Youngest hitman, only 15

Exactly. August is making a case against a point no one argues by twisting my words. And Steve seems to join him in doing so.

Only to a certain extent, he is perhaps taking a view that might be expressed by some extreme fringe of the brady bunch and dressing that up as a real arguement people are making, but that is like taking Fred Phelps as an example of mainstream christian theology.

Yes it is. In the past 10 years ive had my home broken into twice.

So you do live in fear.
Well so much for guns making you safe as surely in rural Tennesee people would expect every home to be armed so would never dream of taking a chance on a home invasion.
But if your gun is hidden from view behind the door do you think you can get a good shot in if you are going to be smashed in the face as soon as the door is cracked? After all you are going to have to look through the crack first ain't ya to see if you is supposed to be shooting or not.

[STEED]

Bring back Hanging.

You take a life you forfeit yours end of. I know it will not stop gun/knife crime but it will be a saving in money to the tax payer.

I know it will not stop gun/knife crime but it will be a saving in money to the tax payer.

Given your countries record on wrongful convictions you would have to have an even more long running and expensive appeals process than the Americans have so it would cost you much more to the tax payer not less.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

And Steve seems to join him in doing so.

This is the first time I've even addressed you in this thread, so it's kind of hard for me to be "joining" anybody in "twisting" anything. I don't even support August in everything he says. My only point in all of this is that Tribesman doesn't even address the issue; his only purpose seems to be to mock and criticize.

This is the first time I've even addressed you in this thread

Unfortunately you jumped in to support a strawman August set up when he changed the words Darkfish had used

My only point in all of this is that Tribesman doesn't even address the issue

Pointing out that August is setting up fake positions to argue against is addressing the issue.
I raised plenty of points to address the issues and non issues raised
But here is one issue just for you which you already ignored.
Do you honestly think the UK has strong gun controls?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Unfortunately you jumped in to support a strawman August set up when he changed the words Darkfish had used

I didn't address Darkfish. I supported August against your insipid diatribe. Anything more is you creating your own strawman, as I said before. Also you manage to ignore what I said about not fully agreeing with August. But you only see what you want to see.

Pointing out that August is setting up fake positions to argue against is addressing the issue.
I raised plenty of points to address the issues and non issues raised
But here is one issue just for you which you already ignored.

And I specifically addressed the post in which you said nothing but nonsense.

Do you honestly think the UK has strong gun controls?

I honestly don't know, but a great many US gun-control advocates point to the UK as a shining example of how it should work, which is what August addressed in his first post.

[Freiwillige]

Quite often the argument against the gun owners of America is that were afraid. Living in fear hiding behind our guns. For some that may be true. I own a gun so I don't have to be afraid. Just remember that 33,000,000 legal gun owners didn't murder anybody today.

I didn't address Darkfish. I supported August against your insipid diatribe.

as easy as 1,2,3

Nope, I say it helps to get *less* gun crime. Not that it *stops* gun crime.
Looks like someone had set up another false arguement
Darkfish, you will notice that augusts claims about gun control ands its aims are strawmen.
looks like somone points it out again.
Coming from the person who rarely posts any real arguments at all, just statements like this one.
looks like somone jumping in quoting me in relation to what Darkfish wrote.

So take it back a stage further.....
And nobody here says it does.
The point of gun control is to make it *harder* to get a gun and use it to shoot people. It's impossible to completely get rid of guns.
Is Darkfish saying august arguements are strawmen

And I specifically addressed the post in which you said nothing but nonsense.

Ah you mean the one where I took 3 of august arguements and had a laugh at his misrepresntations.

I honestly don't know

What do you think of Jumpys posts or Jims?
Jumpy has a good point, it was silly rushed legislation brought in after a couple of occasions when people who should already have been banned from holding firearms went mad, stupid populist knee jerk legislation.

a great many US gun-control advocates point to the UK as a shining example of how it should work

Which legislation are they pointing at ? England and wales, scotland or the 6. Are these people pointing at legislation they havn't got the faintest idea about?
Its funny really from another angle as many pro gun advocates point to Ireland as a really good example of the troubles caused when a country bans firearms. It matters not to them that the country hasn't banned firearms or that nearly all of the gun violence they are on about is in another state..... which also hasn't banned guns

which is what August addressed in his first post

Which was the first strawman. the aim is reduction as prevention is impossible

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is Darkfish saying august arguements are strawmen

Did I not say I wasn't addressing Darkfish? You keep trying to twist what I say to be what you want it to be about.

