What do all school shooters have in common?

[Byker]

No dad in the house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phuIwHecQ

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:13:38 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Byker"
<byker@do~rag.net> wrote:

>No dad in the house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phuIwHecQ

They don't particularly like kids?

--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

[de chucka]

On 26/04/2018 7:13 AM, Byker wrote:
> No dad in the house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phuIwHecQ

Ban all people without fathers at home or growing up without a father in
the house from owning guns That will cut down the death-rate, of course
it isn't addressing the actual cause but reducing the number of people
owning guns

BTW Jesse Osborne lived with is dad as did William Edward Atchison so
the premise of your subject line is BS

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G72dnXyUSuW8qXzH...@westnet.com.au...

> On 26/04/2018 7:13 AM, Byker wrote:
>> No dad in the house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phuIwHecQ
>
> Ban all people without fathers at home or growing up without a father in
> the house from owning guns That will cut down the death-rate, of course it
> isn't addressing the actual cause but reducing the number of people owning
> guns

So, you admit that your gun control proposals don't actually address the
causes of violent crime deaths, but rather is merely a mechanism to deprive
innocent people of their rights?

[de chucka]

No

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:NZadnYzyrNvJ13zH...@westnet.com.au...

So you lied when you posted your remark above?

[de chucka]

On 27/04/2018 11:44 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NZadnYzyrNvJ13zH...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 26/04/2018 12:52 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:G72dnXyUSuW8qXzH...@westnet.com.au...
>>>> On 26/04/2018 7:13 AM, Byker wrote:
>>>>> No dad in the house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phuIwHecQ
>>>>
>>>> Ban all people without fathers at home or growing up without a
>>>> father in the house from owning guns That will cut down the
>>>> death-rate, of course it isn't addressing the actual cause but
>>>> reducing the number of people owning guns
>>>
>>> So, you admit that your gun control proposals don't actually address
>>> the causes of violent crime deaths, but rather is merely a mechanism
>>> to deprive innocent people of their rights?
>>>
>>>
>> No
>
> So you lied when you posted your remark above?

No

Stop with the complex question fallacy
>
>

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:e8CdnfW71oN-FX_H...@westnet.com.au...

Then you lied with your reply.

> Stop with the complex question fallacy

Nothing complex about it. Rather a simple observation of how you admit your
gun control agenda isn't to address the actual causes of violent crime
deaths but rather purely to reduce the number of gun owners.

Then you tried to claim that wasn't what you said, then you denied your
denial thus admitting that is what you said.

[de chucka]

On 27/04/2018 12:46 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e8CdnfW71oN-FX_H...@westnet.com.au...
>> On 27/04/2018 11:44 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NZadnYzyrNvJ13zH...@westnet.com.au...
>>>> On 26/04/2018 12:52 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:G72dnXyUSuW8qXzH...@westnet.com.au...
>>>>>> On 26/04/2018 7:13 AM, Byker wrote:
>>>>>>> No dad in the house: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phuIwHecQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ban all people without fathers at home or growing up without a
>>>>>> father in the house from owning guns That will cut down the
>>>>>> death-rate, of course it isn't addressing the actual cause but
>>>>>> reducing the number of people owning guns
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you admit that your gun control proposals don't actually
>>>>> address the causes of violent crime deaths, but rather is merely a
>>>>> mechanism to deprive innocent people of their rights?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> So you lied when you posted your remark above?
>>
>> No
>
> Then you lied with your reply.
>
>> Stop with the complex question fallacy
>
> Nothing complex about it.

You're right you are using a logical fallacy

Rather a simple observation of how you admit
> your gun control agenda isn't to address the actual causes of violent
> crime deaths but rather purely to reduce the number of gun owners.
>
> Then you tried to claim that wasn't what you said,
then you denied your
> denial thus admitting that is what you said.

WOW you got all that out of a No or two

[max headroom]

In news:rqedncgOoeUFBH_H...@westnet.com.au,
de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

Not only do you suffer from reading comprehension problems, but also writing comprehension problems.
You don't understand what you write.

[de chucka]

I wrote no twice

[max headroom]

In news:Df2dnZ-V9b4K537H...@westnet.com.au,

And that's the extent of your comprehension.

[de chucka]

I comprehended the questions and answered them even though they were
both complex question fallacies

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:dMudnWSaMqpQFn7H...@westnet.com.au...

If taking what you said and asking if that's what you really meant is
considered by you to be a fallacy.....then clearly max is right in his
assessment of you.

[max headroom]

In news:dMudnWSaMqpQFn7H...@westnet.com.au,

Bullshit. They weren't complex.

