I don't understand why whenever there is a topic started about shootings, they are locked so quickly. We are all adults here, so I'm sure we can handle to content of the discussion...and isn't the "General" area the place for these discussions?
Why are shooting topics locked so quickly?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: grampi
We are all adults here
Yet some don't behave like they are, hence the locks. I'm sure those threads are worth the headaches for the mods.
We are all adults here
Yet some don't behave like they are, hence the locks. I'm sure those threads are worth the headaches for the mods.
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: grampi
We are all adults here
Yet some don't behave like they are, hence the locks. I'm sure those threads are worth the headaches for the mods.
The thread about the shooting of the marines was closed because the mod thought it was heading in a bad direction...nothing was posted that was against the forum rules...if we're not allowed to discuss such topics in the "general" forum, then what exactly is that forum for?
Originally Posted By: grampi
We are all adults here
Yet some don't behave like they are, hence the locks. I'm sure those threads are worth the headaches for the mods.
The thread about the shooting of the marines was closed because the mod thought it was heading in a bad direction...nothing was posted that was against the forum rules...if we're not allowed to discuss such topics in the "general" forum, then what exactly is that forum for?
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks. But the NRA lobby is too strong and too many congressman are worried about re-election that it does not get passed despite a majority of people for it. So is the NRA really representing the average gun owner?
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks. But the NRA lobby is too strong and too many congressman are worried about re-election that it does not get passed despite a majority of people for it. So is the NRA really representing the average gun owner?
I propose this forum needs a "pit". If you donate to the forum you would get access, and that area would have very limited/no moderation. We can discuss politics, religion, sex and just have it out. Now that would be entertaining!
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I propose this forum needs a "pit". If you donate to the forum you would get access, and that area would have very limited/no moderation. We can discuss politics, religion, sex and just have it out. Now that would be entertaining!
I agree dishdude. An open discussion where everyone agrees to disagree without resorting to name calling,personal attack and incendiary rhetoric.
I propose this forum needs a "pit". If you donate to the forum you would get access, and that area would have very limited/no moderation. We can discuss politics, religion, sex and just have it out. Now that would be entertaining!
I agree dishdude. An open discussion where everyone agrees to disagree without resorting to name calling,personal attack and incendiary rhetoric.
I didn't read the Marine one but the typical pattern is 1) someone dies and 2) politics that were boiling just below the surface erupt with age old arguments. This, if nothing else, is disrespectful to the forgotten victims, as well as, secondly, the forum rules.
A pit would amuse me. Folks are annoyed that 1) they post on a public forum then 2)Mori Ex-members link
to those posts on some other forum, b/c he isn't allowed here anymore to continue the discussion, and we can't control him/them. At least in a wild west pit here a user could confront such an accuser.
A pit would amuse me. Folks are annoyed that 1) they post on a public forum then 2)
to those posts on some other forum, b/c he isn't allowed here anymore to continue the discussion, and we can't control him/them. At least in a wild west pit here a user could confront such an accuser.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I propose this forum needs a "pit". If you donate to the forum you would get access, and that area would have very limited/no moderation. We can discuss politics, religion, sex and just have it out. Now that would be entertaining!
That's the last thing this place needs. The Internet is full of forums that have areas like that. Why bring it here?
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I agree dishdude. An open discussion where everyone agrees to disagree without resorting to name calling,personal attack and incendiary rhetoric.
Keep dreaming!
I propose this forum needs a "pit". If you donate to the forum you would get access, and that area would have very limited/no moderation. We can discuss politics, religion, sex and just have it out. Now that would be entertaining!
That's the last thing this place needs. The Internet is full of forums that have areas like that. Why bring it here?
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I agree dishdude. An open discussion where everyone agrees to disagree without resorting to name calling,personal attack and incendiary rhetoric.
Keep dreaming!
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Topic like that tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding...
Topics like OIL FILTERS tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding around here.
Topic like that tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding...
Topics like OIL FILTERS tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding around here.
