Insidb said:
o_O.Q said:
"I already posted links to 4+ polls that show a decreasing trendline"
ok... lets take the period from 1983 to 1994 (11 years)... gun edit ownership steadily increased to its highest percentage overall and yet violent crime decreased continuously simultaneously...
this pretty much destroys your argument wouldn't you agree?
No, see the already-posted 4 poll trend that shows consistent decreases.
"You posted the "US doesn't have a gun problem" propaganda"
my argument was that gun control has not reduced violent crime in the uk and that violent crime has been on a steady increase since gun control laws were put in place... the point is that ultimately its apparent that gun control has not made the uk safer and therefore,its kind of dishonest to assert that the us which has a similar culture will experience a decrease in violent crime if the same measures are taken
As I stated before and likely more than once, the study's conclusion began with an unscientific, biased claim that directly echoes the pro-gun propaganda. I explicitly noted this, at the very beginning, and specifically debunked that claim.
"Then it would be wise for you to not publicly post, "i'm flattered," in response to "you embody everything that is wrong with the views of a human being in my opinion" "
why not? i don't understand your problem with my response
That's knowingly antagonizing the other poster, and you've previously done this to them (http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=234947&page=5#7) and others, on this and other topics. It explains why they react so quickly and strongly, but I went through your post history and now understand the pattern.
" "lol don't make me laugh," in response to the same person subsequently saying, "I'm not gonna try to talk sense into you.""
and why not?
They won't, because you've engaged them in this fashion several other times: frankly, they're understandably exasperated. You may not be aware of your post history (hence, the link above), but this is not the first engagement with them.
"The behavior is clearly antagonist"
lmao so let me get this straight he insults me and i respond kindly and i'm the antagonist?
what about you choosing to call me a robot instead of addressing my points initially?
april fools ended like 3 days ago man, time to update your callender
When I made the bot comment, I was referring to whoever wrote the conclusion to the study: that's clarified at the beginning. Since this isn't only the first instance of you interacting with that poster and other posters on here, in the exact same fashion, he doesn't "straight insult you:" there's a history (You recently called him, "infantile," "enslaved," "a serf," "a peasant," "clue(less)", "pretty stupid," "delusion(al)." He actually said, "Honestly, i know who you are by now," most likely in reference to that.
Now that I'm also well aware of this trend and you potentially misunderstanding my point, which I hope I effectively clarified, I have no interest in in escalating this situation and will engage you on this topic no further, leaving it to the community to evaluate the merits of my assertion.
|
|
"No, see the already-posted 4 poll trend that shows consistent decreases."
do you understand how to read a graph? when the line increases on the y axis this indicates an increase in whatever value is represented on that axis... which in this case was gun ownership
this means that for those 11 years and many other years shown in this graph that gun ownership increased while violent crime fell
in other words your proposition was completely invalidated by the data you provided
"That's knowingly antagonizing the other poster"
saying "i'm flattered" to someone posting insults is antagonising lol ok
and yes i had an earlier conversation with him that was heated and we both traded heated language but of course you ignore his language(which has always been more severe) and hyper focus on mine
"They won't"
why are you addressing a singular person as plural?
"When I made the bot comment"
you called me an "nra bot"
this was your initial post : "I see you, NRA bot."
there was no attempt at discussion or anything just name calling... how hypocritical of you
"You recently called him, "infantile," "enslaved," "a serf," "a peasant," "
lol resorting to lies now this is getting even more hilarious - quote the posts where i called him any of these things i'll wait on you...
"clue(less)", "pretty stupid," "delusion(al)."
you understand how to differentiate between people and posts right?
i can say that your post is clueless without saying that you as a person are clueless... you are familiar with the english language works right?
an example from the link you yourself provided
"you missed my point because you're laboring under the delusion that guns are the only tools that can be used to kill people"
you understand the point being made here right?... because if you can't make such fundamental distinctions in language then you probably shouldn't be posting
the ironic thing is that you yourself would be guilty of the same in more cases than me by your own standards
this post had in a lot of gold my good man thank you
