Trust me: You believe in gun control


PDA






walking arsenal
May 27, 2012, 02:45 PM
From the Bemidji Pioneer press.

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100040384/

Tina Dupuy is managing editor of Crooks and Liars and can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com

Or letter to the editor http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/contact/

The author uses a lot of inaccurate comparisons in this letter. The biggest of which is her comparison of individual gun ownership to that of nations owning nuclear weapons.

Would anyone care to educate her?

If you enjoyed reading about "Trust me: You believe in gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tek610
May 27, 2012, 04:08 PM
Wow. This article is so riddled with poor logic, it would take a week to fully dissect it. Lumping "Glock semi-autos" with nuclear weapons is like comparing butter knives with Samurai swords. In other words, ban anything with "gun" in the name or anything with a trigger. If you use hot-glue as a hobbyist, or you staple things with a "gun", well, you just might be a nuclear terrorist. Additionally, she certainly must have some insight into the Zimmerman/Martin case, as she can unquestionably qualify the character of George Zimmerman and whether he should have been allowed to own a gun (much less, carry it). She's a podunk, small-time, wannabe journalist. Thank goodness this idiot writes for a small-town paper, so her pablum is less likely to proliferate. I'd think even the staunchest of gun-control advocates would see through this trite little piece. She's not intelligent, so she's not a threat. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince her she's wrong. She'd probably just cover her ears and yell anyway. :banghead:

hso
May 27, 2012, 04:15 PM
What's the total readrship of the paper?

Should we assume that she is trying to bait us into some foaming at the mouth response?

Instead of attacking the facts, or outright lies, would it be best to point out that the piece was obviously written to provoke a response because of the inflamatory language (bark) from the beginning and the intentional misstatements or inadequate research that anyone with a free hour could show were grossly in error.

cambeul41
May 27, 2012, 07:03 PM
She calls others/us liars, yet asks us to trust her?

When someone asks me to trust them, I have a tendency to be doubly suspicious.

walking arsenal
May 27, 2012, 08:39 PM
What's the total readership of the paper?

10, 715+

Should we assume that she is trying to bait us into some foaming at the mouth response?

Most likely. I would encourage anyone who responds to her to use facts and stay cool as anything they say will ring as the voice of gun owners as a whole just like it does on here.


When someone asks me to trust them, I have a tendency to be doubly suspicious.

There's that and the fact that her total census of gun owners appears to be her own relatives over dinner.

hso
May 27, 2012, 08:49 PM
With a piddly 10k readership I'd not bother.

Contacting her directly is a wast of effort. If you can't post a rebuttal in the paper or on the website it is a doubly a waste of time. She's a lost cause and if you can't influence others who may have a chance of being influenced these people are best not given any of the attention they crave.

walking arsenal
May 27, 2012, 09:23 PM
Are you saying that 10,000 people aren't worth educating? That they aren't worth a little pro-gun outreach? What IS a significant number then? 100,000? 1,000,000?

What? Ten minutes, a paragraph, and some facts sent in as a letter to the editor aren't worth your time? You could knock this person's argument to pieces in a couple sentences!

She just reached 10k people, who could be registered voters, with her lunacy and if she even changed the minds of 1/4 of them that is still a significant amount.

Man, and I thought this was the activism forum. I guess I confused it with the apathetic forum. My bad.

People with attitudes like this are the reason states like mine become states like California and why my town no longer has a public shooting range.

One person can't do this alone. I sent my letter but there aren't many active pro gunnies up here. We can use the help where we can get it. I'm pretty certain that is well within the realm of RKBA activism. Give us a hand won't you?

Change the mind of 1 person and you change the mind of 100 I say.

SleazyRider
May 27, 2012, 09:35 PM
... Man, and I thought this was the activism forum. I guess I confused it with the apathetic forum. My bad. ...

Ouch. But ... you're right! It's just difficult to know where to begin. I've always been of the mindset that blatant ignorance speaks for itself, and that it shouldn't be dignified by responding. I'll make an attempt at a calm, measured response.
Thanks for the wake-up call!

walking arsenal
May 27, 2012, 10:15 PM
No. Thank you for the help. It's really appreciated.

