Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?

[Mini D]

Cool curval.  I'll leave it with this:

You didn't really say anything at all.  You just posted in this thread in hopes of nitpicking what others said.

You didn't really say "Surely you agree there are stupid people in the world", and, you really didn't imply that the guys at the gun counter fell into that class despite citing "the difficulty they had getting the guns back in the box" as the only real thing you formed your oppinion on.  Nor did you stereotype them as "probably driving a truck" (oops.. you did do that).

You play what you think are clever little word games curval.  It doesn't take much to see right through them.  You present an article on automatic weapons used in a robbery while defending a statement about the destructive power of automatic weapons, despite the fact that nobody was killed even though "several hundred rounds were fired".  Then, you try to say you really didn't mean it that way and it was a combination of things.  I got news for ya big guy... the automatic weapons had nothing to do with those bullets mushrooming and hitting the ground.

You then pretend that you really didn't say/imply/lie when it comes to stereotyping people nor insulting them.  I mean, just because you feel certain people shouldn't be allowed to own guns doesn't really mean you stereotype... it's easy to define certain types without doing that.

You pretend not to be biased, you pretend not to be stereotyping, you pretend you didn't really mean some of the things you said "in that way".  I know better curval.

MiniD

[Curval]

Originally posted by Mini D
You present an article on automatic weapons used in a robbery while defending a statement about the destructive power of automatic weapons, despite the fact that nobody was killed even though "several hundred rounds were fired".  
MiniD

My goodness...I think you are losing it Mini D, honestly.  YOU were the one who posted that article from CNN...not me.

I merely mentioned the incident.  It was in the same post that I said "No skin off my nose" and tried to get out of this thread.  

(shakes head in absolute amazement)

[Mini D]

My apologies... and nice nitpick.  You presented a "story" on automatic weapons.  Was the article I posted about a different story you were talking about?

MiniD

[Torque]

Hey comon now Nash don't you get it? the overall numbers are skewed by those ethnic populations killing each other in those third world ghettos.

[Curval]

Seems that I can't post without nitpicking...but it is just too easy Mini D.  At least try to stay on track.

Now, in response to your last statement the fact of the matter is that YOU brought up the incident first...on page 3 of this thread (the last post)...I missed it when I posted what I wrote...but regardless....this is what I was responding to when I mentioned the story

"You say there is no reason to have those weapons and I maintain there is no reason to ban them. One is the view of someone that never had a right not really understanding what it means, the other is the view of someone seeing a constant gradual assault on a right that they've had all their lives."

I then said

"I remember watching a news event where two bank robbers with significant body armour got involved in a shoot out with police in the US. The rounds the cops were firing were useless against these guys and they were armed to the teeth with assault rifles.

I also remember the frustration and anger reported by the officers involved in the event when interviewed afterwards.

I suggest you chat with them about the issue..it's no skin off my nose...you live there and I live here. I just hope when I'm visiting the US something like that doesn't happen anywhere near me."

It was a response to you suggesting that there is no reason to ban these weapons.  I suggested you talk to the cops involved as they would be the ones who could tell you whether in their opinion these guns should be banned.

Yes it is the same story...but you have manipulated what I have said in that you say I was "defending a statement about the destructive power of automatic weapons."

Sorry for nit-picking but I cannot let you manipulate what I say with impunity or to put words into my "mouth".

It just isn't cricket to do so old boy.

[Mini D]

Curval, I brought up the incident to highlight that the switch to .223 was brought on in relation to what the ciminals might be wearing or hiding behind.  You point it out now, like it somehow negates why you brought it up (even though I don't seem to realise I mentioned it earlier).  You brought it up in direct response to me saying this (note... I won't cut out the part that sheds light on why your response was silly):

I said:

After that... it doesn't matter what the gun is, the effect is the same... no matter what people try to tell you . Once you start with "it's this gun" and get people to buy off on it, you then have a clear path to "well... this gun has every bit the destructive power..."

You say there is no reason to have those weapons and I maintain there is no reason to ban them. One is the view of someone that never had a right not really understanding what it means, the other is the view of someone seeing a constant gradual assault on a right that they've had all their lives.

You then cite the LA incident and suggest I should talk to the police that were involved about it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say these words weren't spoken by anyone "It's OK, the assault weapons are out of ammo, all they have left are handguns."

Yet, in response to a comment about firepower, you present the LA story (a story more about body armor than anything) as a "talk to them" rebuttle.

Of course, you are right... you don't really say anything curval.  At least you seem to try not to.

MiniD

[Curval]

I just do not understand what you are trying to say in that post...I really don't.  I tried, but I don't get it.  Are you trying to tell me why and how I responded?  Mighty thoughful of you, but you are wrong.  I was not responding to firepower issues in my post, I was responding to the part of the quote I left in..the relevant part.

My advice to you Mini D is never get divorced.  The opposing attorney would have a field day with you.

[Mini D]

I know you don't understand curval.  It's been aparant all through this thread.

You argued about how certain weapons should not be allowed, you provide an example where those certain weapons did not cause a single fatality.  An example where body armor highlighted critical holes in the police department's arming... not automatic weapons.

But... I'm just reading into things.  You didn't say that you should be able to tell at the counter whether someone should own a gun or not.  You didn't really say it's the type of gun that matters.  You didn't really say anything other than I was wrong about what you were saying.

MiniD

[Curval]

Picture me in your avatar man.

I'm done.  You continue to try and put words into my mouth, you get your facts all messed up...but somehow I don't understand.

Whatever...

[Mini D]

Gotcha curval.  It's all me.  It most horrify you knowing I own guns.

MiniD

[Curval]

Last word.

[Mini D]

Yet another lie... used to it by now curval.  But then... I probably just missunderstood "I'm Done".  You see... I have a tendancy to take things at face value.  You have a tendancy to mean something entirely different.

MiniD

[Curval]

Must not let MiniD have the last word....................

[Mini D]

OK... just highlight that its more about pure argument for you than actual beliefs or even telling the truth.  Gotcha.

And this is my last post.

MiniD

[Swoop]

I'm getting this terrible feeling of Deja Vu.