How can we regulate guns ... ?

Thread copied here from the How can we regulate guns ... ? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

No need, I'm here.Crash, please keep the focus of all future messages strictly on topic. In particular, please avoid all reference to any offenses you think others are committing against you, and in fact avoid all reference, direct or indirect, to other participants. Once your 9.0 on the Richter scale quiets it should prove possible to tell if disruptions to this thread are coming from any other sources.Let me provide an example based upon a post from the Gun Control Again thread of what is required of you. Let's say someone says this: You should not reply like this: You must instead reply like this: This message constitutes the first warning. Failures to follow this request will draw short suspensions whose length will increase over time.I'll add a bit of moderation. What Panda called ratios don't strike me as ratios either, but the noun Panda chose to refer to his comparisons between guns and knives doesn't matter to the discussion. By focusing on the comparisons rather than quibbling over irrelevant nomenclature you'll move the discussion constructively forward.Please, no replies to this message.

Because the greater lethality of guns over knives is self-evident, and because it isn't the topic of this thread, and to help discussion move constructively forward, discussion on this point should cease. Future discussion may assume that guns are more lethal than knives.A thread to discuss gun versus knife lethality may be proposed over at Proposed New Topics.

Hi Crashfrog,The message you replied to stated, "Please, no replies to this message." You just replied.See you tomorrow.

Hi Crashfrog,I'll address your concerns, but there's to be no reply to this message, and there's to be no further discussion with moderators in this thread. Given your rejection of all attempts to hold up a mirror for you to see what others see I won't make any further attempts at helpful feedback. Statements like "you said this" will not be a problem unless the full statement runs something like "you said this back when you contradicted yourself...etc...", just for example. The accusations have to stop. In the future you might consider giving a careful look to any sentence you write that contains words like "you" or "your" or a member's name. The request to "stop misrepresenting me" is obviously directed at the person you're replying to. You've just accused them of misrepresenting you. This is something you do frequently, sometimes you'll even call it willful misrepresentation and in the past you've been prone to accusing people of lying about you. It has to stop. This isn't a discussion. I've made moderator decisions. You can abide by them or be suspended. Please stop quibbling over the definition of ratio and address the substance of the argument, or just don't reply at all.Please, no replies to this message.

This is a settled issue now for this thread, I posted this in Message 204:

Hi Crashfrog,You have again responded to a message that requested no replies, so I'm suspending you again, this time for 48 hours.You are being held to the same standards as everyone else, the relevant rules are 1 and 10 from the Forum Guidelines:

1. Please follow all moderator requests. Concerns about moderation should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here thread.
   ​
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

I abbreviated rule 10 a while back in the interest of keeping things simple, it used to also say, "Avoid hectoring and badgering," or something along those lines.I intended the prohibition against referring to other participants more as something that would help you stay out of trouble. You have a strong tendency toward brinksmanship, I didn't want you to be tempted to see how close you could get to the line without going over. If you think you can refer to other participants without becoming gradually more and more personal and hectoring than go ahead and give it a try.Moderators prefer that the members understand the reasons for moderator actions, but you've worn out this consideration. The final straw was last year when moderators attempted to take seriously your complaints about people lying about you and ganging up on you, and in the end you began abusing the moderators, too.Please, no replies to this message.

• I don't think use of the word "comrades" was intended as a reference to communists.
  ​
• Keep in mind that emotional appeals (e.g., the comment about the Sandy Hook pictures) can cause emotional responses - make allowances.
  ​
• Please keep the name calling in check.

In other words, please focus on making and supporting the points that will win the debate rather than on making the other side angry or frustrated or ashamed.

To Panda and Catholic Scientist,It is very annoying to be repeatedly asked for an explanation that has already been offered.It is also very annoying to be repeatedly denied a clarification of an explanation that was never understood.I don't know which of these is the case, maybe both, but in future exchanges could you both make clear what it is an explanation of that is being requested and denied?Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

When CS asks, "How would this being national make it too difficult for people to by-pass?", what is it that he is talking about?

One good clue that you're not constructively contributing to debate is posting short one and two-line messages.Also, I'm beginning to detect some topic drift. This thread is about the practical issues of designing and implementing effective gun control policies. The other thread, Gun Control Again, is about whether there's a need for gun control.

I'm drawing the same conclusions from your posts as Theodoric, so there may be some reasonable basis for confusion. Please work with Theodoric to clarify your meaning.

Let's see, you've called Theodoric a troll, stupid and illiterate, and he's called your arguments ridiculous, vapid and asinine. Let's call it even. Enough now. I think he was being imprecise when he used the word "equate" in his most recent message, and he did use the word "compare" in his first response in Message 568: "There is no way that these two things can be even remotely compared."As it stands now you've replied to him twice since his Message 568 while not addressing any of his specific points about why he felt the comparison invalid. If you choose not to reply to Theodoric then that's fine, just please be consistent about not replying.

Hi CS,I have to admit I share Theodoric's confusion about what point you're trying to make with the music piracy analogy. It seems like there's only one point that could be made with that analogy, namely that both music piracy and gun control laws have difficult enforcement issues, but you seem to be objecting to that interpretation, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, and I don't think Theodoric is, either.Also, I never thought Theodoric was trying to say that failing to support one regulation means one must support no regulations. Maybe I'm wrong, but you might want to verify that interpretation.Anyway, I'm not a participant, so if you *are* interested in clarifying your point concerning the music piracy analogy then it should be to Theodoric, not me.

Hi CS,There's no need to keep replying to me. I would have stayed out of it except that you and Theodoric seemed to be escalating an ad hominem-fest. So I merely noted that I didn't think Theodoric was purposefully misunderstanding you because I didn't understand you either. You likened the enforcement difficulties of music piracy and gun control to each other, which Theodoric and I both understood, then objected that that's not what you were doing, completely confusing both of us and not addressing any of Theodoric's specific objections from Message 568.Instead of trying to sort out all the inevitable "he said this" and "he said that's", maybe you could just restate your point in a different way.