A poll to change the SOP, so far 18 in favor and 4 opposed

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:38 AM - Edit history (2)

Current SOP: "Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

Proposed SOP: "Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for lawful defense of self and others, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

If you have a preference, please share your reasons. Please confine the discussion to the options listed above. If you have an alternative to either of those, please start your own OP.

Thanks

ETA: Leaving up for further exposure and consideration.

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Change to the proposed SOP
	8 (73%)
	Keep the current SOP
	3 (27%)
	Will support either majority
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[petronius]

1. If I'd ever thought about it, I would have assumed that a

broader meaning of "self-defense" was implied - it should refer to all uses of firearms for defense of life or property...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Agreed

Not sure it matters but I always prefer to have details made explicit.

[needledriver]

3. Lawful is limiting

I voted to keep the current SOP because restricting the SOP to lawful self defense would technically prevent us from posting and discussing examples of firearms use in self defense that was judged un-lawful. This would prevent us from discussing and gaining insight into the specific instance. We can also learn from bad examples!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. imho...

...unlawful self defense is covered by the crime/violence area.

[needledriver]

5. Indeed

but discussion of the event in terms of how it may affect the RKBA belongs here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Agreed

And in my opinion nothing in my proposed SOP would prevent that.

[oneshooter]

7. I would like to see the word "Discuss" in all caps and bold letters.

Perhaps then certain posters would see it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Perhaps an addition could be made to the effect...

..."OPs require input from the posting member in the way original thought on why an event highlights the members articulated suggestions for legislation/enforcement that is needed or legislation/enforcement that needs to be either modified or eliminated."

[pablo_marmol]

12. Very good idea, IMO.

There should be no place for cowardly hit-and-run posts anywhere on DU. I just noticed that one DU member just called out another for a content-free OP in the GD Primaries forum.

The strategy of spam posters is clear. Dr. Gary Kleck refers to the dishonest tactic of pro-control supporters when they quote one garbage study after another. They attempt to convince an uninformed public that "the evidence is mixed" w/regard to gun violence, when of course the evidence is decidedly unkind for Control. Our resident member/spammer(s) are of course aware that muddying the waters of honest discourse works to his/their advantage, given that the Control thesis relies on appeals to emotion. They likely also know that many who read our threads come from outside of DU -- and it is in their interest to suppress the fact than a fair number of Democrats refuse to sign off on the ludicrous, self-destructive and dishonest hand-wringing we do w/regard to imaginary threats such as "assault weapons", "gun show loopholes" and armor-piercing ammunition.

Of course such a rule would apply equally to pro-RKBA members. Deciding on what constitutes honest presentation/discussion of an article could be at times problematic, but I think that the forum moderator is more than qualified to make calls on this.

My 2 cents.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. excuse my overall bluntness

I consider the copy-paste formula to be just "shit against the wall" tactics. Unproductive and offensive to the discourse minded and worthy only of a monkey in a cage.

It cheats those who trust. There's not a much more dishonest or disgusting activity.

Thanks

[oneshooter]

14. Speaking of which.

How do you empty the trash here, mine is getting really full.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. AFAIK the trash function is a temporary means to block a thread

After a while the thread will reappear in the list for the containing forum or group but by the time it does it will likely be off the 1st page and no longer presenting a distraction. DU trash is like a toilet that doesn't flush.

sorry

[jimmy the one]

15. explanation por favor

Pablo: Dr. Gary Kleck refers to the dishonest tactic of pro-control supporters when they quote one garbage study after another. They attempt to convince an uninformed public that "the evidence is mixed" w/regard to gun violence, when of course the evidence is decidedly unkind for Control

Could you post a link/source to this?
oh wait, it's Pablo, never mind; I'll see what I can come up with.
OK, here's what I got on google, just an excerpt, library puter is blocking this one:

Targeting Guns- Firearms and Their Control Gary Kleck ... Rather than just censoring all the contrary studies or claiming there is little or no relevant evidence, they adopt a stance of ... Often what the term "mixed evidence" really appears to mean is that "the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to my preferred views, but there is at least a ... https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0202369412

Don't understand, Pablo. Are those vile gun control advocates citing 'GARBAGE STUDIES', or are they citing 'CONTRARY STUDIES'? - assumedly pro-gun studies 'contrary' to gun control.
... How can supposedly anti-gun 'garbage studies' be 'unkind to gun control', if they (supposedly) anti-gun to begin with?

[Eleanors38]

8. Holding off for now. I think I see the point, but I am concerned...

this may result in bottom-scraping local newz stories about some alleged shooting without context or clarification addressing a legal, societal or constitutional issue(s). How can the TOSN be tightened to prevent this? There are some occasional OPs by anti-2A members which at last broach topics of debate; I have no problem with these, as far as it goes. I would like to see OPs which give a good-faith effort, and not leave the task of guessing to readers. In the spirit of BOLD FACE emphasis, I suggest language which sez:

It is the responsibility of the OP to show how the thread relates to gun policy, laws, and rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: "...bottom-scraping local newz stories..."

I'm not sure that would be more of problem under the proposed SOP than under the current SOP.

[Eleanors38]

10. I have no objection to the change, having considered it further...

and I expect the change to address the current problem of disrespect and dumping. However, I am following your exp. of trashing when I can't see any purpose for an OP esp as regards SOP.