Another US shooting..

[Walkie]

FAD has a good point, Al.

Syntactically , quote marks serve the exact same function as the quote box. They're meant to contain a direct word-for-word quote;  not a paraphrase, and certainly not a mocking parody.

What you're actually doing here is misquoting somebody to make them look silly.   If people did the same to you, you'd call them "dishonest" wouldn't you?  and we'd never hear the end of it.

 I dunno.  I've seen you doing that time and again, and it surprises me every time, because  I think that kind of thing is beneath you, as a rule.  I suspect that you've somehow misgrasped the meaning  of quote marks? Maybe playing fast-and-loose with them is normal in Oz?

I'd give up on this if I were you. You're taking an unpopular position on this issue and predictablty getting hammerered. But then, yeah, yeah, I know you're stubborn as heck (aren't we all?) and will defend your opinions to the death as a matter of principle.  Enjoy the fireworks.

[Al Swearegen]

FAD has a good point, Al.

Syntactically , quote marks serve the exact same function as the quote box. They're meant to contain a direct word-for-word quote;  not a paraphrase, and certainly not a mocking parody.

What you're actually doing here is misquoting somebody to make them look silly.   If people did the same to you, you'd call them "dishonest" wouldn't you?  and we'd never hear the end of it.

 I dunno.  I've seen you doing that time and again, and it surprises me every time, because  I think that kind of thing is beneath you, as a rule.  I suspect that you've somehow misgrasped the meaning  of quote marks? Maybe playing fast-and-loose with them is normal in Oz?

I'd give up on this if I were you. You're taking an unpopular position on this issue and predictablty getting hammerered. But then, yeah, yeah, I know you're stubborn as heck (aren't we all?) and will defend your opinions to the death as a matter of principle.  Enjoy the fireworks.

No, if i want to quote what someone said I either find the quote nest or do a generic quote block. If I have it in quotation marks it is the same as say....okay an example:

Jim was very "friendly" with the receptionist. Is this the correct use of quotation marks? What is it telling us, what is it not telling us? Is it honest or is it not? Would any Walkie's in the vicinity call this out as dishonest? I don't think so.

Anything else you want to tell me about my motives or do you think you may have misjudged this time around as well?

[Walkie]

well done Al. You've found a different usage of quote marks. But in your example, that difference is obvious, isn't it? Nobody would think  that you're directly quoting Jim... (well, not  necessarily, though you might be, but that's clearly not the point.  The point is something like: we could call that behaviour friendly , nudge , nudge) Compare your "quotes" of FAD.  Not so obvious is it?  You've conflated those two different usages in such a way that  confusion could easily arise.

Actually I wasn't accusing you of being  "dishonest", Al, just pointing out that you would apply that label like a shot. I was - very clearly- wondering if some kind of  misconception or  difference in usage  was responsible for the observed effect. A nd in the light of  your reply, that actually does appear to be the case.

You might think that the handy provision of quote boxes on this forum  completely obviates the accepted function of quote marks as indicating an actual quote.  But that's not the general perception. People still use quote marks  as per normal, too.  If you're going to apply your own, idiosyncratic  set of rules, regardless , then you're going to confuse and/or annoy people.   But  hey! your funeral. Like I said, enjoy the fireworks.

I'm going to butt out now, because I finally know where you're coming from with your quote thing  at long bleedin' last.   And you now know that I disagree with your rationale,  and why I disagree. End of convo. Not worth having a protracted  argument about, IMO.

[FourAceDeal]

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

[Al Swearegen]

well done Al. You've found a different usage of quote marks. But in your example, that difference is obvious, isn't it? Nobody would think  that you're directly quoting Jim... (well, not  necessarily, though you might be, but that's clearly not the point.  The point is something like: we could call that behaviour friendly , nudge , nudge) Compare your "quotes" of FAD.  Not so obvious is it?  You've conflated those two different usages in such a way that  confusion could easily arise.