Originally Posted By: KzMitch
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Topic like that tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding...
Topics like OIL FILTERS tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding around here.
How did you come to that conclusion after only being a member for half a year?
Anyone who has been around awhile will know the topics that generate the most heated discussions are those related to Auto-Rx. (Yes it does work in some cases).
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Topic like that tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding...
Topics like OIL FILTERS tend to bring out more hate than logic or understanding around here.
How did you come to that conclusion after only being a member for half a year?
Anyone who has been around awhile will know the topics that generate the most heated discussions are those related to Auto-Rx. (Yes it does work in some cases).
Last edited:
I dunno. Its not like cheating on your wife if you post on a different forum, or hang out for a bit elsewhere. I like bitog, and get exposure to more opinions than I would on a different forum; a "pit" might be interesting but I suspect I would not frequent it that much--nothing but a mosh pit for flame wars?
Anyhow, when I want to discuss let alone debate guns god religion politics, there are other forums I go to. At the moment I don't have interest in debating those so I pretty much stick around here.
Anyhow, when I want to discuss let alone debate guns god religion politics, there are other forums I go to. At the moment I don't have interest in debating those so I pretty much stick around here.
Originally Posted By: Donald
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks.
I don't know whether the majority of gun owners are for enhanced background checks or not. But I do find it illogical to submit gun owners to enhanced background checks.
Yes, some people are easily heated by certain subjects and begin to argue with emotions instead of facts and logic. So it goes nowhere and nothing positive comes from it. So I can see why the site owners and moderators lock them.
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks.
I don't know whether the majority of gun owners are for enhanced background checks or not. But I do find it illogical to submit gun owners to enhanced background checks.
Yes, some people are easily heated by certain subjects and begin to argue with emotions instead of facts and logic. So it goes nowhere and nothing positive comes from it. So I can see why the site owners and moderators lock them.
JHZR2
Staff member
Before I posted and locked it, there were already a few very inflammatory comments that were removed from the thread, and it was already going into comments about Obama, gun control, and other things that just create polarization and inflammatory situations on here.
Nobody catches everything, and everyone gets caught in some element of R/S/P time to time, but when writing is on the wall that its going that way, its better to try to be proactive.
I definitely have a lot of posts, but certainly don't spend a ton of time on here. There are things that slip through the cracks. I saw this one and stopped it before more inflammatory posts popped up. Was the intent to discuss the news, to feel sorry for the Marines, or to bash Obama and gun control? The first two are OK, the others are a bad slope.
After the flare up the other week about gun control and whats the purpose of a firearm forum and all that, its my hope that folks can take certain things they know they shouldn't be discussing elsewhere to prevent more polarity and issues.
Im sure this will get griped about by some. Im sure it will get PDF'd and show up on other blogs, etc. So be it. That's my decision and if you have further issues with it, feel free to PM me.
Nobody catches everything, and everyone gets caught in some element of R/S/P time to time, but when writing is on the wall that its going that way, its better to try to be proactive.
I definitely have a lot of posts, but certainly don't spend a ton of time on here. There are things that slip through the cracks. I saw this one and stopped it before more inflammatory posts popped up. Was the intent to discuss the news, to feel sorry for the Marines, or to bash Obama and gun control? The first two are OK, the others are a bad slope.
After the flare up the other week about gun control and whats the purpose of a firearm forum and all that, its my hope that folks can take certain things they know they shouldn't be discussing elsewhere to prevent more polarity and issues.
Im sure this will get griped about by some. Im sure it will get PDF'd and show up on other blogs, etc. So be it. That's my decision and if you have further issues with it, feel free to PM me.
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
Originally Posted By: Donald
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks.
I don't know whether the majority of gun owners are for enhanced background checks or not. But I do find it illogical to submit gun owners to enhanced background checks.
I'm a gun owner and I'm certainly not for enhanced background checks.
Originally Posted By: Donald
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks.
I don't know whether the majority of gun owners are for enhanced background checks or not. But I do find it illogical to submit gun owners to enhanced background checks.
