Defensive use of guns exceeding wrongful killing is evidence of guns having net benefit.
How is that any different to saying illegal use vastly exceeding lawful homicides is evidence of guns being a huge detriment?
I say my approach is better....
- I made specific achievable gun control proposals.
- Debunk bad arguments involving unsourced & wrongly used statistics.
- Allow for there being merit on the other side.
But to do so you misrepresented the statistics to paint guns in a more favorable light by comparing defensive use to homicide rather than defensive use to criminal use, suicide, homicide and injury, which is a more balanced comparison.
I've addressed it.
You just missed it.
That's not true. Post #80 contains no reference to the studies, nor does it even quote the studies when I posted them.
You regularly do this....become upset, hostile & sanctimonious.
You've also entirely ignored my proposals, & offer nothing positive.
This isn't discussionworthy.
And you regularly do this, accuse the other side of being hostile when they present an opposing view and facts you can't deal with. My argument isn't with your proposals, but with the manner in which you've presented facts, and I am merely attempting to make some clarifications and corrections. I've not been hostile, personal, or insulting. I said that what you did was a deliberate misrepresentation, and if you feel what you did was not deliberate, you need only really say so and try to account for the error rather than pretending I'm being some kind of bully. I'm sorry that this upsets you, but the facts - taken as a whole - simply do not gel with how you've interpreted them, and the fact that you continue to plug the "defensive use vs intentional homicide" statistics despite me repeatedly explaining to you how and why this misrepresents the issues caused by guns in America, and to repeatedly ignore the studies conducted that directly contradict your earlier statement that guns aren't a major factor in suicide rates, doesn't seem to indicate that you're interested in honest debate on this subject.
We all have room for improvement, Rev - I'm rarely to first to admit that in myself, I'll confess, but I do try to be as honest as I can and admit fault where I make it. I've seen this in you too, and I'm willing to bet that you're an intelligent and honest person. I'd much rather debate with civility (and, if possible, an air of lightheartedness), but it's difficult to do so when I'm being accused of being sanctimonious or of "not debating the right way". I'm sorry if I ever come off this way - it's largely just because I can tend to be a bit blunt and to the point, and too many debates nowadays tend to meander and veer away from subjects in order to obfuscate the issue. I'll discontinue this conversation if you genuinely feel it's fruitless. If you'd like, maybe I'll stick to only responding to your posts in less serious threads in future.