Ah you mean the one where I took 3 of august arguements and had a laugh at his misrepresntations.

Having a laugh is all well and good, but you attempted to do so by being rude and insulting rather than funny, and you failed.

What do you think of Jumpys posts or Jims?
Jumpy has a good point, it was silly rushed legislation brought in after a couple of occasions when people who should already have been banned from holding firearms went mad, stupid populist knee jerk legislation.

Irrelevant, as I was only addressing your attack. Even if you were right about August you stooped to mockery and insult rather than argument, which demeans you more than him. In a lot of cases your posts are intelligent and to the point, and I'm usually the one who defends you against charges of trolling. Not this time.

Which legislation are they pointing at ? England and wales, scotland or the 6. Are these people pointing at legislation they havn't got the faintest idea about?

That's the point. American gun-control advocates don't point to any legislation. They just point out that Britain has better gun control that the US, and they have a lower gun crime rate. The latter is true, and US gun-control people use it to show that we need better gun control. When something like this happens we on the other side tend to jump on it. Right? Wrong? Arguing points? Yes to all three, and discussion is a good thing. Trolling isn't.

Its funny really from another angle as many pro gun advocates point to Ireland as a really good example of the troubles caused when a country bans firearms. It matters not to them that the country hasn't banned firearms or that nearly all of the gun violence they are on about is in another state..... which also hasn't banned guns

So what are the gun laws in Ireland? England? I looked up a couple and they seem fairly restrictive by my standards, but while I have my beliefs I don't claim to know everything.

Which was the first strawman. the aim is reduction as prevention is impossible

And as I said before, not a strawman at all. We get told a lot here that if we only banned guns this kind of thing would be contained, "lessened" if you like. Of course when a 15-year-old obtains a gun illegally it makes me wonder who is truly responsible. In Los Angeles they like to claim that the gangs are better armed than the cops. True? I'm not sure. Part of the claim is that they have fully automatic weapons, which are difficult for anyone to obtain, let alone minors.

My bottom line is that I don't necessarily agree with August, and there is no one here, myself included, who has not posted the wrong thing in the wrong place. I'm not saying that happened here, but If you think so you're well withing your rights to say so. If you wanted to counter each of his points with the "strawman" claim I wouldn't have said anything. My problem wasn't with what you said, but how you said it. You may claim he doesn't deserve any better, but the rest of us certainly do. Your attack served no purpose other than to demean a fellow member, so I'm going to stand by my "Troll" comments.

Did I not say I wasn't addressing Darkfish?

Can you not follow the simple 1,2,3. If you don't want to address what darkfish wrote then don't quote an exchange involving what he wrote.

Having a laugh is all well and good, but you attempted to do so by being rude and insulting rather than funny, and you failed.

An imaginary alternate reality complete with a man of straw is perfect for the purpose, the other made to measure one is Donkey Oaty.

Irrelevant, as I was only addressing your attack.

Yet you said you didn't know, so I asked about two British posters who had already commented on the subject as perhaps their local knowledge might give you some leads.

Even if you were right about August you stooped to mockery and insult rather than argument

No I put forward the arguement that his points were strawmen.
Try these two for size...."Speed limits are supposed to prevent traffic accidents, accidents still happen so speed limits don't do what they are meant to do."
"The policeman said I failed to stop at the stop sign but I applied the brake to slow down so he is wrong"
Do they need any return comment beyond stating that they are false arguements? One of them even manages to equal his getting three wrongs in one line

That's the point. American gun-control advocates don't point to any legislation.

Which advocates? Surely someone who is advocating legislation has some legislative proposals in mind or some examples of other legislation.
What you have there Steve is the unthinking extreme fringe of the Brady bunch which is for a gun control position like quoting Jerry Falwell in a topic about the causes of terrorism.

They just point out that Britain has better gun control that the US, and they have a lower gun crime rate.

"Better" is such a subjective word that it doesn't fit at all. Plus of course the "gun crime" rates can not be directly compared.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Can you not follow the simple 1,2,3. If you don't want to address what darkfish wrote then don't quote an exchange involving what he wrote.

Did August twist Darkfish's words? That's between them, and you if you care to get involved. Did I twist Darkfish's words? No, I did not.

