Betsy wrote:I have more proof that our current legal system around guns is failing, and that gun restriction could work, than you can provide proof that our current system is "working" and that we are somehow more safe by having more guns.
Define "deranged". I want as much information on this as you can give, please. Thanks.
Are you saying all the news stories about people getting shot are just exaggerated stories told by the news to promote fear? If you do, then this is exactly the kind of misinformation I am working hard to combat.
My agenda is change.
I will deal with these points individually since that is the mode of discourse you chose to take (but I don't ever want to hear you criticize Steve for doing this again!). First of all, you are constantly throwing out this story about your proofs and facts and whatnot. Well, I frankly do not believe you have any proof at all. You have touted these proofs for who knows how long now, and have yet to yield anything definitively conclusive. There is no such evidence, and I would dare you to try and produce it. Proof is irrefutable. You have nothing so conclusive as proof. And by the way, can you show me in which post I said our system is working and that we are safe by having 'more guns?' Oh, that's right, you can't, because you made up that assumption and put the words in my mouth. Tsk tsk.
Now, you want me to define deranged so that you can go into a lengthy discussion on the psychological definition and what defines a stable versus and unstable mind, and take my word down a long tangent that will distract from my point, but frankly, YOU are not a psychiatrist, and marrying one does not count. Are you genuinely asking me to teach you about the term, or hoping you can use what I say to catch me on some terminology? No, you don't want information. You want ammunition, and I am not playing into this one.
And once again, you are reading my words in a way that doesn't make sense. I am a good enough writer to know that my words can stand on their own without carrying 'hidden' or 'underlying' messages. Case in point, you add the word "exaggerated," which twists my statements to create the illusion that I disbelieve them. But if you
read my words instead of trying to
decipher them, you see that my point is that
we don't need to
raise awareness because we are already
overwhelmed with awareness. The media does indeed promote an irrational sense of fear these days, but they don't have to exaggerate to do it. So, no, obviously I am not saying the news stories are exaggerated, because, well, I never said that. You did, and then you claimed that I said it. But that would be a falsification on your part, and so the misinformation you are combating is thus
your own creation. Why not combat it by not generating it? Because if you read
my words, you see that my concern is not about exaggerated stories or misinformation. It seems the misinformation you are fighting is coming from your consistent misreading of what people like me are saying.
And as for your agenda, change is great and cute and looks great on t-shirts and novelty mugs, but change is not inherently good or evil. You want change? That doesn't tell me anything. What do you want to change? And is your idea of change best for everybody, or is it what best fits your personal idea of the ideal society? Change is not an agenda. Change is simply a fact. The question is, what are the changes you expect others to make?