Should America Ban Guns

[Surgeon]

The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.

Never knew that making points of order about the debate process was acceptable let alone encouraged in the "rants and debates" sub-forum.

However, does this not directly contradict your rule stating that all posts in a thread should be on-topic? Critiquing my method of "pulling information out of my ass" hardly seems to be a relevant or appropriate answer to whether or not America should ban guns.

[enwiabe]

The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.

Never knew that making points of order about the debate process was acceptable let alone encouraged in the "rants and debates" sub-forum.

However, does this not directly contradict your rule stating that all posts in a thread should be on-topic? Critiquing my method of "pulling information out of my ass" hardly seems to be a relevant or appropriate answer to whether or not America should ban guns.

Wow, are you really that desperate to try and score a point? You just won't quit. You really think fact-checking debate points isn't on-topic? Holy crap.

[Surgeon]

The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.

Never knew that making points of order about the debate process was acceptable let alone encouraged in the "rants and debates" sub-forum.

However, does this not directly contradict your rule stating that all posts in a thread should be on-topic? Critiquing my method of "pulling information out of my ass" hardly seems to be a relevant or appropriate answer to whether or not America should ban guns.

Wow, are you really that desperate to try and score a point? You just won't quit. You really think fact-checking debate points isn't on-topic? Holy crap.

It isn't in my nature to quit. Nothing personal, enwibee.

Pointing out incorrect facts and rectifying a fallacious comment made by someone is justified.

Attacking them (when they haven't even said that they are certain about the statistic) and speaking about the connotations of the word "probably" is generally not. Or so I would have thought.

[enwiabe]

It isn't in my nature to quit. Nothing personal, enwibee.

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

Attacking them (when they haven't even said that they are certain about the statistic) and speaking about the connotations of the word "probably" is generally not. Or so I would have thought.

I attacked the statement, not you. You were simply unable to delineate the two.

Being intransigent is nothing to be proud of. It does nothing but make you look like an arrogant fool. I am now pointing out your character flaws, yes, but the original statement did nothing but call your statement dumb and your position ignorant.

[Surgeon]

"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.

You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?"

Explain to me, is this more or less attacking me along with the statement?

No need to bring in my personal character flaws that you have perceived into this.

[enwiabe]

"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.

You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?"

Explain to me, is this more or less attacking me along with the statement?

No need to bring in my personal character flaws that you have perceived into this.

I definitely addressed all of that above, so I'm happy for that reply ^ to be the last word that you so clearly desire . Or if you need another reply as well, go for it.

[Surgeon]

"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.

You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?"

Explain to me, is this more or less attacking me along with the statement?

No need to bring in my personal character flaws that you have perceived into this.

I definitely addressed all of that above, so I'm happy for that reply ^ to be the last word that you so clearly desire . Or if you need another reply as well, go for it.

I don't necessarily want the last word in any discussion, let a lone this one. Too often you hide behind "attacking an idea" or "attacking a statement" to avoid responsibility for your actions. You and I both know very well that you weren't attacking merely the statement itself. Perks of being the founder of the forum, eh, enwibee?

[Yendall]

Yeah, I think they should be banned. Too many people abuse the privilege of owning them.

[Scooby]

Not again... 

[spectroscopy]

really its their country and only 26% of people support stricter gun control, it is ashame there are so many massacres but their per capita intentional homicide rate is actually quite low (4.7 murders for every 100,000 people) honduras' is 87 !
+ these are tumultous times in the us, murder rates will rise
overall the fact of the matter is we have no right to judge whether a country should adjust their firearm laws if ours are completely different. if it was as easy to get guns here or in britain as it was in the us we'd have a similiar/higher murder rate, but americans dont want guns to be banned and most are happy to live with the additional risk that brings
the question is whether or not sentencing should be pushed up to demotivate potential murderers.