I've always been of the mindset that blatant ignorance speaks for itself, and that it shouldn't be dignified by responding.

I used to think so too. But I've seen too many times where incorrect "facts" are repeated over and over until people begin to believe them. Not everyone can recognize ignorance on sight. If they could, we wouldn't have the anti-gun laws we do now or places with laws like california and New Jersey. They simply wouldn't exist.

I like to think of it as I'm not responding to the person, but to the people listening to that person.

You're not responding to the author of this article, you're bringing real facts to the people who read her "facts". Use published data, cite your sources, and her arguments crumble.

And who knows, maybe you'll change a few minds in our favor as a bonus.

mljdeckard
May 27, 2012, 10:26 PM
After reading HSO's opinion, I concur. She's yanking our cords, why feed her?

Old krow
May 28, 2012, 12:05 AM
You can post comments on the originating site (Crooks and Liars) found here: http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 12:07 AM
After reading HSO's opinion, I concur. She's yanking our cords, why feed her?

Because it's not about her. It's about the 10,000 other readers that pick up the paper, read her article, and believe even a portion of what she says in it.

It's about the 10,000 people that, when the next time carry reciprocity comes up for vote, or whether we can use suppressors, or if high cap magazines should be banned, or if hollow point bullets should be banned, will either vote for or against it.

And if all the information people ever read about in the papers is from people like her, on her side of the argument, which side do you think they will vote for?

I can't believe this. You guys will try to convince one person at a time by taking one new shooter out a weekend. You'll spend time, money, and ammo teaching them to shoot. But you won't counter one person that just reached out to 10,000 people because she might be trolling?

People like this can undo in a few sentences what you did in a day and 200 rounds! The media is where it's at!

mljdeckard
May 28, 2012, 12:15 AM
I think the assertion that you are influencing 10,000 is optimistic at best. I think the idea that SHE is influencing very many at all is wishful thinking.

Old krow
May 28, 2012, 12:31 AM
I think the idea that SHE is influencing very many at all is wishful thinking. Perhaps, but, it is uncontested either way. :)

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 12:45 AM
Well, yes, it would be ridiculous to assume that either side is reaching exactly all of them.

But call it half and it's 5,000 people.
Call it a quarter and it's 2,500 people.

What's considered an insignificant amount?

We'll argue with one person over lunch or at the office and try to convince them that guns and gunnies aren't as antis say. We'll try to teach 10 kids to shoot. We'll school 20 people in a firearms training course that actually want to be there. But we won't write a paragraph letter to the editor response that is potentially read by an audience of 10k?

What kind of grass roots outreach is that?

Even if it convinced 15 people wouldn't it be worth the effort?

Some of the responders here have taken more time trying to convince me that I SHOULDN'T be fighting anti-gun people like the author of this article than it would have to write a letter and e-mail it to the editor or comment on her blog!

Heck! I've seen people here waste more time on 9mm Vs .45 threads and "What guns for...." threads!

Naterater
May 28, 2012, 12:58 AM
I'm pretty sure we're also in agreement that absolutely NO gun control would allow minors and criminals to purchase guns and I don't want that either. However, the article wasn't about that.

I'm 16 and blown away by the propaganda-like content. I just hope nobody can actually take that seriously!

X-Rap
May 28, 2012, 01:03 AM
10,000 readers in that part of the country is not small potatoes so some rebuttal in the letters to the editor is well in order.

mljdeckard
May 28, 2012, 01:08 AM
I just feel like she is deliberately baiting people like us, with blurbs she knows to be incorrect and inflammatory, to incite an argument. I wouldn't play. I trust that enough people are smart enough to see through her.

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 01:41 AM
You've got more faith in humanity than I do.

I'd suggest that in the least folks should drop a note to the paper.

gremlinx
May 28, 2012, 07:38 AM
There will always be people on both sides who take exreme posistions. I remember the NRA once having an article about have and to bear arms, including Nukes? There are many flaws in the article that most anyone can take apart. Useing the word regulated to mean restrictions on, when the basis of the amendment was to basicly not restrict.

