nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Reversion of Ed Poor's edit: A total failure to provide evidence, switching the subject instead.
:::::: Virtually every conservative rejects gun control. A majority of the U.S. Congress rejects it. Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control. I suggest you reconsider the issue, but that's obviously up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Virtually every conservative rejects gun control. A majority of the U.S. Congress rejects it. Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control. I suggest you reconsider the issue, but that's obviously up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:17, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''...it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind...''": So now I'm a fool?
::::::: I didn't ask you to continue debating. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your claims. Your blatant failure to do that is very telling.
::::::: "''Only 1 in 1000 Australians commit violent crimes. A higher fraction, by orders of magnitude, have bought or used guns.''": Can you back up ''that'' claim (the second sentence)? I very much doubt that it's true.
::::::: "''If you doubt my 99% estimate, then propose your own.''": So now you're asking me to make up figures to support my argument? Is that because that's what you do?
::::::: "''But don't insist on supporting gun control while not forming an estimate about that ratio.''": I ''have'' formed an estimate about the ratio. That's why I questioned yours, because my estimate is ''much'' lower than yours. But my estimate doesn't have an actual figure attached, because I prefer to stick with known evidence, not made-up figures. (For the record, I believe that gun purchases and use for sporting shooters, hunters, and gun collecting would have far outweighed guns bought and used for defensive purposes. If you include guns bought by police and other security forces as "defensive", then ''perhaps'' "defensive" outweighs other uses, but still by nowhere near 99%. Further, this is talking mostly about ''purchase'', not ''use''. Actual ''use'' for defensive purposes would be ''far'' outweighed by sporting and hunting use.)
::::::: "''That would be the ultimate in irrationality.''": It's not irrational to ask someone to provide evidence for their claims.
::::::: "''Virtually every conservative rejects gun control.''": In America, perhaps, but we are not talking about America. In Australia, where we are talking about, that claim is completely false, and you should know that, except that you've closed your mind to the possibility.
::::::: "''Australia has moved dramatically and predictably to the left since embracing gun control.''": It's the height of irrationality to keep repeating long-refuted claims.
::::::: To summarise, your first post in this section was not a direct response to what I posted, but I replied to your specific claims by showing them to be wrong. You tried disputing a few of them, but by and large ignored the actual refutations, opting instead for a sweeping dismissal of my rebuttals (I'm "arguing against logic"), and introducing a new, unfounded claim. When I question you on ''that'' claim, you introduce some ''new'' claims (new to ''this'' discussion), rather than address the specific claims you raised and I refuted. Changing the subject like this shows that you have no good argument.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)
== Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society ==
== Gun control debate vs. greater emphasis on changing violent thinking of society ==