Don't get the reference, and don't worry about explaining it. You know that there really isn't a substantial "get rid of all the guns" camp. I'm sure it exists but it's quite fringe. By painting them as extremists you've set a false equivalency and it is dishonest.
-
-
Replying to @kpweaver27 @ScottAdamsSays and
Takes a lot of prideful ignorance to continue arguing someone made a claim they didn't
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Ace__Of__Slades @ScottAdamsSays and
He writes that anti-gun people know that "some" people would be safer with guns for self-defense. Total gun confiscation is a fringe suggestion, as I said, so even bothering to state this attempts to paint "anti-gun" people as for confiscation and total bans. It's disingenuous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kpweaver27 @Gino_Geee and
You’re having an imaginary debate with someone who isn’t me.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @kpweaver27 and
Kevin, point to the part in Scott’s post where he “paints” anti-gun as ban all guns. It doesn’t exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Phunk_bot @ScottAdamsSays and
I did already. This scenario makes it seem like those for gun control would take away this vulnerable woman's weapon. Gun control means she would be licensed, have a background check, ideally some training, not that she wouldn't be allowed to own a handgun.pic.twitter.com/x8uhF7DXLP
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kpweaver27 @Phunk_bot and
The quote refers to the most extreme among them. That is clearly stated. And that includes a retired Supreme Court justice, the DNC #2 person, and many of the marchers.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @Phunk_bot and
I agree that it is most extreme among them. When your article speaks of the 'fake gun control debate', and the only scenario you give is one you admit is extreme, you've intentionally misdirected the reader to the intentions of the majority. Again, it's disingenuous.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kpweaver27 @Phunk_bot and
Is clear labeling the same as misdirecting? I called out the distinction you are making in clear language.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @Phunk_bot and
The post presents itself as crediting/blaming both sides equally for faulty arguments, which is fine. No matter how much you label it, only discussing one scenario that is an extreme and hardly realistic scenario frames the story in a disingenuous way. It's actually hypocritical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The example given is that a gun stopped a crime. No individual anecdote represents the whole, but the point is clear and unambiguous: Sometimes a gun stops violence. You have to try hard to miss that point.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @Phunk_bot and
You're trying awfully hard to miss the point that in an article where you accuse others of misrepresenting the two sides of the gun control argument, you only covered one scenario that you admit was an extreme, ergo you are part of the problem here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kpweaver27 @ScottAdamsSays and
That's not your conclusion; it was your starting presupposition.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.