Reply #33: oh no, Paco!

[iverglas]

Jeez you sound like Rumfeld

Not the dreaded commentary on my syntax! I'm wounded, I say; cut to the quick.

Here's what you said:

So you think that it's ok to have guns here?
You are a confusing one, iverglas.

You seem to think that I think that it's not "ok" for people to have firearms in the US. Or that I think something else that would be incompatible with "it's okay to have guns <in the US>". Where would you have got that notion? Where would you even have got the notion that I express opinions about how things in the US that don't affect me, or mine, or others outside the US, should be? (And if you didn't get that notion somewhere, how did it occur to you?)

Hmmm. I can't think. (Hey, feel free to quote that one, y'all.)


Here's what I had said in this thread (particularly relevant bit underlined for your comprehending-the-point ease):

So it makes perfect sense to try to address the supply problem as well.

And since the root of that problem lies outside Canada, it makes perfect sense to go to the owner of the root and seek its cooperation. Pretty much all Layton would likely be asking for would be exactly what a whole lot of USAmericans are asking for too -- starting with requiring that all purchasers of firearms at gun shows undergo background checks. Joint BATFE-Toronto Police Service investigations have established that firearms purchased at gun shows in northeastern states account for a hugely disproportionate share of firearms used in crimes in Toronto. Close the loophole, make the neighbours happy, make yourselves safer. Win-win.

And yet here you are, apparently inferring from this -- or something else (which would be ... what?) that I don't think that people in the US should have firearms.

That's quite a magic trick.

I was asking you a simple question.

And I do have to admire the novel tactic. Instead of asking a "so you think ...?" question that plants the idea in the reader's mind that the person being questioned thinks something s/he doesn't think, yours plants the idea in the reader's mind that the person doesn't truly think something she evidently claims or might claim to think.

I'm so sorry if I'm misreading the subtext. Do you really, really think that The UN should step in and issue a ban on all firearms? Do you really, really have some notion to advance as to just how the UN might go about "stepping in" thus?

And what, pray, are your thoughts on Jack's thoughts? You posted the story; have you no thoughts about it?