Keep parsing.Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑ I know what I said. In the same post I was talking about violent crime, where in the first sentence I said violent crime, I did not qualify "Crime" with violent. Although every other post on that subject I did.
You lose. Now post the offending comment, in full, in context using the quote function.
You won't because it causes you argument to crash and burn.
R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:49 pm » wrote: ↑ You must be joking....
This rests on the qualification of crime as "violent"?
As opposed to what?
Who needs a gun to commit crime against property?
If you're running from your own words, and in conflict with the facts, where are you "winning"?
Wouldn't that make YOU "anal"?Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑ Every other post I use violent crime as I did in that post. Also In that post I did not qualify it in one sentence.
You are an anal idiot. That is why you are single. No one can stand your ***/
R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑ If you're running from your own words, and in conflict with the facts, where are you "winning"?
I will say that more guns apparently DO NOT equate to more violent crime.Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 1:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Here are the facts of the discussion before you attempted to hijack.
1. Violent crime is down.
2. Firearm sales have been at a record pace.
3. To this point the theory that more firearms means more violent crime is false at this time.
9 more "mass shootings" spread out among 335 Million people [that's 9 divided by 335,000,000 which equals zero point zero point zero point zero point zero ] which is a ridiculously tiny percentage that only some totally hysterical and hype drive QUEER BITCH LIKE YOU would try to present any other way.R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑ That's some serious logic, and even better math....depressingly Level 0.27, but nevertheless..
The population has increased by a FACTOR of 1.44.
Mass shootings have risen by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
Yes, it does.Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑ I have reposted it twice. That does not constitute running from my words. Idiot.
No, your original argument was I had taken two stands. I obviously did not.R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 1:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Wouldn't that make YOU "anal"?
I'm correct. The 2 statements are in conflict.
One of them has been entirely debunked.
Go fingerdiddle your cat, cretin.GHETTOBLASTER » 18 Dec 2023, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑ 9 more "mass shootings" spread out among 335 Million people [that's 9 divided by 335,000,000 which equals zero point zero point zero point zero point zero ] which is a ridiculously tiny percentage that only some totally hysterical and hype drive QUEER BITCH LIKE YOU would try to present any other way.
R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes, it does.
Because you don't address the words in question.
R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑ I will say that more guns apparently DO NOT equate to more violent crime.
Is it "false" or "apparently" so?
If the 2 statements posted by you are in conflict?Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑ No, your original argument was I had taken two stands. I obviously did not.
No...that's the wonder of words.Huey » 18 Dec 2023, 2:06 pm » wrote: ↑ You ca take it anyway you want. You are now in face saving mode because you have been so thoroughly trounced on this thread. Still waiting on your stand.
R.Suave » 18 Dec 2023, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑ If the 2 statements posted by you are in conflict?
Most certainly.
But you're the guy who declared Grifty 2ndBesty, but now reject him in favor of the "Warm Body of the Month"
Your instantaneous replies speak volumes about how miserable and lonely life must be for you.