I have already seen a few gungeoners in this forum so hosts are needed soon.

I would be willing to serve as well, I am not running for the position but if people want me to do it I will.

I do not think he should be the only host however, I would like to see at least two hosts if not more. It is good to have multiple points of view among the hosts (obviously since this is a pro-gun control group all the hosts will support gun control, but that does not mean they all think the same).

(think it was a columnist who is against guns, but I cannot remember)
not exact quote
"That gun control is the wrong word in theory, as the word control is a negative word with itself "control" which seems to always be taken wrong.
Trying to stop 100% of all gun murderers (and all that applies) is something that is impossible to argue against. After all, who would be for murdering someone with bullets and a gun?"

I could be a host and actually be quite fair, but I would assume some would say I couldn't.
I probably want more than others, but am quite realistic in applying the same logic that i say i want on other topics "10 % of something is better than 100% of nothing."

So possibly on this issue, I am one of those speaking far to the left, however, I would be happy with a very moderate moving forward today, to have more forward moving again and again. Shame though 35 a day have to die and 100 wounded til that one day happens.

The real term would be "Stop the Madness" (anti-NRA style).
(and the proNRA faction would say "Stop the Madness" and don't do anything but hinder any gun control at all.

Back channel (pm/email) should ask everyone what they want and how far they want to go against the current bullet/gun situation in the USA.

I really should stop using the term gun control because you are right, it is negative terminology. Calling ourselves gun safety advocates has the added bonus of throwing a wrench in NRA talking points, they have long called themselves a gun safety organization but they have not been anything of the sort for years.

Registration, background checks, denial of licensing and gun possession, are not about gun safety. To say safety is to say different ways of operating guns.

Some people don't want to see the normalization of a 'gun in every hand' that ALEC, NRA, GOA are literally mandating in some areas. It infers guns are necessary to life, will inevitably proliferate, which is the Gungeon view. This may or may not be regarded as the anti-Gungeon group, but I don't believe we need to address on their SOP.

Education and community action are more useful to the safety of people who are not going to carry or use guns. This group doesn't need to go over those arguments, but that could be construed as surrender to that mentality.

Just putting that there for consideration, but I understand the desire to use different terms. If you feel it's necessary to fight the right wing memes about 'government tyranny and control' that might help. But I don't agree.

I ran into a thread yesterday about riots A poster implied turning in guns to the government was unwise as they are tyrants, apparently. We can't reason with that mindset, it has a permanent enemy, and that is government and so they want to keep their guns.

We are here saying the opposite, that government is the agency by which we as Democrats seek to have a safer society, not just operating guns with more safety. The term safety has appeal since the NRA had, and still has, classes in that before they went RWNJ.

I believe this mentality will never allow reasonable gun control for saving lives. In fact, every incident of gun violence feeds their desire for more weaponry. And military style weapons, as well.

I was not trying to suggest gun safety is the only term we should use, but it is one of them. I don't think gun safety merely involves making guns more safe, in fact that is largely impossible to do because guns are by their very nature dangerous objects and there is no way to make them safe without completely disabling them. What I mean by gun safety is not that we make guns safe, it means keeping people safe from guns. It means teaching kids from a young age to stay away from guns and it means regulating guns to get the most dangerous ones taken out of production.

The NRA has long claimed to be a gun safety organization, but the policies they have promoted have made people less safe. By advocating real gun safety instead of the gun promotion the NRA is pushing we put the NRA on the defensive, they no longer can just claim to be a gun safety organization they also have to explain why they don't think we are promoting gun safety. That is very difficult for them to do when all the facts show staying away from guns keeps people safer from guns.

For years the NRA has been associated with gun safety despite the fact that they have pursued policies that have made guns a bigger threat. It is time to challenge the idea of what gun safety is and show that gun safety does not involve shooting guns, it involves staying away from guns.

I am saying it is a phrase we should use when talking about guns. I think a better forum title would be Gun Violence Reduction Activism.

We're trying to get something done here, not go back and forth with people who believe their RK & BA supersedes regulation of guns in this country, i.e., gun control.

If gun owners wants to make a list of regulations they support, while being a gun owner, the hosts can decide if that person is coming here in good faith or just to bait people here.

I want this to be a true safe haven as I have seen others invaded by people who attack the purpose or members, then their posts are allowed to stand by juries. This is a childish prank that would reduce our productive time here.

I am looking forward to bringing all the information I can to the group to give us tools to explain gun control to elected officials and others willing to listen. We have a subset of citizenry who regard their right to carry to supersede anyone else's rights or safety. So we have our work cut out for us.

I support having hosts that are willing to check out those who post here, and don't want to see this place overrun with trollish behavior. Perhaps asking the hosts or members of other groups to avoid posting here is in order. We may find some who post in RK & BA will feel freer to say what they think here about gun control and ways to go about it in their areas.

the pro-gun/pro-NRA people can argue point by point on their own little group without
disrespecting the wishes here.
and vice versa.

One other suggestion is immediately stop those ugly pictures of guns(almost always posted very large, and worrying about whether a term is not 100% correct.)
WGAS what model/type it is.

Makes no difference to the person who is shot and wounded or killed.
And if the gun pro's were genuine, they could keep their guns without the need for bullets.

If the Conn. shooter had no bullets, 20 kids would be alive today.
He shot what, 150 times?
It's not the gun, it's the bullet.

BTW, a code word to tell, could be the word creepy. Seems to be a pattern when someone uses that word as to which side they are on while on a gun thread.One of those soundbyte words.