In fact regulation of guns is already here and the supreme court has made it clear that one the second amendment is an individual right, and that two restrictions and regulation are not antithetical to each other. I can not buy a machine gun without going through rigiours back ground checks and paying for a stamp ect. I can not carry a gun any place I want to, even if I have a CCW and I should not be able to. Can you imagine how hard it would be for protective agencys to protect officals if I could carry a gun to a meet and greet with the President? Not a good time to carry a weapon, at minimum leave it in the car. I met Louis black and the security was very poor. I had a TCP on me and had my photo taken next to him with it on. They had a couple of less then impresive security at the time and I thought that I should have left it in the car but I did not know Louis was going to do a free meet and greet after the show and since I love Louis Black I was not going to miss out because I had a 380 on me.

alsaqr
May 28, 2012, 08:00 AM
After reading HSO's opinion, I concur. She's yanking our cords, why feed her?

Bingo.
Its a bait piece designed to elicit responses from people who leap before they think. In a few days she may post those responses from "radical, irresponsible gunowners": "See, it's just like i told you".

hso
May 28, 2012, 08:38 AM
Does anyone see a way to comment/rebut in the Bemidji Pioneer so the readers who actually read the Opinion page would actually see a response? Is there a way to do this in Crooks and Liars?

What sort of rebuttal note should be sent?

Also, a review of Ms. Dupuy's webpage is in order (know thy enemy). http://www.tinadupuy.com/bio/ She claims to a satirist so we don't need to feed any obvious straight lines to her.

Let's flip our perspective on her opinion piece for a minute to be neutral instead of advocates of one side or the other to rebut her opinion. Nuclear weapons and handguns are not equal so nuclear weapons control and gun control are not equally valid positions. A nuclear weapon devastates a strategic target comprised of thousands to millions of people. There's nothing individualistic in the use of a nuclear weapon. It doesn't target a single person (not even a single zip code). A firearm is used one person at a time with each shot being a decision. Atomic bomb = tens of thousands of deaths so the trite comparison with firearms is hyperbole taken to the absurd level. Martin/Zimmerman argument, trying any shooting in the court of public opinion before all the facts are available isn't journalism, except for the yellow kind. Fact-if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun Martin wouldn't have been shot. Current fact-if Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman and been pounding him on the ground Matin wouldn't have been shot, if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun he might have ended up brain damaged or dead and the story would now be reversed. Let's not intentionally use part of the story to make an argument when the facts of the case can change before the argument is even presented. NRA's position on gun control - organizations respond to issues important to their members, over time those issues important to the members will change. When politicians as groups started to us gun owners as political fodder to advance themselves the NRA's members reacted and the NRA responded. Matter of fact, the NRA's response wasn't strong enough for many gun owners and other competing organizations sprung up like GOA and 2nd Amendment Foundation with even more aggressive stances than the NRA. Organizations like the NRA, GOA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc. exist because the people that pay the memberships support them and expect support in return. The positions of the NRA and other gun owner advocacy groups reflects the opinions of their members just as much as the other activist groups reflect the opinions of theirs. Membership at the NRA and other gun owner advocacy groups has grown while the support for anti gun owner groups has shrunk, a truer measure of the support hardly exists.

earlthegoat2
May 28, 2012, 08:53 AM
Luckily she is not talking about me. Im not hyper political. Apparently that is a generalization that gun owners are all lumped into as well.

SleazyRider
May 28, 2012, 08:53 AM
The only means of responding I could find was direct to the author's e-mail, to which I'll reply, and trust she will have the journalistic integrity to publish it. (Assuming she finds my letter worthy of publication, that is.)

Thomas Jefferson's words come to mind: "... Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Let us hope the Bemidji Pioneer provides a forum to combat the author's error of opinion. Else, reason is lost.

j1
May 28, 2012, 08:56 AM
Just reading some of the replies makes me think of the old line. Never argue with an idiot they will beat you through experience and then bystanders will not be able to tell who is the idiot.

