Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A discussion of rifle ammunition bans and .223/M855 murders, by the numbers. [View all]jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I wrote: Illinois recently allowed shall issue concealed carry after discontinuing it's handgun ban, which tend to inflate early post-year gun ownership rates.
grammar cop: " ... which tends to inflate" -- The referent of the relative pronoun isn't clear, but neither of the possible subjects is plural.
You lose. 'Shall issue concealed carry', and, 'handgun ban', are two separate concepts, & thus justify using 'tend' rather than 'tends'. Using 'tends' would imply only 'handgun ban', but not both, which was the intent.
I wrote: .. percents have been rising over the past couple decades, but not significantly to overall rates.
straw man: "... and percentages ..." -- Use "percent" only with a number to refer to a specific quantity
Percents had been rising. Gonzo journalism.
Nit picker straw man: "... significantly to overall rates..." is vague and ambiguous. It could mean "the rise is not significant in comparison to overall rates" or "the rise is not significant to overall rates." Either way, the contention is unsupported.
This is BS from straw man, pure & simple BS.
I wrote: And since this is disclosed, shouldn't be given much concern as to validity of the polls.
straw man: his is hopelessly muddled. What is the referent of "this"?
Any unbiased reader would see that 'this' referred to what was previously noted (refused to answer iirc), which you have clipped, thus taken out of context.
strawman: .. icon is merely using online vernacular. None of this interferes with communication.
translation: if a gunnut does it it's OK, but if a guncontrol advocate does it, it's WRONG.
straw man: In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own.
Said after defending two other posters.
straw man You opened this exchange with your criticism of my reading comprehension skills. Remember? I'm not about to take that lying down.
With justification did I write that, & by your own admission you conceded that you had erred in comprehending what I had written. You even had the gall to call my post bs & you now don't even have the integrity to retract your sleazy ad hominem:
straw man wrote: I've never seen such a bunch of back-pedaling bullshit in my life. AK-47? The entire previous discussion was .223. ---- tack on level III bpv airhead.