arma virumque cano (et alia)
Hmm . . . "near-mass shooting"--now that's a term I hadn't heard before. That's not to be confused with "near-active shooter incident," I presume?
Did someone use the expression near-active shooter incidents?"I suppose you're just playing dumb again to make things tedious and difficult, but near-mass shootings are those which don't meet the agreed-upon criterion of 4 victims other than the shooter but still have multiple victims.
Did someone use the expression near-active shooter incidents?Jeez, lighten up, Mikeb. Just a little joke. You weren't always this bitter and humorless, were you?
No Kurt, he wasn't, "always" this way but did have his times. A few years ago he was even reasonable in some respects. But here lately,,,,,,,,,,,
When was I reasonable, when I thought only 10% of you guys needed to be disarmed? That wasn't reasonable, that was just wrong.
What's both unreasonable and wrong is drawing one number out of your ass, but claiming it was a well thought out and factually supported figure, and then suddenly saying, "Oops--that's wrong," and quintupling it--the number that you had once told us was not just pulled from your lower digestive tract--while expecting people to believe there was ever a shred of logical analysis of factual data in the entire process.
Actually, it's worse than I'd thought. "50%" is actually your third figure. You'd earlier proposed 30%, and within a week, admitted that it was "wildly exaggerated":Last week I made a wildly exaggerated remark which received a number of attacks, and rightly so. After reading those comments and giving some reflection to the question, I have to stick with the lower figure of 10%So your careful scientific method brought you to a number that you found indefensible in less than a week, forcing you to drop it by two thirds.This figure, you claimed, this time, really is carefully thought out, and based on factual data:In the end, I will once again call my idea a "theory," and I would expect to never again hear the complaint that I make this up as I go along, that I say these numbers off the top of my head, and as Mike W. so eloquently put it, that I pull this stuff out of my ass.And it's after that that you quintuple that number--a 400% increase, bringing it to 67% higher than the number that you called "wildly exaggerated," and for which you were "rightly" attacked.Do you really want to argue that this chaotic flailing around from one wildly oscillating number to the next, is based on anything but your ever-"evolving" whims?
"What's both unreasonable and wrong is drawing one number out of your ass, but claiming it was a well thought out and factually supported figure"All of my "Famous..." posts were thought out and factually supported." You just don't like the implication.
All of my "Famous..." posts were thought out and factually supported."Hmm--well thought out, factually supported, and at wild variance with one another. That's an . . . unusual trick.So are you saying that your "30%" figure was well "thought out," and that your admission that it was "wildly exaggerated," and subsequent slashing by two thirds was also? And that your quintupling of that number was also well "thought out"?Granted, I'm not breaking it down by your weirdly narcissistic inclusion of the word "Famous" in the title, but by your naming of a percentage of American gun owners who should be disarmed (always, curiously, a nice, integral multiple of 10%)--which seems a vastly more logical way to look at this.You just don't like the implication.That you're crazier than a burning duck in a tornado? I've come to grips with that.