Actually I wasn't accusing you of being  "dishonest", Al, just pointing out that you would apply that label like a shot. I was - very clearly- wondering if some kind of  misconception or  difference in usage  was responsible for the observed effect. A nd in the light of  your reply, that actually does appear to be the case.

You might think that the handy provision of quote boxes on this forum  completely obviates the accepted function of quote marks as indicating an actual quote.  But that's not the general perception. People still use quote marks  as per normal, too.  If you're going to apply your own, idiosyncratic  set of rules, regardless , then you're going to confuse and/or annoy people.   But  hey! your funeral. Like I said, enjoy the fireworks.

I'm going to butt out now, because I finally know where you're coming from with your quote thing  at long bleedin' last.   And you now know that I disagree with your rationale,  and why I disagree. End of convo. Not worth having a protracted  argument about, IMO.

I thought it had been obvious and I go to great lengths to skewer people with their own words when they have actually said something verbatim, by searching madly for where I remembered they said something, then using the quote blocks. If I want to mock them or speak paraphrase them in NOT their "actual" words, I use quotations marks to denounce this intent.

Not a big one. If people were confused by this, I had not realised and it was not done to do so. But if people were confused and now know...yay....I guess.

Now what interesting snark has FourAce mustered....?

[Al Swearegen]

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

I will keep doing it too FourAce. You know what I would do were I you? I would probably get cross online about it and tell me how bad it was because I will listen to you and take you very seriously.

So the crux of this whinge was that I was consistent with my argument. Cool.

Next, you want me to back my argument with statistics. That is an interesting a proposition?  So you want me to back with statistics that US culture is different to UK culture? You want me to back that America is not going to go to UK level gun ownership anytime soon? What exactly are you saying and what elements of my proposition do you imagine ought to be backed by statistics and if so, what particular kind of statistics?

Look I am up for it if you are going to stop being silly and make rational points. What are you asking to be evidenced via statistics?

[FourAceDeal]

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

I will keep doing it too FourAce. You know what I would do were I you? I would probably get cross online about it and tell me how bad it was because I will listen to you and take you very seriously.

So the crux of this whinge was that I was consistent with my argument. Cool.

Next, you want me to back my argument with statistics. That is an interesting a proposition?  So you want me to back with statistics that US culture is different to UK culture? You want me to back that America is not going to go to UK level gun ownership anytime soon? What exactly are you saying and what elements of my proposition do you imagine ought to be backed by statistics and if so, what particular kind of statistics?

Look I am up for it if you are going to stop being silly and make rational points. What are you asking to be evidenced via statistics?

I'll give you one point for the fact that US gun culture is not the same as UK gun culture.  Our gun culture doesn't kill 30000 people a year and spark almost one mass shooting per day.  So yeah, you can say that they're different.

Do you have any FACTS at all?

[Al Swearegen]

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

I will keep doing it too FourAce. You know what I would do were I you? I would probably get cross online about it and tell me how bad it was because I will listen to you and take you very seriously.

So the crux of this whinge was that I was consistent with my argument. Cool.

Next, you want me to back my argument with statistics. That is an interesting a proposition?  So you want me to back with statistics that US culture is different to UK culture? You want me to back that America is not going to go to UK level gun ownership anytime soon? What exactly are you saying and what elements of my proposition do you imagine ought to be backed by statistics and if so, what particular kind of statistics?

Look I am up for it if you are going to stop being silly and make rational points. What are you asking to be evidenced via statistics?

I'll give you one point for the fact that US gun culture is not the same as UK gun culture.  Our gun culture doesn't kill 30000 people a year and spark almost one mass shooting per day.  So yeah, you can say that they're different.

Do you have any FACTS at all?

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

[FourAceDeal]

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

[Al Swearegen]

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

[FourAceDeal]

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

[Al Swearegen]

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

Okay, I WILL cede a point because you seem desperate for that vindication and I will make it a big one.