SleazyRider
May 28, 2012, 08:59 AM
Just reading some of the replies makes me think of the old line. Never argue with an idiot they will beat you through experience and then bystanders will not be able to tell who is the idiot.
Some would call that a cop-out, I being one of them.

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 10:42 AM
Ok. I screwed up here. Here is a link to send a letter to the editor (face palm)

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/contact/

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 10:47 AM
Its a bait piece designed to elicit responses from people who leap before they think. In a few days she may post those responses from "radical, irresponsible gunowners": "See, it's just like i told you".

That's why we respond in a THR manner, with facts, citable sources, and a measured amount of calm so that we come off as the professional gun owners we are.

oneounceload
May 28, 2012, 11:26 AM
Regarding the number of voters she reached - where I live, in the last election, several key local positions were won or lost (depending on your view) by less than 10 votes - so yes, she should be called out for her errors - politely - and phrased in such a way that she has no new room for another rant or tangent to go off from

montanaoffroader
May 28, 2012, 01:08 PM
After spending some time reading through the website of the paper that published this piece, it is apparent that this is not a one time deal. There are more than a few opinion pieces that are heavily slanted, and no published opposing views.

There is also no 'comments' section on the site itself. What all this boils down to is feeding an obvious troll. Sending a well thought out letter probably will not hurt, but it will most likely never see print.

Is there some other local forum available for you to share your views? If so, that might be the way to go, as it does not seem very likely you will get a fair shake from the folks who published this nonsense.


Just my own, personally biased $.02 ;)

Old krow
May 28, 2012, 01:15 PM
Is there a way to do this in Crooks and Liars?

Yes there is. Here it is: http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/trust-me-you-believe-gun-control

I believe that you have to register there to do it.

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 02:29 PM
Is there some other local forum available for you to share your views? If so, that might be the way to go, as it does not seem very likely you will get a fair shake from the folks who published this nonsense.

As I understand it, you are able supposed to be able to comment on articles on the Pioneer website. They are also very good about publishing letters to the editor. Everything I've ever sent them has seen print.

hso
May 28, 2012, 02:33 PM
I'd make sure to send a letter to the editor since that's the only means of a rebuttal that has been turned up for the Bimidji paper.

She's not a member of their staff so the question is who decides to pay her for her material.

Coop45
May 28, 2012, 02:59 PM
Give her a doggie biscuit and a scratch behind the ear.

montanaoffroader
May 28, 2012, 04:08 PM
Everything I've ever sent them has seen print.

If this is the case, if I were you I would definitely write them a letter.

When I lived in Northern California I wrote several letters to the editor, not a single one saw print, as they generally did not agree with the editorial in question. The few opposition letters they did publish were extreme to point of being ridiculous, and very difficult to take seriously.

So if they are willing to publish your response, take advantage of it!

walking arsenal
May 28, 2012, 04:31 PM
Give her a doggie biscuit and a scratch behind the ear.

That's exactly the kind of response we DON'T need.

Tommygunn
May 28, 2012, 11:43 PM
like cutting taxes doesn’t increase revenue.....

She can't even get THIS right! Reagan CUT taxes .... at the end of his term government revenues essentially doubled.

Listen, she's just a liberal dupe; she reads from Moveon.com's talking points, nothing else. No point in worry.

gremlinx
May 30, 2012, 07:57 PM
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency and was for the Brady bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SekB2_Wmkzg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJxlYV4MJJo

Carl N. Brown
May 30, 2012, 10:33 PM
Uncle Remus taught me the best thing to do when a Brer Fox tempts you to get entangled with a Tarbaby is to just walk on by.

walking arsenal
May 31, 2012, 11:05 AM
Uncle sam taught me to thump Brer fox in the head with a big ol metaphorical stick until he stopped tempting me with tar babies.

Vern Humphrey
May 31, 2012, 01:20 PM
This gal is one of those people who thinks she's smarter than anyone else because she's too unintelligent to realize how stupid she is.

Robert
May 31, 2012, 09:36 PM
Politics, wild speculations, and non THR comments have all killed this thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "Trust me: You believe in gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!