as the gun buffs expertly picked them off.
posted by jonmc at 4:08 PM on April 24, 2007

Need to conceal a weapon you big pussy? There should be plenty of room in those shorts where your balls are supposed to be.
posted by found missing at 4:13 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, they're not exactly swimming in money either.
posted by bardic at 4:13 PM on April 24, 2007

How is that request different from the requests that are made any time a conservative hotbutton issue comes up, like abortion or prayer in school?!

Well actually, it's very different. Those other issues are ones that don't affect my health, safety, and welfare. You can argue the merits of them one way or another, but in the end, I'm already alive, and abortion has no direct effect on my safety. Neither does school prayer. Concealed weapons? COMPLETELY different. People who carry concealed weapons are at least, debatably, a threat to the safety of those around them. (Yes, I acknowledge, but disagree with, the other viewpoint espoused that concealed weapons make people safer. The point, however, is that the issue is one of public safety, which in my mind makes it very different.)

Moreover, I think that if someone posts a question about having an abortion, it would be legitimate to suggest not having one, for whatever reasons you might espouse. Similarly, here, I don't think there's anything wrong with noting, at least for the record (and less aggressively than SaucyIntruder did), that maybe you shouldn't do it at all.

Lastly, I don't really think this has anything to do with liberal vs conservative, especially in light of the fact that the dems have completely caved on the issue because they seem to think it costs them elections (which it very well may).
posted by saladpants at 4:14 PM on April 24, 2007

Then, the requests not to turn it into a politically charged debate MUST be honored -- but god forbid anyone bring a liberal hotbutton issue up, because then it's a challenge!

Still waiting for a challenge
posted by jmd82 at 4:18 PM on April 24, 2007

saladpants, I know people who consider homosexuals to be a threat to public safety, because at some point, God might rain down destruction on our society of sin, like he has in the past. No joke.
posted by knave at 4:22 PM on April 24, 2007

Ask.Metafilter: Where do I carry my Gun when I drop my cat off to get declawed on the way to my son's circumcision. please don't criticize my choices. Just answer the question.
posted by Megafly at 4:23 PM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Megafly, declaw the cat then use the removed claw to circumsise your son. Then shoot the cat. I'm here to help.
posted by jonmc at 4:25 PM on April 24, 2007

Megafly, please. Nobody in your hypothetical is mordibly obese member of Critical Mass who used to play lacrosse for Duke.
posted by bardic at 4:28 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

You can drink and not get fat?
H8t u.

I lost over 30 pounds last year during a period of time in which I spent almost every night in bars.

Drinking.

Heavily.

And I'm not even all that young any more.

So if you're going to hate anyone, Dizzy, hate me.
posted by dersins at 4:30 PM on April 24, 2007

Alternately, declaw your son and circumcise your cat. Drink some whiskey and shoot the vet.
posted by Martin E. at 4:30 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Should we eat this shit sandwich? It's been sitting out for nearly three hours.
posted by kosem at 4:30 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

(And who really digs Ayn Rand.)
posted by bardic at 4:30 PM on April 24, 2007

Moreover, I think that if someone posts a question about having an abortion, it would be legitimate to suggest not having one

Not if their question was, ‘I’m at the abortion clinic and I’m trying to figure out if my insurance covers it? Anyone with experience with insurance law in PA?’ which is similar to this question. It’s a “how to?” question, not “should I?” Hell I’m fiercely anti gun and I answered the question, because I thought I could help him solve his specific issue.
posted by French Fry at 4:30 PM on April 24, 2007

bardic, your theory is flawed. Morbidly obese people do not possess the endurance for cycling or lacrosse or the funds to hire strippers.
posted by jonmc at 4:31 PM on April 24, 2007

saladpants, I know people who consider homosexuals to be a threat to public safety, because at some point, God might rain down destruction on our society of sin, like he has in the past. No joke.

Knave - point taken! Safety is totally subjective. But to said homophobe I would argue the numbers.

Number of people in our lifetimes to have died from guns: Many.

Number of people in our lifetimes to have died from god's sulfuric anti-queer wrath? Zero.
posted by saladpants at 4:32 PM on April 24, 2007

As yet another gun-hater who still thought this was a stupid callout, I would just like to say, for the record, that I found the title "Shooty McGunpants" to be kind of funny. So not all is lost.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 4:33 PM on April 24, 2007

dersins--
so if I have no memory of 3 orders of tater skinz with extra Velveeta my body will give me a pass?
I don't hate you; you're my new personal god.
posted by Dizzy at 4:35 PM on April 24, 2007

Those new Hershey's Heath bar Creme Sandwich cookies are really good. Just so you know.
posted by jonmc at 4:36 PM on April 24, 2007

Yeah, the title of this callout is its best feature.
posted by everichon at 4:36 PM on April 24, 2007

Can't respond; having a tummy tuck.
posted by Dizzy at 4:37 PM on April 24, 2007

By the way, the correct response to the original askmetafilter question is to get one of these bad boys, ala Tom Sivini in From Dusk Till Dawn.
posted by puke & cry at 4:38 PM on April 24, 2007

Number of people in our lifetimes to have died from god's sulfuric anti-queer wrath? Zero.

Um, hello? September 11, Katrina, Hurricanes Gloria and Felix? Pretty clear collection to me.
posted by Snyder at 4:38 PM on April 24, 2007

collection=correlation
posted by Snyder at 4:40 PM on April 24, 2007

What are you tucking your tummy into, Dizzy? I tuck mine into my clavicle, myself.
posted by jonmc at 4:40 PM on April 24, 2007

Just stapled my own stomach but still hungry.
Please advise.
posted by Dizzy at 4:41 PM on April 24, 2007

Number of people in our lifetimes to have died from god's sulfuric anti-queer wrath? Zero.

