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?
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.
If you were indeed intentionally talking of only gun homicides. Your wording was deceptive or incorrect.
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.
If you were indeed intentionally talking of only gun homicides. Your wording was deceptive or incorrect.
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.
Killed does not equal(is there a way to make that symbol?) homicide.
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:
But lets look at your next comment.
More than three times that many people died from unintentional falling.
You want to save lives? How about background checks for leaving the ground
Your claim that you meant homicides only is completely destroyed by this.
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.
™ Version 4.2