And of course I'll help out if it's needed.

That said, I would caution against a quick or heavy hand on blocking people. My belief is that contrary voices can often be instructive, if not immediately constructive. There are reasons some gun legislation fails, and we would benefit from more discussion as to why it happens.

There are obviously going to be folks who are here simply to disrupt; if they are doing so, I would suggest the first course of action be utilizing the jury system. If that becomes unsatisfactory, of course, a deliberate discussion of blocking a member should take place.

I would also advise that such discussion be quick, in the open, and enduring -- if someone is blocked, it must mean nothing less than that the group perceives they are not "supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations."

This is such a minimum standard it beggars belief we'd even need to enforce it on a progressive discussion board, even as of course we all know we will. But it should be very carefully considered, as it is a strong indictment and, frankly, would cause other members to ask what someone who cannot comport themselves acceptably here is doing on DU at all.

I agree with you, we should not be too quick with the ban hammer but at the same time ensure no one is able to derail the discussion.

Excellent observations.

I'm willing to be a host, but not lead host.

You will see that what will happen will be,
(fill in the dots...).

Let me say, what will end up happening is we will be loaded up with ugly decedant pictures of guns
(and they will be really large ones) on any thread where some stupid point of minutia comes up where any of us forget to dot an I or cross the T, and as always, it will deflect anyones
discussion.

And it will be real easy to do.

We should from this day forward respect their area, and they should respect ours.
But you know what? After 90 days, they will have more posts here than there, and I bet their area (assuming we all respect their area and stay out of it), their area will be infrequent with posts as they assimilate here.

Remember when we were kids and we played shirts/skins?
If everyone wore the same uniform, it was impossible to remember who was on which side.

I am not for banning anyone or anything from DU as a whole.
However, in a special group, much like I never realized months ago until someone laid down the law in another group, groups are safe havens.

(Just suggesting, don't even know if it can be changed, but- the SOP should be made even more specific, and should be even more specific in what is not tolerated.)

We don't need a lesson in which or what size. Let them argue it in the GD or on their area and it can be referenced here that way.
Who cares about specific minutia specifications when the end result of someone dying is the same no matter what it was that killed them?
Who needs to see those ugly pictures of a gun and someone berating one of us here that we don't know what we are talking about because Gun2 is not Gun3.(and soon Gun4 will be made to specifically not be Gun1).It's only bells and whistles.

And asking for gentlerman's(or gentlewoman's) rules as we all well know, don't work in 2013 in politics, and the NRA does NOT play by any rules but their own.

In a world of insanity where the NRA got laws now making it legal in some states to freely
have a gun with bullets while frequenting a bar (and then arguing who is the best pitcher of all time, Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson, or arguing the Yankees vs. the Red Sox), at what point does reason come in?
Who thought of that 100% insane idea anyhow?

but let me also say one last thing, from arguing over in their area last year(but never again unless I accidentally make a mistake-) some of the folks there are very decent people.
And those will be ones who will be polite and on their own accord, keep to the SOP here, like they want in their area.

And by Robb saying take it to the jury system, that bothers me, because I am not one who bases my jury vote on who is saying it, or I ignore no one, as I like reading opposing views,
and the jury system doesn't differentiate between the general forums and the individual forums. I have NOT voted to hide pro-gun posts with ugly pictures nor would I in the future,
if they didn't violate the specific civil rule.
I would suggest that most of the posts won't violate the general discussion civil rule. So most all of them would NOT get hidden.
I would bet a great bunch of people here probably don't know that these type of specific group/forum have a different reason for being than the other places, and it ends up beholden to the ultimate host, or other hosts to not allow it, not the general jury system.
There is indeed a difference between the NRA and all the people who have guns.
But normally, it is the NRA that has the loud voice and the wherewithal to stop any and all talk about guns.

So title all the OPs specific and then, though a thread can get derailed,
the title of the first OP post in any new thread stands forever.
(And if later you think of a better title, by all means, edit the title to reflect a better worded one).

Remember, the NRA has million dollar suits paid to do what most say I cannot do myself.
Be brief, concise, get the main point in, paragraph correctly, format it so, etc.
But then the NRA pays the people to do just that.
They wear the suit and tie and business shoes, while I am wearing a sweatshirt and converse sneakers with white socks.

and I would be willing to serve a term as an additional host.

I agree that the hosting should not be heavy-handed and we do not need an echo chamber in here, but I think we're all tired of hearing the extreme right opinions in the gungeon that do nothing but disrupt honest discussions and that a line needs to be drawn.

That's how this thread has gone so far, so let's roll with that



edit: tpyo

He got this approved by the administrators.

being the pro-NRA and pro-gun lobby and pro-GOP line, all in the name of "helping" Democrats!:

"Because I'd like to see effective and Constitutional gun control that won't get reversed at the
next round of Congressional elections"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=115121

Mark my words, folks: the Gungeoneers resent that this group was established in the first place, but now that it is they have no intention of simply leaving it alone so the SOP of the group can be upheld. They will be over here spewing the same pro-NRA bilge they do in the Gungeon day and night, all under the guise of "helping" advance the cause of gun control! The talking points on why they should be allowed to do that are already being tested out over in GCRKBA.

Again, I don't call for a heavy hand in this group: but I would urge the Hosts to keep the SOP on track, and let juries sort out the rest. Repeat offenders of the SOP should be restricted from the group, IMHO. Just a heads-up and my $0.02.