Some weirdos claimed that the Katrina and the 2004 tsunami were god's anti-queer wrath. Aqueous wrath though, not particularly sulfuric.

Water is the new brimstone, even god has to keep up with the trends.
posted by CKmtl at 4:42 PM on April 24, 2007

Number of people in our lifetimes to have died from god's sulfuric anti-queer wrath? Zero.

Um, hello? September 11, Katrina, Hurricanes Gloria and Felix? Pretty clear collection to me.

Rev. Jerry Falwell: Gays were responsible for 9/11.

Others blamed Katrina on gays.

And "fags" are to blame for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake an tsunami and the debacle in Iraq.

[QUEERIST]
posted by ericb at 4:52 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

CK--
Ain't the heat, it's the humidity.
posted by Dizzy at 5:03 PM on April 24, 2007

The cultural historians of future generations will laugh until they pee their shiny plastic pants when they stumble on the Metafilter node of their sum-total-of-human-knowledge organic implants, not because we were a reflection of the worst of the stupidity of the cultures to which we belonged, but because we were apparently a reflection of some of the best, but still so desperately dumb.

Guns. Hah.

Still, though: the question was fine, but I hope to hell that (to choose an example) 'how does I p1ra8te softwarez' questions are left untouched in the future, because unless I'm missing something the argument seems to be that if not prohibited somewhere, it's discussable everywhere. And that's a good and fine thing, but picking and choosing which topics to which that rule of thumb can apply seems dishonest to me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on April 24, 2007

Some weirdos claimed that the Katrina and the 2004 tsunami were god's anti-queer wrath.

Rev. Jerry Falwell: Gays were responsible for 9/11.

Others blamed Katrina on gays.

Ha. The discussion is kind of silly by now, but I'd just like to point out that the sources cited here (Jerry Falwell, "others" and "some weirdos") aren't exactly rock solid.

It can proven that people are killed by gun violence. It cannot be proven that any of those events noted above were actually caused by God. And even if we could prove it was God, how do we know that he or she was upset about gays? I think it's far more likely God was extremely upset by:

a) Rev. Jerry Falwell;

b) The Others (you know, from Lost);

c) Some weirdos; or

d) the late 90s dominance of the New York Yankees.
posted by saladpants at 5:10 PM on April 24, 2007

Chococat --- your reasoning is fallacious. You are way too eager to leap to a "frightening" conclusion, when the question does not justify your leap.

jayder, I wasn't reasoning, it was just the vibe I got from the question, and indeed others in this thread have mentioned being
"used" to guns where they are. That's such a foreign thing to me, being from a country where it's not a common thing at all, in any situation. And it is frightening, to me.
but please don't shoot me
posted by chococat at 5:10 PM on April 24, 2007

It can proven that people are killed by gun violence.

Can you prove that a specific person who is allowed to conceal a weapon is more likely to shoot someone than that same specific person who still has his gun, but has to keep it at home?

(upside down answer: No)
posted by 23skidoo at 5:14 PM on April 24, 2007

Is anyone still reading this?

A couple of comments. First, I can't help but think of this question, the associated feedback, and the MeTa. Seems like this is a very similar situation.

Also, I was personally curious as to why someone might choose to carry, and came across this interesting page.
posted by Deathalicious at 5:15 PM on April 24, 2007

I found the question infuriating. Before I even got to Saucy's link over to here, I was upset and angry that someone would ask this question

Aww, poor baby! Walk down the block, quickly, and don't look back.

Jessamyn: let me connect the dots for you

C,WAA.
posted by languagehat at 5:31 PM on April 24, 2007

I think it's far more likely God was extremely upset by: ... d) the late 90s dominance of the New York Yankees.

Correction --

d) the Boston Red Sox winning the 2004 World Series. [NOT KNICKERBOCKERIST]
posted by ericb at 5:32 PM on April 24, 2007

saladpants you're extraordinarily self-centered if you think someone asking about a legal concealed carry permit has any kind of direct affect on your health and well-being. You don't understand the terms of the debate, which is all the more reason why you shouldn't get a chance to comment in the question in question. And it's why Saucy Intruder's comments and call-out are ill-considered. I have to completely agree with SpecialK, precisely the reason to preserve topicality in that question is in order to be able to preserve it in all the other questions where fundamentalist whackjobs want to conflate legal personal choices with a moral bankruptcy that threatens our safety and well-being. Just because you really really really believe yourself to be on the right side of this issue does not mean you should be allowed to subject people to your opinion in inappropriate places.

And, Tacos, I think you're so wrong about this as to be arguing something that makes no sense. Saucy Intruder decided to frame his right to write whatever the fuck he wanted to write and not have it moderated as authorized because gun control is a "public health issue." jessamyn was correct to point out that that way of framing the issue wouldn't hold water with other issues of "public health," and she was right to point out the absurdity of using that excuse to simply politicize a legitimate and legal question. Again, just because you hold an opinion (or Saucy Intruder does), doesn't mean you should be able to vent it in AskMe any time you feel like it. Your ancillary point, such as it is, that this is the wrong forum is belied by the general tenor of discussion here, including your evident lack of hesitation in saying whatever you want to say about what jessamyn wrote. Your argument would be a lot stronger were you forced at any point to confine your comments in this thread to any standard whatsoever.
posted by OmieWise at 5:32 PM on April 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Shooty McGunpants April 24, 2007 2:00 PM Subscribe

Shooty McGunpants
April 24, 2007 2:00 PM Subscribe