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)1 Straw man: 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?
By omitting ggjohn's text you clipped it. In 'fuller' context (next paragraph), with ggjohns sentence as the basis for what I wrote, it's clear what I was referring to. I also list the proper link, since you did not - you erred posting your link.
gg: .. it can't be proven that there are less homes with firearms in them, more than likely, more and more firearms owners are refusing to admit that they do have a firearm to an anonymous person on the phone, in person, on an internet poll.
jimmy replied: Some polls I have seen have a column which accounts for 'refused to answer', & percents have been rising over the past couple decades, but not significantly to overall rates. And since this is disclosed, shouldn't be given much concern as to validity of the polls. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=163196
2 straw man: 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?
..referring to straw man saying: In any case, I'm not here to defend anyone's work but my own
In any case: Also, at all events; in any event. No matter what happens, certainly; also, whatever the fact is, anyway. In any case dates from the second half of the 1800s, at all events from about 1700, and in any event from the 1900s. For an antonym, see in no case. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+any+case .... in any case whatever happens
Your turn, straw man, post a link where 'in any case' means 'the preceding wasn't the real issue'.
I think straw man might be confusing 'in any case' with 'nevertheless'.
3 straw man: No -- I did not concede that I had "erred." In fact, your meaning only became clear after you clarified it.
It was accurate enough as first written, tho I had to 'explain' it 2 or 3 times before you realized you were wrong, continuing to mock, & then you conceded you were wrong even tho you blamed me for your errant jump to conclusion: straw man conceding he was wrong: Now your contention is clear -- it was not clear before, due to your vagueness and inaccurate word choices.
4 straw man: 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.
No it didn't, that was you jumping to a wrong conclusion, your rush to a malicious judgement. I think ezra knew what I was referring back to, since I was replying to him.
5 straw man: However, your contention is still nonsense. It is virtually impossible to get that level of accuracy at speed from a .223 handgun, even at point blank distances.
You need get off your high horse. You are not the one to be talking about the .223 bullet due to your ignorance of its characteristics. You did not understand the .223 fragmenting characteristics, hitting a soft or hard target, & thought it would be more likely to fragment upon hitting a hard target: straw man's 'unexpertise' with the .223: So your contention is that the bullet will fragment less on impact with a hard target than it does on impact with a soft target? Peculiar indeed. Remember that we're not talking about hollowpoints here. Do you have a reference for this? Perhaps you're thinking of the legendary "tumbling" of the .223 round on contact with a soft target, something that wouldn't be an issue with a hard target.
Yes indeedy I was contenting the .223 bullet will tend to fragment in a soft target & tend to remain intact hitting a hard target like 3/8" steel helmets. You didn't know? obviously you didn't know, I schooled you. I've been discussing this bullet for over 15 years, since I first became interested in the m16 & ar15, and after having shot the m16 in the navy.
So get off your high horse straw man, & stop pretending you're an expert, when you're clearly not.
Before I respond to any further crap from you, straw man, you will need supply the recoil rating for the .223 from a few of those handguns you posted, so we can compare & contrast the ar15 & m16 rifles with the .223 shooting handguns. Don't just pick the high end, post a few.
6 straw man: 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.
'Both of which' are dangerous, & in my sentence 'both of which' is understood by knowledgeable readers, those following what I was saying. Gonzo journalists need not care much about nit pickers like you (tho I can't stand HST).
You are a pro gun sanctimonious charlatan nit picking over precise semantics, which is hardly practiced here by most all posters, so why don't you shut up about it?