I'm a gun owner and I'm certainly not for enhanced background checks.
Originally Posted By: supton
I dunno. Its not like cheating on your wife if you post on a different forum, or hang out for a bit elsewhere. I like bitog, and get exposure to more opinions than I would on a different forum; a "pit" might be interesting but I suspect I would not frequent it that much--nothing but a mosh pit for flame wars?
Anyhow, when I want to discuss let alone debate guns god religion politics, there are other forums I go to. At the moment I don't have interest in debating those so I pretty much stick around here.
Agree too,
Usually calls for such an area really mean that such a topic isn't really up for discussion but just for an echo chamber, where the most vocal have their ideas echoed and seconded by similar mindset to become validated rather then actually discussed or debated. There are no questions being asked or answered, just people looking to have their viewpoint validated.
Inevitably then the same hate just leaks over into the other forums because it was all good over in the echo chamber.
I dunno. Its not like cheating on your wife if you post on a different forum, or hang out for a bit elsewhere. I like bitog, and get exposure to more opinions than I would on a different forum; a "pit" might be interesting but I suspect I would not frequent it that much--nothing but a mosh pit for flame wars?
Anyhow, when I want to discuss let alone debate guns god religion politics, there are other forums I go to. At the moment I don't have interest in debating those so I pretty much stick around here.
Agree too,
Usually calls for such an area really mean that such a topic isn't really up for discussion but just for an echo chamber, where the most vocal have their ideas echoed and seconded by similar mindset to become validated rather then actually discussed or debated. There are no questions being asked or answered, just people looking to have their viewpoint validated.
Inevitably then the same hate just leaks over into the other forums because it was all good over in the echo chamber.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Donald
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks. But the NRA lobby is too strong and too many congressman are worried about re-election that it does not get passed despite a majority of people for it. So is the NRA really representing the average gun owner?
The NRA is unusually wary of "Slippery Slope" potential and to be honest I can't say they are unjustified in their paranoia. We've seen the Anti-Smoking lobby propose and get passed progressively greater restrictions to the point where banning smoking in an owner-occupied home is considered a reasonable next step.
I find it heavy handed and unjustified on public health grounds ... If Health was truly the worry, we'd be banning barbeques which have higher carcinogens by an order of magnitude versus second-hand smoke.
But regardless, the idea that the anti-gun lobby can't be trusted to limit themselves to "reasonable" restrictions is hardly precedent-setting; i'm just using tobacco use since it easily proves the fear that the NRA feels.
People get too heated about the discussion.
The thing I do not understand is that the NRA and related gun organizations are more "pro guns" than the average gun owner.
Example - the majority of gun owners (and one would assume almost all the non gun owners) would be for enhanced background checks. But the NRA lobby is too strong and too many congressman are worried about re-election that it does not get passed despite a majority of people for it. So is the NRA really representing the average gun owner?
The NRA is unusually wary of "Slippery Slope" potential and to be honest I can't say they are unjustified in their paranoia. We've seen the Anti-Smoking lobby propose and get passed progressively greater restrictions to the point where banning smoking in an owner-occupied home is considered a reasonable next step.
I find it heavy handed and unjustified on public health grounds ... If Health was truly the worry, we'd be banning barbeques which have higher carcinogens by an order of magnitude versus second-hand smoke.
But regardless, the idea that the anti-gun lobby can't be trusted to limit themselves to "reasonable" restrictions is hardly precedent-setting; i'm just using tobacco use since it easily proves the fear that the NRA feels.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Donald
Anyone who has been around awhile will know the topics that generate the most heated discussions are those related to Auto-Rx. (Yes it does work in some cases).
No, Auto-Rx never works and you're a dummy for thinking it's anything more than snake oil! grrr
Anyone who has been around awhile will know the topics that generate the most heated discussions are those related to Auto-Rx. (Yes it does work in some cases).
No, Auto-Rx never works and you're a dummy for thinking it's anything more than snake oil! grrr
- Status