An imaginary alternate reality complete with a man of straw is perfect for the purpose, the other made to measure one is Donkey Oaty.

It's only perfect in your confused world. To the rest of us it's trolling.

Yet you said you didn't know, so I asked about two British posters who had already commented on the subject as perhaps their local knowledge might give you some leads.

Which is why I said "I don't know". I'm willing to learn, which is why I asked.

No I put forward the arguement that his points were strawmen.

You put forth no argument at all, you merely mocked, adding nothing to the conversation. That looks like trolling to me.

Try these two for size...."Speed limits are supposed to prevent traffic accidents, accidents still happen so speed limits don't do what they are meant to do."
"The policeman said I failed to stop at the stop sign but I applied the brake to slow down so he is wrong"
Do they need any return comment beyond stating that they are false arguements? One of them even manages to equal his getting three wrongs in one line

Yes, they do need return comment. While it's obvious to me they are false I would still feel the need to show why. To counter them with irrelevant jokes involving well-know fictional characters and nothing else isn't argument, it's trolling.

Which advocates? Surely someone who is advocating legislation has some legislative proposals in mind or some examples of other legislation.

What you have there Steve is the unthinking extreme fringe of the Brady bunch which is for a gun control position like quoting Jerry Falwell in a topic about the causes of terrorism.

Now you're actually making some sense, and you're right. My "advocates" are usually the ones you described, but here they are legion, and they are loud, and they are scary, at least to me. On the other hand, the Brady bunch, as you wittily called them, have gotten legislation passed, and it is dangerous legislation.

"Better" is such a subjective word that it doesn't fit at all. Plus of course the "gun crime" rates can not be directly compared.[/QUOTE]
But when pro-gun advocates say the same thing they are told that they're mincing words, and yes the rates can be compared. True or not, that's what we live with here, and that's what we respond to.

Did August twist Darkfish's words?

Hmmmm...thats a hard one, I wonder if it was written down somewhere

Did I twist Darkfish's words? No, I did not.

Who said that?
Lets see some important words....."just statements like this one"
statements like what one? ah of course the one you quote when you said "this one."
So that was an exchange following from where darkfish noted that august was plainly and undeniably changing what Darkfish had written to make a false position to knock just like he earlier had set up some more strawmen to tilt at, it is even funnier when that particular exchange followed another challenge that August was simply setting up strawmen and he proved it himself by doing it to the challenge.

You put forth no argument at all

Saying an arguement is a false one is putting forward an arguement, August kindly proved that arguement correct just before you stepped in.

It's only perfect in your confused world. To the rest of us it's trolling.

Which is why I said "I don't know". I'm willing to learn, which is why I asked.

Which is why I asked which is why you asked which is why I asked which is why you asked....... would you like to follow that particular exchange back?

Yes, they do need return comment

You think so?

While it's obvious to me they are false I would still feel the need to show why

Do you really feel it is needed to fully explain the obvious?
Maybe you had a point, perhaps augusts strawmen arguements were not completely plain to see even though they were obvious, but then again your comment came after he had put a false arguement in plain lettering and it was shown to be undeniably so.

To counter them with irrelevant jokes involving well-know fictional characters and nothing else isn't argument, it's trolling.

That is a matter of perception.

Now you're actually making some sense, and you're right.

Sorry, correct that please.
Though on a return to an earlier item which people seem to want to avoid. Do you think the much publicised soccer-mom really put a hole in that particular pro gun arguement when she went and got her head blown off?

My "advocates" are usually the ones you described, but here they are legion, and they are loud, and they are scary, at least to me.

Empty vessels, you will also find that the broadcast voices at gun nut weekly appear wide spread and very loud but are the fringe and are unable to produce any real sense.

On the other hand, the Brady bunch, as you wittily called them, have gotten legislation passed, and it is dangerous legislation.

Now that is interesting, would you take a few examples andsay it is more dangerous than the legislation it replaced, less dangerous than the legislation or more or less dangerous than no legislation.

yes the rates can be compared

No, for starters they would cover a different set of laws and different socio/eco conditions plus both would have a different way of counting plus as the UK figures are the ones mentioned here they have heavily changed the way the data is recorded in Britain several times over the past two decades so you are unable to determine trends over the time and match them to the changes in firearms legislation.