Reply #83: can you try reading what's on your monitor?

[iverglas]

"that site is just a place that has mirrored Suter's article."

I said that. More than once. My point, which I thought was quite clear, was that the place where one finds things quite often tells one things about the things one finds there. Long sighing noise.


"Do you deny that gun prohibitionists often state "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" or substantively similar words? I've seen this many times in the literature."

Hip hip hooray, and bully for you.

Assuming for the sake of argument that someone has said this, this being irrelevant to my point -- why would I deny it? Why would you imply that I was denying it?

If that is what the author of the article had seen being said, WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THAT?

What he said was this:

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."

Read that carefully now. I've underlined the really important part. The part I was talking about. The part I quoted FOR A REASON when I commented on it.

WHO suggests that "science has proven that defending oneself with a gun is dangerous"???

WHERE in the statement that this person quoted -- "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" -- does it say "science has proven that defending oneself with a gun is dangerous"??

WHY would the author characterize what WAS said as having been THAT, when IT WASN'T??

The statement that he quoted said NOTHING about the dangerousness or otherwise of "defending oneself or one's family". NOTHING.

Why did that author think it was necessary, or advisale, to MISREPRESENT the people he was quoting by describing what they said as SOMETHING THEY DID NOT SAY?


And my question was: why should I believe ANYTHING said by someone who so obviously misrepresents things at will?

Why should I believe what he said about the person under consideration, when he described him as "admitting" something (had he ever denied favouring gun control? if not, why would he be "admitting" it?), and when he described him as admitting "bias" (did he? I have no reason to believe this), and when he used all the other obviously slanted words he used to describe what he was allegedly reporting?

I can't think of a single damned reason, myself.

I'd be wanting some DIRECT EVIDENCE, and an ACTUAL QUOTATION, before I accepted his characterization of what was done and said.


Some people are just easier to persuade, at least when it comes to persuading them of something they want to be persuaded of ... or have others think they are persuaded of ...

.