Poll about Political discussions

[JamesH]

sometimes I just want to read up on technical issues without getting all riled about the liberal BS.

Sometimes I want to read up on technical issues without having my spoons bent out of shape by the neo-con and libertard BS.

[Misny]

I voted negative. There seems to be a wide chasm separating American views and European views of gun control. I don't see any discussion of the subject narrowing that chasm, but instead increasing the divide. It's our common interest of competitive shooting that keeps us here. We shouldn't do anything that would negatively impact that.

[rmca]

I don't get why so many "Hell No's"...

What harm can there be in talking about any subject?

The way the forum is formatted allows, that if you don't' like the subject of one topic, you don't have to read it to get to the others that interest you. So what's the problem!?

I truly believe that the only way forward is to discuss and debate whatever subject. Learn what you can about it and hear the voices against it. Only then can you truly say "this is my view, my choice, my opinion...".

You don't have to like everything that's written, but you have the moral and intellectual obligation, to argue why your views make more sense, are better, or at least are less bad.

My two cents

[RandomShotz]

... but you have the moral and intellectual obligation, to argue why your views make more sense, are better, or at least are less bad.

And that brings us to the essence of the problem. I applaud your appeal to intellectualism and making sense, but most discussions regarding firearms are essentially emotional. It is almost impossible for most people to be logical and dispassionate about guns no matter what their position is. Those who are, open themselves to attack from both sides.

Some posters to this thread have suggested that there are other forums where gun control and politics are discussed for anyone who cares to seek them out. I have never found one that was not a closed party where one side dominates and congratulates itself on being much smarter and more sensible than the other which is made up of narrow-minded idiots. Perhaps the contributors to TT would be an exception, but I am doubtful. Ordinarily on TT firearms are not regarded as power over life and death or power to save one's self or one's family from attack - the discussion is about accuracy and formal competition. Once the discussion moves on to firearms in the broader sense, I fear that emotions would dominate and the risk of bad blood contaminating the forum is not one I would care to see taken.

Roger

[Spencer]

... but you have the moral and intellectual obligation, to argue why your views make more sense, are better, or at least are less bad.

And that brings us to the essence of the problem. I applaud your appeal to intellectualism and making sense, but most discussions regarding firearms are essentially emotional. It is almost impossible for most people to be logical and dispassionate about guns no matter what their position is. Those who are, open themselves to attack from both sides.

Some posters to this thread have suggested that there are other forums where gun control and politics are discussed for anyone who cares to seek them out. I have never found one that was not a closed party where one side dominates and congratulates itself on being much smarter and more sensible than the other which is made up of narrow-minded idiots. Perhaps the contributors to TT would be an exception, but I am doubtful. Ordinarily on TT firearms are not regarded as power over life and death or power to save one's self or one's family from attack - the discussion is about accuracy and formal competition. Once the discussion moves on to firearms in the broader sense, I fear that emotions would dominate and the risk of bad blood contaminating the forum is not one I would care to see taken.

Roger

Thank you for expressing reality so well.

[JamesH]

you have the moral and intellectual obligation, to argue why your views make more sense, are better, or at least are less bad.

Most people take that as an excuse to ram their opinions down other peoples throats, and dismiss any counter-argument as 'BS' before its even been made.

I think politics of all kinds is best kept out of TT.

[RossM]

I've got no problem with discussing gun control. As long as you see it my way. Nazi. See I've Godwined it in one. That might close the discussion.

(PS: That is a joke for those who need it spelt out. Please do not respond with guns un-holstered.)

1. IF the discussion goes ahead, just remember the 2nd Amendment (practically) only applies within US borders. So that argument should not be used if the conversation is to be international.

2. It does seem an awful lot of the the Rest of the World want to kill Americans. That may taint the conversation.

3. Shooting is an Olympic sport. We want to keep it in there. That may mean we need to be responsible in how we operate and participate in our sport.

4. We need to convince an awful lot of people that we are not the guys they need to concentrate on. We are the easy targets for legislation. Politically, aiming at us makes it a "good look" - but results in a big miss.

[rmca]

but most discussions regarding firearms are essentially emotional. It is almost impossible for most people to be logical and dispassionate about guns no matter what their position is.

I understand the emotional part and how difficult it may be for some people to separate the two, but I think that is one of the main reasons to try. I still believe (even if it's a bit naïf), that in most cases, reason can trump emotions, or at least give people a better understanding of the subject in discussing.
I believe that more can be achieved if you talk and debate with people that have a different view, than simply not allowing it.

...Once the discussion moves on to firearms in the broader sense, I fear that emotions would dominate and the risk of bad blood contaminating the forum is not one I would care to see taken.

That´s where the moderators came in... Remember Russ, for example?

My two cents

[dpr]

I originally voted no but after reading a few comments about the international membership of this forum I would now say yes, BUT only with it's own forum. Knowing more about what is going on in other states and countries is not a bad thing. Yes, there are going to be plenty of spats and hurt feelings, but the first rule should be what ever happens in the political stays there. Any spillover into other forums should be strongly discouraged. So the more I think about it, I would like to know more about what is going on in other places. It could also double as a place to talk about laws and travel with guns to other places. I say yes as long as it comes with it's own forum.

[xtreme]

... but you have the moral and intellectual obligation, to argue why your views make more sense, are better, or at least are less bad.

And that brings us to the essence of the problem. I applaud your appeal to intellectualism and making sense, but most discussions regarding firearms are essentially emotional. It is almost impossible for most people to be logical and dispassionate about guns no matter what their position is. Those who are, open themselves to attack from both sides.

Some posters to this thread have suggested that there are other forums where gun control and politics are discussed for anyone who cares to seek them out. I have never found one that was not a closed party where one side dominates and congratulates itself on being much smarter and more sensible than the other which is made up of narrow-minded idiots. Perhaps the contributors to TT would be an exception, but I am doubtful. Ordinarily on TT firearms are not regarded as power over life and death or power to save one's self or one's family from attack - the discussion is about accuracy and formal competition. Once the discussion moves on to firearms in the broader sense, I fear that emotions would dominate and the risk of bad blood contaminating the forum is not one I would care to see taken.

Roger

THIS

[william]

Enough already! NO and HELL, NO have consistently totaled in the 70 - 75% range. It's beyond time to lock this thread and act on what those who have expressed an opinion have clearly said they want.

[Guest]

I would vote yes, but only if we could limit the discussions to abortion, gay marriage and drug legalization. That should make for some nice, calm conversations and a pleasant forum to visit.

Mike