Reply #82: oh dear oh dear

[iverglas]

I read what you linked to, and IT SAYS NOTHING about "self-defence".
It seems that you were wrong, and that the pamphlet does in fact say something about self-defense.

Yes, stupid me. I was a fool to think you recalled the subject of our conversation, and would, er, assume that my statement related to it.

The pamphlet said nothing RELEVANT TO YOUR CLAIM that the group claimed that there was no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defence, or however it goes.

You quote the pamphlet:

"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense."

Let's see. I am about 30 times more likely to go to sleep tonight than I am not to go to sleep tonight.

Would you claim that I have just said that I never fail to go to sleep at night?

If you did, your claim would be false. About once a month, on average, I work through the night and don't go to sleep until the next night.

So if I say that I'm 30 times more likely to go to sleep at night than I am not to go to sleep, I HAVE NOT SAID that I never fail to go to sleep at night.

When the group in question says that a firearm is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense, IT HAS NOT SAID that there is no such thing as legitimate, successful self-defence.

I know it, you know it, the entire world knows it.


1) In the pamphlet, the above quotation _____.

was included to illustrate the risks of keeping a firearm in the home.

Pretty fucking obvious. To me, to you, to the entire world.


2) Iverglass is _____.
(a) in bad faith
(b) a fool

Whatever your name is _____.
(a) so naïve that he thought he could wander into the DU Guns forum and spew any old shit and everybody would pretend to think it was a bouquet of violets;
(b) really pissed that this turned out not to be the case; or
(c) both of the above.