TargetTalk

I have been asked to allow gun control discussions. I am not sure want to do this. I have let it run free a couple of times, after 9/11 and after Sandy Hook, but in general I think it is a bad idea. But if this were a real shooters lounge at a real range, no doubt the topic would be discussed.

So I am getting a feel here for the readers desires...

I think its ok under very strict rules and that they be highly moderated. No arguing with the moderators, their actions stands. Arguments with the moderator over moderation get you the big ban hammer. If those rules aren't acceptable then I'd say no. It's one thing to debate an issues unfortunately these tend to get into name calling.

I fully agree with Richard.

Having been for quite a few years a moderator in a gun owners forum in my country, I can attest that the level of acrimony that members achieve when talking about politics is seldom (if ever) equalled.

So if our host wants to admit such themes to be discussed, strict ground rules must be set and enforced, which calls for a more or les constant moderation.

For the record, I voted for option 2, that is, only admissible discussion is to be in reference to gun control.

This is an international forum about a sport that we all love. Politics should not be discussed here...just saying.
Although discussing of gun policies I would like to learn more, as long as it is about the sport.

For the record I voted for option 2, as this is a gun board it should be kept to gun control issues.

When things cannot be DISCUSSED by persons of differing persuasions the only option becomes ?violence??war? Certainly something that discussion could avoid.

Good Moderation will be important to keep the discussion on track of the subject matter, not the personalities, as we have unfortunately seen a few "flaming" issues base of the person rather than the subject here before.

I have participated in a couple of discussions that had a political direction, but I don't think they should be permitted as a general rule. There are plenty of gun and shooting forums that permit them and I would rather not see this forum get polarized that way. FWIW.

Roger

My position is that since nobody I can think of here would actually support gun control per se, there is no need to allow it.

Is there a shortage of other sites that cover the politics od gun control?

I tend to think it's just asking for trouble personally. Some people tend to get very parochial and defensive about their own system and it normally degenerates into a slagging match. So I've voted no.

Rob.

spektr wrote:My position is that since nobody I can think of here would actually support gun control per se, there is no need to allow it.

I bet the majority on this site support gun control, ie the status quo.

On topic:

There is no shortage of websites people can go to to discuss 'gun control', second amendment 'rights' etc.

No-one has any plans to change their mind, it invariably degenerates into a slanging match and eventually spills over into other threads. I don't see any point in having a 'discussion' which isn't discussion, just opinionated people hurling opinions at each other.

I voted hell no.

I voted NO.

Let's just stick to annoying Rover with pellet related topics...

No,
They are the cause of arguments ,which if fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But then it gets personel ,thats when the shit hits the fan ,
Only last year Australia,s number one gun forum site got shut down due to A,holes.

j-team wrote:I voted NO.

Let's just stick to annoying Rover with pellet related topics...

Seconded. CO2 topics.

I voted yes, of all types.

As long as you can debate an issue, no matter what, it should be allowed.
If someone can't debate and starts offending then they should be outcast, as per the present rules.

My two cents.

PS: Count me in for annoying Rover with pellet and CO2 related topics!

I think it is important to be able to have political discussions, especially those pertaining to gun control. The politicians have been chipping away at gun rights. Unfortunately some gun owners don't take an interest because they don't think it will affect them. Keeping the discussion in the forefront should make readers more aware of what is happening, before it happens (US centric view).

John

I vote hell no.

I enjoy the fact I can go to this site and come away with a good attitude. Politics brings out the worst in some people and I'd like to keep my opinions of you all political free.

There are several other shooting related sites I visit that allow political threads and at least one site the political stuff is taking over the site. A couple of very knowledgeable (shooting related anyway) people got banned which actually hurt the site because of the loss of their input. Plus the firestorm the banning created.

If you do this moderate it closely and pull the plug if it gets too distracting.

Dave

I am not against a separate topic list for political discussions.
I am against politics entering the topics we now have.
This is an international forum, I am not sure our non american members are interested in our dirty laundry.

I voted "Hell no" as well.

Like many others, I'm very glad that TT is politics free -- if I want to see what other people are ranting about I can go to lots of other sites.

I don't discuss politics (or religion) at the range either, but that's just me.

Jason

Anonymous wrote:I am not against a separate topic list for political discussions.
I am against politics entering the topics we now have.
This is an international forum, I am not sure our non american members are interested in our dirty laundry.

Of course not. Our international friends have their own dirty laundry, and in a lot of cases, the politicians have already run roughshod over them restricting and dictating what they can and cannot own.

Guest wrote:.... Our international friends have their own dirty laundry, and in a lot of cases, the politicians have already run roughshod over them restricting and dictating what they can and cannot own.

Case in point:

It is likely that "Guest" does not see his remarks as inflammatory or prejudicial in any way - I would guess that he sees them as a reasonably stated honest assessment of reality, as would many TT forum members. However, I would also guess that not all members will see such remarks in the same light and it's off to the races we go.

Can I change my vote from "no" to "Hell NO!" ?

Roger