One thing for sure is that you are definitely consistent in providing no context.  Still just a waste of time trying to gleam your point.

How is the below post not shit-posting?  Especially coming 5 days after it's source was fact-checked by CNN as coming from group that had made multiple false claims in their supposed "leaks".  Yet, the post went (unsurprisingly) corrected by no one.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/politics/fact-check-super-pac-lauren-boebert-escort-abortion-sugar-daddy/index.html

I'm not using the future to define the past though.  The CNN article actually did exist at the time the post was made.  I even placed arrows in my post to show that the comment I was quoting was posted by Jumpin on June 30,2022.  The latest update to the CNN article was made on June 25th, 2022.  Which, as I stated, was 5 days before Jumpin's post.

As for why I couldn't post on it until now, see below.

I've been on vacation out of state with family since end of June.  You can check my post history, and it will show that today is the first time I've been on this site since June 28th, which is 2 day's before Jumpin's post.  So, today is the first time I read it, and thus the first chance I had to remark on it. 

Ah, makes sense.  6/30 was my last day of work before vacation.  I didn't recall if I posted/commented in articles at all that day or not due to being swamped with prepping the orders that would take place while I was gone.  So, I only checked "My Posts" to judge the last time I was active before being away.  In any event, I'm sure that I didn't see the post from Jumpin until this morning.  When I logged into VG Chartz this morning the US Politics thread said something like "55 new" next to it.  So, that was one of the first posts I saw when catching up in the thread today, and why my rebuke of it came 15 days later.  

That's the strange thing, I see well-reasoned, well-presented, and mature speeches like this that are succinct and fair and based on reality...and I wonder why so many people hate this man. 

He's compassionate. He's well-spoken. He's intelligent. And he knows when to defer to the experts. 

Oh, right. He's liberal. So he's the enemy by default. Remember, people hated Obama, too, and there was so little to actually hate about him they did hit-pieces about the colour of his shirt or the fact he likes fancy mustard. 

Granted, he did do some really tasteless blackface in college/high school...but I think decades in politics showing compassion and unity and respect should supercede bad decisions as a young adult. I challenge any of you to pretend you didn't do stupid, tasteless shit when you were a teen or in your early 20s. I sure as hell know I did, and that does not represent who I am now. Criticise my past, but also know I learned from it and grew. the same can be said of Trudeau. For as long as I've known of his example, any bad shit he's done has been past mistakes, his present and future have always been positive. 

I agree, even if Trudeau is not my first pick and didn't vote for him I'm not displease with most of his work.

However he also faced controverses and scandals while in office such as the SNC-Lavalin scandal and WE Charity scandal. There's more but I believe those two are the most consequential. The SNC Lavalin Scandals may be explained as a way to protect high paying jobs in a province that lack those when actual perpetrator of the alleged crime already left the company meaning any punishment would only be felt by innocent people. The other one just make Trudeau looks like a cash hungry corrupt prime minister and reminded population of the Sponsorship scandal which put an end to liberals 13 years ruling in 2006 and set ground works for a 9 years of Conservative ruling.

Don't need to because you proved it yourself.

You imply the defunding and crime rise wasn't true, yet you immediately follow up by mentioning that in other instances defunding led to lower crime.

You yourself are making a comparison of the defunding and rise in crime, to other cases with defunding that had a different outcome. That makes no sense if this case wasn't defunding with rising crime.

So which is it? Is it incorrect or does your point make no sense?

Guess it's time for me to complain as well then. I don't like to, but apparently I need to.

Here's my original post (directly below) and the reply that's led to all of this.

I mention what Biden said as to restricting guns and how that explains the Republican view of abortion and the Supreme Court ruling.

I mention both sides constantly trying to undo each others past and how that's not getting anybody anywhere, so what's the point?

The reply to me is about:

Bipartisan support - Which would be direct and acceptable.

Australia - What does this have anything to do with the US? Isn't this a strawman then? Is that a problem that should've been moderated?

Gun lobbies working with politicians - The Biden gun restriction was explaining the abortion ruling. This isn't a strawman? Did it require moderation?

Seems like more stawmen than not, and yet nothing was said earlier, only now, apparently due to complaints. So here's mine, which would've stopped further complaints if handled earlier. Was it up to me to complain here, to stop others from complaining about me later on, possibly?

Should I just have ignored the initial reply? I've seen others in the past get warned for not replying, yet in this conversation, very recently, I made a very direct point which is about one of their initial reply points, which they simply ignored, which looks as to not have been moderated. Can I assume ignoring is acceptable based on this, or not?

As to making general claims (as in the Abe thread), towards another member or not, in this case, in this thread, more were made toward me then not, which should be a strawman and an issue I guess, but apparently it wasn't. I also see members doing this all the time in different forums. Making claims or saying something that's not directly related or completely off topic and much of the time nothing is ever said about it. I don't really care who says what personally, as long as it's all being treated equally.

-----------

I'm answering and asking other questions. Those questions have a point. Which is fairly obvious since some understand I'm proving their prior point wrong with that question, so they ignore it. Again, is ignoring questions in reply's, or entre reply's that seem illegitimate acceptable? What if the member continues the conversation seemingly without issue, only to have others jump in and complain?

If someone says, bombs are good because it's a huge money making industry, and someone else says, no they're bad because they take life, especially innocent life at times, nobody jumps in and says that's a strawman because the point was about bombs as to industry and money, not people. Both would be valid and both would make sense in a conversation. Would they not?

