Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A discussion of rifle ammunition bans and .223/M855 murders, by the numbers. [View all]Straw Man
(6,624 posts)87. More games.
Do you really want to play this game, Jimmy? You can't win.
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.
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.
That's not how grammar works, Jimmy. You didn't connect your "two separate concepts" with any sort of conjunction or use parallel structures. They don't constitute a grammatical plural. In fact, the two actions in your sentence aren't grammatically "separate concepts" since the latter, "after discontinuing its handgun ban," is really just a prepositional phrase giving the time frame for the main clause, which is "allowed shall issue concealed carry."
Here's an analog of your sentence, to help you understand:
He went swimming after eating a big dinner, which (is/are) dangerous.
Pick an answer.
See how that works?
You lose again.
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.
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.
I didn't "clip" anything. The entire sentence appears in three successive quote excerpts. The context is there. The pronoun this could refer to the existence of the "refuse to answer" column, the rising percentage of refusals, or the relative significance of the percentage. These are three separate entities. To which is the "unbiased reader" supposed to assume that you are referring?
straw man: In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own.
Said after defending two other posters.
Said after defending two other posters.
Hence the disclaimer "in any case." Perhaps you've encountered it, or even used it. It connotes that the preceding wasn't the real issue. Got it?
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:
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:
No -- I did not concede that I had "erred." In fact, your meaning only became clear after you clarified it. This was necessary because of the failure of your original message to communicate what you later claimed to have "meant." Furthermore, I'm not the only person to have read the original message the way I did. The way it was worded suggested that you were comparing .223 pistols with .223 rifles, not .223 pistols with larger calibers in rifles. I might add, too, that even with your clarification, the contention was still nonsense, as has been amply supported elsewhere in this thread.
Calling your post "bs" is not an ad hominem. It simply means "untrue," and doesn't directly address your character. Your calling my posts "sick" and "perverted" comes much closer to actual defamation.
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.
Right: .223 and body armor. Then you're suddenly talking about AK-47s. Back-pedaling, Jimmy, back-pedaling.
What's with the sixth-grade insults, Jimmy? I thought we were having a grown-up discussion ...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A discussion of rifle ammunition bans and .223/M855 murders, by the numbers. [View all]
benEzra
Feb 2015
OP
Because M855 is lead-core *NON* AP, and if it can be designated AP under the new framework
benEzra
Mar 2015
#65
The "straw man" is pretending that M855 out of a pistol can penetrate Level III armor. It can't.
benEzra
Mar 2015
#93
It's not that pressures are different (they are the same), it's the way the leade is cut.
benEzra
Mar 2015
#119
The Straight Dope; Fighting ignorance since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought)
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#101
"It's just they're terribly comfortable I think everyone will be wearing them in the future"
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#102
By the way, that motorcycle suit you linked to? 600D Coudra, not Kevlar. Genius move there.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#105
Hey, they admitted that AR-15 rifles are typically used by target shooters and hunters.
benEzra
Mar 2015
#31
and when some gun manufacturer comes up with a bullpup pistol version, what then?
Electric Monk
Mar 2015
#32
"its up to you to make the case why they shouldn't be, beyond 'I don't like them'."
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#55
if you want to ban something, you go after the least effective regulations first
Taitertots
Mar 2015
#50
INTERESTING. I just learned that 55gr lead-core FMJ (but ironically not 62gr M855)
benEzra
Mar 2015
#88