There's a lot of Baghdad Bob in that one....
you... called me out on it? Is that what you did? You called me out on the direct statements I quoted from the report... really, is that what you think you did? I've given you an answer to your question; the same answer, now repeated several times. I've repeatedly told you that I've not read anything in the report to support your underlying premise that, "there was a search for guns... done in the name of a search for children". And I've suggested, several times now, that you actually read the report to attempt to find support for your underlying premise. Apparently... you actually want me to support your underlying premise! :mrgreen: Have you actually bothered to read the report yet?
There's a lot of Baghdad Bob in that one....
again, I simply quoted directly from the report... I didn't, as you stated, assert anything or posit a premise. And again, as I stated, I don't recall reading anything in the report that speaks to your question. I will again suggest you actually read the report to see if there is support for the underlying premise you held with your question... the underlying premise you didn't identify, that I had to explicitly state, that you subsequently acknowledged was, in fact, your underlying premise.
Waldo, you are being obtuse.
You chose to quote:"for example, on the assumption that a child might have sought refuge in a closet....."
As a debater, it’s important that you make points that are clear, relevant and easy
to understand. The use of a verbal illustration or an analogy may help you to clarify
complicated terms.
However, you should remember that examples are not proof of a point.
You not only used an example, you used someone else's example.
As a debater. So if he was any good at it does that make him a masterbater?
Again, that is obtuse. Are you saying that you are the kind of person that calls someone a derogatory name, then says " I was just saying..."
Imo, you need to man up. What you quote and what you write have very few differences.
The real question is In all their searches is there an instance where they found a child in a closet?Finally, you admit to no knowledge or evidence of a closet to closet child search.
I referenced a quote from the author's of the official review report... their words; if you have difficulty with their words, I suggest you take it up with them. Again, have you bothered to actually read the report yet? Have you come across anything in the report to support your underlying premise?
in answering you, and repeating that same answer to you several times, I indicated I had not read anything to support your underlying premise. Are you still wanting someone else to do your work for you... are you still wanting me to make the case for your underlying premise? Cause, like... as I stated, several times now, I didn't read anything to help ya out! :mrgreen:
bloody hell! You're not even an original drive-by arteeest! :mrgreen: C'mon taxi, step-up your game... oh, wait, that's right, YOU HAVE NO GAME!
the obtuseness is yours. Big Time! Do you expect me to make something up in the report that just isn't there? Oh wait... although I've indicated, several times now, that I haven't read anything within the report to support your underlying premise... perhaps there's something there yet... waiting for you to discover! Again, have you actually bothered to read the report yet? Or are you the kind of person that just puts forward unsubstantiated statements/claims - posed as a question - and then you expect someone else to substantiate your statements/claims? Are you, as you say, "that kind of a person"?
For some reason I read "dribble" ..... although in his case the words are interchangeable....All the time and effort your drivel rates.
Finally, you admit to no knowledge or evidence of a closet to closet child search.
All the time and effort your drivel rates.
I highlighted the onus on supporting your underlying premise was on you
It is an act of vanity to think that you are the only one to have read the report.
Spare me the lecture on the onus of supporting your own posts. We wouldn't be having this exchange if you'd just man up.
Make gun makers liable when their guns kill people
OMG.....Unbelievable. A complaint from a gun producer about gun control proposals??? Now try to tell us that he doesn't have a vested interest in selling more guns. Compare that to a candy company looking to sell more candy to children and having dentists and dietitians opinions dismissed as irrelevant!!I agree!
When a gun loads itself, stalks some poor unsuspecting person, takes careful aim and shoots them dead, I believe that gun should be liable for its behaviour.
Currently, though, I think it is people that do the killing.
Gary Mauser's answer to the UN gun control proposals...
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/ISACS/ISACS2015.pdf
OMG.....Unbelievable. A complaint from a gun producer about gun control proposals??? Now try to tell us that he doesn't have a vested interest in selling more guns. Compare that to a candy company looking to sell more candy to children and having dentists and dietitians opinions dismissed as irrelevant!!
Not quite true.....When we first began farming, a crowd of gun toting men tried to get through the gates to go back to the bush. They all had guns in their hands. Guess I was just stupid, because I told them our cows were back there and I wasn't going to unlock the gate!!. I know this was long ago, but I refused. After waving their guns at me for awhile, they left.Have to agree with you there. You are far more likely to die from ingesting junk food than from being shot by a legitimate gun owner.
Not quite true.....When we first began farming, a crowd of gun toting men tried to get through the gates to go back to the bush. They all had guns in their hands. Guess I was just stupid, because I told them our cows were back there and I wasn't going to unlock the gate!!. I know this was long ago, but I refused. After waving their guns at me for awhile, they left.
The result....l got HOLY hell from hubby. Never had candy come even close to that episode.
It seems to me that if you cannot even imagine someone with a gun being a bigger threat than one without one, you have very carefully applied your own blindfold. Evan worse, if you think candy has killed more people through tooth decay, there is a definite lack in common sense that becomes very dangerous to the majority of those of us wishing to live at peace without a gun.