View Single Post
Old 01-02-2013, 07:20 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is online now
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,852
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I am not trying to present gun control in a positive light with this line of inquiry. To oversimplify, I think that the factors that go into the whole question of gun violence are too complex for conclusive proof, of the sort required to completely reverse one's opinion, regardless of what that opinion might be.

And while I heartily approve of your positions, so? I share those opinions, but it doesn't seem to make me more credible in your eyes. So why should it make you more credible in mine?

I have offered nothing whatsoever about England.

I understood the connotation, I don't see the necessity. Droll humor, I'll assume.

If I had one, and had solid reasons to believe it valid, I would offer it. If I found one that said precisely the opposite, I would look for online criticism of it, but would still offer it.

Maybe, maybe not. If one cannot have irrefutable and conclusive evidence, one is still entitled to rely on a preponderance of evidence, an estimation of how likely something is rather than how certain. That does not make it "faith-based" or irrational.

Your post #277. "You are the one calling for guns to be banned..."

Me no say that. Me say "Where me say? Me no say! You show me where me say!" You no say. You no got, is why.
OK, so you are only in this thread to posit some Op-Ed piece as a grand conspiracy of the gun rights "lobby"?

If not what forms of gun control are you for so you can't just question all my cites and back out of the debate when you lose?