Let's see if I can rephrase an Australian's comment in terms so simple the Australian can comprehend
his own comment--

"Ban all people --

without fathers at home or
growing up without a father in the house
from owning guns

That will cut down the death-rate,

of course it isn't addressing the actual cause but
reducing the number of people owning guns"

To which Scout replied--

"So, you admit that your gun control proposals don't actually

address the causes of violent crime deaths,..."

Which is true

" ... but rather is merely a mechanism to deprive innocent people of their rights?

Which is also true.

So, of course, you replied, "No"

Show us where I misunderstood your words.

[de chucka]

but you didn't you twisted it

nd asking if that's what you really meant is
> considered by you to be a fallacy.....then clearly max is right in his
> assessment of you.

max? LOL

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:pc08du$sf7$2...@dont-email.me...

Let me fill in a bit so that he doesn't have to try to refer back to his own
words since he seems to find that impossible to do.

>
> "Ban all people --
> without fathers at home or
> growing up without a father in the house
> from owning guns
>
> That will cut down the death-rate,
>
> of course it isn't addressing the actual cause but
> reducing the number of people owning guns"
>
> To which Scout replied--
> "So, you admit that your gun control proposals don't actually
> address the causes of violent crime deaths,..."
>
> Which is true

"of course it isn't addressing the actual cause .."

> " ... but rather is merely a mechanism to deprive innocent people of their
> rights?
>
> Which is also true.

"...but reducing the number of people owning guns"

> So, of course, you replied, "No"
>
> Show us where I misunderstood your words.

Then I asked him if he lied about what he said, to which he responded with
"No" again, thus negating his prior negative response.

At which point he seems to claim his own comment is now too complex for him
to understand.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:CdSdnTVoQ_U6KX7H...@westnet.com.au...

How exactly are you going to claim I twisted it?

> nd asking if that's what you really meant is
>> considered by you to be a fallacy.....then clearly max is right in his
>> assessment of you.
>
> max? LOL

Who has a lot more creditability that you do.

[de chucka]

Read what I posted and the question you asked

>
>
>> nd asking if that's what you really meant is
>>> considered by you to be a fallacy.....then clearly max is right in
>>> his assessment of you.
>>
>> max? LOL
>
> Who has a lot more creditability that you do.

Coming from you that is a compliment
>
>

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:CPadnYKE188NbX7H...@westnet.com.au...

Yep, I asked if you really meant what you said.

You said, "No".

>>
>>
>>> nd asking if that's what you really meant is
>>>> considered by you to be a fallacy.....then clearly max is right in his
>>>> assessment of you.
>>>
>>> max? LOL
>>
>> Who has a lot more creditability that you do.
>
> Coming from you that is a compliment

As it should be.

[de chucka]

This question? "So, you admit that your gun control proposals don't

actually address the causes of violent crime deaths, but rather is

merely a mechanism to deprive innocent people of their rights?"or this
one? "So you lied when you posted your remark above?"

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> nd asking if that's what you really meant is
>>>>> considered by you to be a fallacy.....then clearly max is right in
>>>>> his assessment of you.
>>>>
>>>> max? LOL
>>>
>>> Who has a lot more creditability that you do.
>>
>> Coming from you that is a compliment
>
> As it should be.

Thanks

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:2Jqdnfvyh5M7vHnH...@westnet.com.au...

Yes, they are an interrogative sentence asking for further information
and/or confirmation that you meant what you said.

[de chucka]

I said no to both those questions, BTW they don't confirm what I said
hence the 'no'

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 1 May 2018 16:51:44 +1000, in talk.politics.guns de chucka
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I said no to both those questions, BTW they don't confirm what I said
>hence the 'no'

Please clarify what you mean by that answer.

[max headroom]

In news:_aCdnWra7YEdk3XH...@westnet.com.au,

So it's true that you really don't comprehend what you write.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:_aCdnWra7YEdk3XH...@westnet.com.au...

Well, you did say it. You denied it saying what you posted, so I asked if
you lied. You said no again,

So clearly you are an ignorant fuck who can't communicate.

Is that any better?

Meanwhile, your gun control agenda has been stated to ignore the causes of
crime in favor of violating the rights of innocent people.

You said it, and you have YET to show your comment was misconstrued.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message

news:pc9r8i$mu3$3...@dont-email.me...

That seems to be what he's trying to assert after admitting his gun control
policy isn't about addressing the causes of violent crime deaths but denying
innocent people their rights.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:pc9r8i$mu3$3...@dont-email.me...

Are you sure that is limited only to what he writes?

[max headroom]

In news:pcb69k$hdu$3...@dont-email.me,
Scout <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> typed:

To misconstrue what someone else writes is excusable; to misconstrue what you write yourself is not.

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message

news:pcbevv$rh3$3...@dont-email.me...

Ah, but that's the point did he actually misconstrue what he himself wrote,
or is it rather he can't admit to reveling his true thoughts about what he
sees as the objective of gun control?