Guns Because

[Gallstones]

OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado

This morning I [Michael Bane] met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these antigun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already cancelled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here.
...
Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly.

...
This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and with three weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out.

Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing.

[JimC]

When all US states have done the sensible thing about gun control, maybe these people can make a special deal with Albania...

[Gallstones]

"Sensible" thing.

I have yet to see anything approaching sensible from anyone who is motivated by emotion rather than reason.

In order to facilitate reason can we not, as reasonable people, make leaps from the law abiding to the absurd?

You are an educator Jim, why do you persist in being overemotional and irrational on this subject?

Feelings are irrelevant; only facts count.

[Rum]

Guns and blackmail. Nice combination!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Guns and blackmail. Nice combination!

Yep, extortion plain and simple.

[mistermack]

Suddenly Colerado doesn't seem quite as bad.

Let the wankers pull out. Eventually they could end up concentrated in one state, which would be easier to avoid.

[orpheus]

Suddenly Colerado doesn't seem quite as bad.

Let the wankers pull out. Eventually they could end up concentrated in one state, which would be easier to avoid.

That's an interesting thought.

[orpheus]

"Sensible" thing.

I have yet to see anything approaching sensible from anyone who is motivated by emotion rather than reason.

In order to facilitate reason can we not, as reasonable people, make leaps from the law abiding to the absurd?

You are an educator Jim, why do you persist in being overemotional and irrational on this subject?  

Feelings are irrelevant; only facts count.

It's curious that gun proponents do often throw around this "accusation" of being emotional. First of all, GS, everyone is motivated by emotion. Without exception. Nobody does anything without it. The primacy of affect, you know. Second, gun control advocates have presented plenty of facts to back up their statements. You don't want to see that, or you disagree, or something - so you choose to ignore it and focus on what remains: the emotion that motivates. We could say the same things about you. Third, I wonder why gun proponents have this fixation about emotion. I suspect it's a good deal of projection and shame about that: they don't want to admit that emotions play any part for them; they feel it will make them appear weak.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Orph, it's just an ad hom. They can't beat the argument, so they beat the arguer. Pistol-whipping, it's called.

[orpheus]

Orph, it's just an ad hom. They can't beat the argument, so they beat the arguer. Pistol-whipping, it's called.

Ah, well, yes there is that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Orph, it's just an ad hom. They can't beat the argument, so they beat the arguer. Pistol-whipping, it's called.

Ah, well, yes there is that.

Denigrating your opponent's position isn't as much as denigrating their person.

[Gallstones]

So, if this was the topic instead

This morning I [Some official person] met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-abortion bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already cancelled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body and her right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term or terminate it. We have consulted 3 lawyers' and it is their opinion that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") therefor it is simply untenable for us to film here.

Would there be the same accusations of blackmail and extortion?

People can do business where they choose for whatever reasons they have.
A business can locate where it chooses for whatever reasons it has.
There is no precedent of obligation on Outdoor Channel, outfitters, hunters etc to continue to do business in Colorado.

People can and will use whatever legal avenues of greivance are available to affect changes or try to prevent changes. This is a normal thing people do. The selective moralizing of this reasonable behavior is the ad hom.

[Gallstones]

"Sensible" thing.

I have yet to see anything approaching sensible from anyone who is motivated by emotion rather than reason.

In order to facilitate reason can we not, as reasonable people, make leaps from the law abiding to the absurd?

You are an educator Jim, why do you persist in being overemotional and irrational on this subject?  

Feelings are irrelevant; only facts count.

It's curious that gun proponents do often throw around this "accusation" of being emotional. First of all, GS, everyone is motivated by emotion. Without exception. Nobody does anything without it. The primacy of affect, you know. Second, gun control advocates have presented plenty of facts to back up their statements. You don't want to see that, or you disagree, or something - so you choose to ignore it and focus on what remains: the emotion that motivates. We could say the same things about you. Third, I wonder why gun proponents have this fixation about emotion. I suspect it's a good deal of projection and shame about that: they don't want to admit that emotions play any part for them; they feel it will make them appear weak.

I've read what has been presented. I've presented some facts of my own and I don't think mine are even being read. Most of the anti argument is regurgitation of political propaganda and ignorance. So yeah, obviously if my position is not the anti position then I, by definition, disagree.

I'll ask you not to ascribe traits to me I do not have--like shame. With regard to this issue I have nothing to be ashamed of, the opinions of others notwithstanding. I am also convinced that I am right, that is not weakness even if any part of my effort to present my view is ineffective.

[orpheus]

"Sensible" thing.

I have yet to see anything approaching sensible from anyone who is motivated by emotion rather than reason.

In order to facilitate reason can we not, as reasonable people, make leaps from the law abiding to the absurd?

You are an educator Jim, why do you persist in being overemotional and irrational on this subject?  

Feelings are irrelevant; only facts count.

It's curious that gun proponents do often throw around this "accusation" of being emotional. First of all, GS, everyone is motivated by emotion. Without exception. Nobody does anything without it. The primacy of affect, you know. Second, gun control advocates have presented plenty of facts to back up their statements. You don't want to see that, or you disagree, or something - so you choose to ignore it and focus on what remains: the emotion that motivates. We could say the same things about you. Third, I wonder why gun proponents have this fixation about emotion. I suspect it's a good deal of projection and shame about that: they don't want to admit that emotions play any part for them; they feel it will make them appear weak.

I've read what has been presented. I've presented some facts of my own and I don't think mine are even being read.

Can't speak for others, but I've read them.

Most of the anti argument is regurgitation of political propaganda and ignorance.

That only tells me that you haven't really read the anti-gun arguments very carefully. Or you've misunderstood what you've read.

So yeah, obviously if my position is not the anti position then I, by definition, disagree.

Okay.

I'll ask you not to ascribe traits to me I do not have--like shame.

First, I was speaking of gun proponents in general. Second, I was not ascribing traits to you. I said "I suspect..." In other words, it was speculation on my part. You're misrepresenting me by taking it as a definite personal accusation.

With regard to this issue I have nothing to be ashamed of, the opinions of others notwithstanding.

Ok, if you say so.

I am also convinced that I am right, that is not weakness even if any part of my effort to present my view is ineffective.

Good for you.

Incidentally, you've totally sidestepped the whole point of my post: I was wondering why gun proponents so often accuse gun control advocates of "emotion" rather than "fact", and insist that they themselves only rely on "fact" and not on "emotion".

[Gallstones]

Colion Noir on Politics and Ignorance