Summations Only

Its exactly what I said.Come back when you can keep up with following a discussion.In the mean time, I'll go back to ignoring you.Here you go:From Message 2294

quote:

---

I'm saying that spending the money on background checks instead of things like the education and mental healthcare systems is spending it on a less effective solution and therefore yielding a net loss on the prevention of gun homicides.

​

In other words, you'd save more lives from gun homicides if you spent more money on the education and mental healthcare systems than you spent on background checks. That's my opinion on the matter.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Why are you being all cunty? I clearly wrote making it a nationwide law and I said we can model it after Cali's laws or NY's.That wasn't a blanket "Let's make them better" reply. I gave you a tangible model we can use and I added that it be nationwide.Hoooray!- Oni

If its so tangible, then why do I know nothing about it?Throw me a bone here. Links man, links.

Well if you could read properly you would see where I have made a categorical statement that wingnut arguments are dishonest. I did not say your were dishonest. You obviously do not see the dishonesty in the arguments. I therefore felt it needed to be pointed out to you. If you are going to use those arguments than you need to own them or at least defend them. The fact that you refuse to defend them and instead continue to resort to personal attacks speaks volumes.I, in fact, do not think you are a jerk and do not dislike you. You seem to be young and misguided. Your prejudices seem to prevent you from looking at many social issues in an objective and dispassionate manner. Hopefully these conversations will interest you in looking at the subject manner in a more intellectual and objective way.Look at the figures and the evidence. Try to look at the issues with your prejudices held back a little. In order to effectively debate you need to not take offense at things and you need to quit responding to unintended slights with such vitriol.I have said this before. Please take it in the manner it is intended.
You need to grow up and debate like an adult.

I have no fucking clue what you're talking about brotha. I did provide a link from the LA Times that covered Cali's excellent mental illness laws as it relates to gun control. So there is a link.It's a pretty good model to use as a nationwide law. Of course you've never heard of this because I just presented it as an idea.Take a moment and breathe a bit. Read calmly, then reply.- Oni

Oh, shit. I totally didn't see the link. Sorry.Thanks, I'll take a look.

You never reply to what I'm actually saying, or even engage my arguments. You just take potshots from the sidelines regardless of whether or not they're really applicable to my argument. Its a really annoying waste of my time.Like when Xong and I are talking about gun homicides and then you butt in with something totally unrelated.So, again, I'm just going to go back to ignoring you.

Do you honestly believe that background checks only have an effect on homicides?
Do you believe that xongsmith advocates for background checks solely to deal with gun homicides?
Reducing the argument to solely homicides is extremely deceptive.and again we have what you stated. If you were indeed intentionally talking of only gun homicides. Your wording was deceptive or incorrect. Killed does not equal(is there a way to make that symbol?) homicide. If you wanted to make that clarification you need to actually say that.
But lets look at your next comment. Your claim that you meant homicides only is completely destroyed by this. Or if you meant homicides and used this next line it shows that you are using a very poor argument. Or one that makes no sense logically. These next lines would only support the original only if they are like things. In order for this to support the homicide angle it would need to be another way homicides are committed.I know you will refuse to admit any flaw in your arguments, but your later claims are making your argument seem even sillier.Edited by Theodoric, : does not equal symbol

See, these questions are exactly what I'm talking about with you not comprehending what I'm saying. The answer to those question is an obvious "No". Neither of those questions are applicable to what we were talking about. They are totally irrelevant and distracting and have no reason to be asked.Further, you've drug this discussion completely off topic to talk about what words mean and how they are used. Some simple skills should be had before someone enters a debate, and those include basic reading comprehension. oh, and honesty. That is, you should at least try to understand what the person is actually saying rather than assuming they're saying the most stupidest thing you can imagine, and then responding to that instead. Well, a discussion involves context. If you read back to what I had been saying, I've already provided you a link and quote to the context, you can see that I was referring to gun homicides. This allows a person, with sufficient ability, to comprehend that "killed" was shorthand for "homicide". In fact, the word 'kill' can be used synonymously with the word "murder" according to the dictionary. That's the problem with your potshots-from-the-sidelines approach. You can't look past the immediate wording to parse the meaning of the words as they are being used in the discussion. Had you read back and followed along with my reasoning instead, you would have seen that we had been talking about gun homicides.You'd have a better track record if you actually engaged in the discussion rather that cowering on the sidelines and looking for the low hanging fruit to grab. Except that it can, and it did. That's exactly what the word meant as used.The latex code for does not equal is \neq. You can input this: [latex]\neq[/latex]to get: Now, you've moved even further from trying to understand what I'm saying, and into trying to score debate points. Even more pathetic, you're lying about what I said by omitting the most revealing part about what I submitted. Here's my response in full:

quote:

---

"Successful"would be in the order of 30,000.

30,000 what?

​

There were less than 9,000 people killed by firearms in the U.S. in 2012.

​

More than three times that many people died from unintentional falling.

​

You want to save lives? How about background checks for leaving the ground

---

That tongue-out smiley indicates that the response was non-serious. I was cracking a joke.The italics add stress to the tone, indicating the sarcasm. Obviously, background checks for leaving the ground was offered in jest.The are the kinds of things you're going to need to learn how to comprehend if you're going to be able to offer anything useful to a debate and continnue to receive replies from me.

Well, I left that article thinking:"Yeah, background checks are not the way to go."

You did? That's great. Why though?- Oni

Don't really care, but will continue to call you out on errors of logic and evidence.

I've been grappling with this one a bit, but I'm at something of a loss. Which people kiled by firearms were not homicides? Whether you're shot on purpose or by accident, by yourself or by somebody else, it's all homicide. I suppose you could have been killed when a gun fell on your head, being dislodged in an earthquake perhaps; or maybe some animal could accidentally pull the trigger. In searching I did find two examples of dogs accidentally setting off guns and shooting their owners, but neither died.

They don't count suicides as homicides. I think, technically, the definition of homicide is killed by another person.I don't include suicides in the deaths that I want to, or consider very possible to, prevent with gun control laws.

Too many issues that would need to be worked out to make it effective, and those efforts would be better spent on other avenues.