I admit that there is NO statistical link between gun violence and mental health. I mean using Odeon's generously provided link allowing my laziness in my own research:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010 "Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10"

None of these people suiciding 0/19392 has ANY mental health issues. There is NO statistical link there or to be honest even the remotest suggestion that people deliberately blowing holes in their head to kill themselves have the slightest thing wrong with them in respect to mental health.

I am with you. Let's defend against such silly notions.

[Al Swearegen]

Wow! I feel a real kinship with you now. This is what it feels like to be stupid.

But now for those other points.

You rather missed my point about gun controls being a bad thing. Essentially you thought wrong. My point was a little more nuanced so I see how you may have missed it entirely. The whole gun control thing is a crock of shit and the reason is that on a practical level it would not work and it only services to make those virtue signaling this outrage and such feel a warm glow of smug righteous indignation that only the morally superior feel and the virtuous.

If they enact gun controls at a governmental level there will be pushback and it will go to the Supreme Court where Constitutionalists and Republican majority will overturn it. That is IF it actually gets to that stage and you know it won't.

If they make the states responsible for it, it will be enacted in places like Washington, California, New York, Illinois and the collective small Northern states on the Eastern seaboard. Most of the rest will be happy to keep the guns and the bad element will illegally purchase the guns and bring them into the states where they are limited.

People are likely to get all "out of my cold dead hands around it" and any time the government may seek to limit their rights they will consider it an attack on the Constitution by a tyranical government.

Even as a theory or imagine if, it is rather far-fetched and simply like saying "If we all were nice and treated each other with decency, there would be no murder and theft. We would be a Utopia." Same kind of bullshit. All it is saying is, I am virtuous and morally better and placing myself above others to make myself seem awesome. I am pretty "whatever" about your efforts

People in America would not respect the gun control limits you are suggesting. It will not happen.

decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

You DID say that right? So Americans are allowed to own automatic rifles right? Yes or no? If YES is the answer then you are not in a position where you can actually converse about this as you are not well informed. If NO is the answer, then you will have to cede this point as dishonest or incorrect and we will get to another point of contention.

Will gun controls will reduce violence? Better ask the citizens of Chicago 600+ deaths this year in an area where there is gun control laws AND taking into effect for reasons I have already suggest it is virtually impossible to get nation-wide gun control laws , we will imagine a state like (I dunno) Virginia gets strict gun controls. What happens then? Does the gun violence rate go up or down? Where do the guns that people have that are limited go? Where do people in that state wanting to use controlled guns go? What really changes in the statistics and why do you imagine it may? What statistics have you to back this hypothetical?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

Okay, I WILL cede a point because you seem desperate for that vindication and I will make it a big one.

I admit that there is NO statistical link between gun violence and mental health. I mean using Odeon's generously provided link allowing my laziness in my own research:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010 "Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10"

None of these people suiciding 0/19392 has ANY mental health issues. There is NO statistical link there or to be honest even the remotest suggestion that people deliberately blowing holes in their head to kill themselves have the slightest thing wrong with them in respect to mental health.

I am with you. Let's defend against such silly notions.

Maybe they were reading one of Al's never-ending posts, waiting for an actual point that made a bit of sense, and suddenly death seemed like a pretty good option?

[Al Swearegen]

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

Okay, I WILL cede a point because you seem desperate for that vindication and I will make it a big one.

I admit that there is NO statistical link between gun violence and mental health. I mean using Odeon's generously provided link allowing my laziness in my own research:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010 "Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10"

None of these people suiciding 0/19392 has ANY mental health issues. There is NO statistical link there or to be honest even the remotest suggestion that people deliberately blowing holes in their head to kill themselves have the slightest thing wrong with them in respect to mental health.

I am with you. Let's defend against such silly notions.

Maybe they were reading one of Al's never-ending posts, waiting for an actual point that made a bit of sense, and suddenly death seemed like a pretty good option?

Maybe. (Was that it? Really?)