-----------

Like my replied point as to law control. Which was attempted somewhat recently in the US which didn't just fail, the opposite effect occurred. So they're point isn't justified. Just because someone thinks a certain outcome is likely or guaranteed, doesn't mean that's how it'll play out. It was a poor analogy.

-----------

How does one define Utopia, when it comes to guns? It sure seems like utopia would be getting rid of guns entirely (except for perhaps the important people like anyone rich or powerful apparently).

Here's a recent example, directly below.

They heavily imply it's about mitigation as you say, but mitigation, step by step, until utopia is reached. Not singlehandedly, but bit by bit over time.

Others have also offered this point. That it's not just mitigation, but it's bit by bit until the overall goal is complete eventually.

In terms of guns, that would then mean banning guns entirely (just later instead of sooner, because of push back from gun owners and lobbies).

-----------

Like when the FBI keep saying they knew or were heavily onto the subject, but still didn't do squat, like the police in Uvalde who just stood around and did nothing? The big question is why are so many law enforcement agencies sitting around and doing so little? Part of it is law, which can be changed by the departments and politicians, but it's also about the culture and it's people. Some want less or little (to no) law enforcement, and others want more. Some want (next to) perfect (utopian) law enforcement, while others will just put up with some imperfection.

If the system as it exists is clearly flawed, why is nobody focusing on truly fixing it, instead of adding more rules and regulations to the problem? Less guns won't make the lawmen do the right thing, just like how less lawmen and their tools didn't either.

As to ruining things, I could get more personal here, but because I'd much rather not point fingers or complain. I'll just say there are lots of people ruining things for others at times. Good people ruining things for bad people, bad people ruining things for good people, left ruining things for the right, right ruining things for the left, so on and so forth. Is it all, or any of it, truly ruining things or just inconvenient, irritating, etc? Maybe certain people, communities, groups, etc, should just be left alone to do their own thing and be themselves for the most part?

-----------

If you have guns to compare to knives. When most if not all guns are gone, then what becomes the new top weapon on the chart to compare lesser weapons to? Then those new top weapons have to go right? Can people not get by with just basic knives? Sure, the butchers and cooks can have them, like the rich and elite will have their armed security still, but everyone else can just make do with BB guns and butter knives basically, right?

It's all part of the, what is enough question? In which the answer is it's never enough until we've reached utopia, apparently. The reality is utopia can never be reached because everyone has their own version, and while some people's version is everyone living in harmony, others version is to be left alone for the most part. Those two visions can never be united, and will come into greater conflict the more they're pushed or forced to.

Which is why compromise is needed, and that comes in many forms from both parties, no matter the situation. Yet it seems like one side had been much more compromising than the other for some time, at least until recently, when they finally decided enough was enough, and now they look to want to level the playing field by making up for others lack of past compromises. If enough compromise won't be given by others, then what else do you do if you also refuse to compromise enough going forward due to the past? While not a great way of doing things, by both sides, it seems like the idea is to attempt a covid injection influential type campaign, by injecting hated leadership and taking away past gains by others to push them to do the right thing and better compromise. Problem is both sides as to those situations, tended to disagree and have fought, and are still fighting against them, instead of giving in and compromising.

Not necessarily.

If you truly believe that there is no point in which the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks, I feel like you are really just telling on yourself but I don't believe that. I do believe there is value to gun ownership, however at this point in time, there are numerous things that can be done to mitigate the risks without having a significant impact on those benefits (such as hunting and self defense). 

However, I cannot get behind the idea that because the benefits of gun control aren't infinite, they aren't worth pursuing. That is nonsensical policymaking.

You are missing the point I am trying to convey.
You asserted that the USA and Australia was too different for it to work... I argued as nations, we actually aren't that different as we have similar culture, history and morals.

But I also asserted that even if we are different, it doesn't matter... Case in point: Japan vs Australia.

Basically I destroyed your argument entirely.

I am not proposing any such thing.

But when someone says that there is no point of gun control, because you can't ever stop all gun crime... It circles back to that drug retort I brought forth in my last post.
That unless you can stop all drugs, there is no point of making drugs illegal. - Same principle with guns.

Hence why drugs are illegal and should stay illegal and why guns should be controlled.

Any activity that carries risk, should have proper training, licensing and control in order to reduce risk and instances of death/harm.
Doesn't matter if it's driving cars, doesn't matter if it's serving alcohol. - You need those controls in place.

I can remember the last drug-job I did, but I cannot remember the last gun-job I did. One happens here, the other just doesn't.
That's actually a positive thing.

Keep in mind I am not American, I am not Democrat.
The police being de-funded is irrelevant to our discussions.

It is the right answer.

Unlike you... I lived through a period where Australia had guns... And a period where Australia introduced gun control.

I went from seeing people with guns... To not having seen one in over a decade in real life.

I lived it. And it absolutely made a big and positive difference.

It worked. And we can still own guns.

Abortions and Gun Control need to be a thing. It's what a fair, modern and what a functional society demands.

My argument from the very start was for the democrats and republicans to start meeting in the center and giving issues bi-partisan support.
I.E. That means for both parties to start agreeing and stop fighting to improve and forward the United States on issues.

Constantly undoing policy and blaming each other is just toxic and doesn't get anyone, anywhere.

As for Australia... Again, my argument from the start was Australia was successful with gun control and that if we can do it, you can do it too. - That isn't a strawman, that is using a functional example and applying it to another occurrence.
If you believe that is a strawman, then it seems you aren't willing to engage with evidence.

As for lobbies... I don't believe in lobbies, they are just paying off politicians to influence policy to appeal to their own interests... They tend to have more power and resources than an individual citizen. Not a strawman.