Reply #24: and

[iverglas]

- People who say that shall-issue laws are known to be harmful to public safety are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

- People who say that criminals will be deterred by the knowledge that more civilians will be carrying concealed weapons are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

- People who say that it's been proven that gun bans are needed for public safety are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

- People who attribute lower gun-related crime rates in states that have stricter gun laws to the effects of those laws are blowing smoke.

The report you referred to as saying the same things I've been saying for years said no such thing.

(And that's all without even mentioning the straw folk you've set up in a couple of those assertions, about whom both the researchers and I might say what you've said, if asked.)

(I'm basing what I'm saying on reports about the report; what I'm saying is subject to revision once I find a copy of the report itself.)

And yet you cited the experts who wrote it as saying these things. At least that's what I deduce from your reference to things I've been saying for years followed by a list of things that constitute the consistent pattern of things you have said.

I'm getting very tired of trying to respond to your constant twisting of my words and your petty attacks on word usage. If you want to have a discussion about this kind of thing with me, you're going to have to start responding to what I've actually said rather than something else of your own creation.

You might want to start by not misrepresenting facts. Like the facts of what the NRC report in question said.

And gosh, if you want to accuse me of "petty attacks on word usage", you might want to cite an instance.

But hey, allow me to note the interesting use of the expression "blowing smoke", which does indeed make it difficult to demonstrate the accuracy or inaccuracy, veracity or falsity, of your statements.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blow

blow smoke

1.To speak deceptively.
2.To brag or exaggerate.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=blow

blow smoke : to speak idly, misleadingly, or boastfully

Who knows? Were you accusing the people you evoke of speaking without due consideration, or of speaking with intent to mislead? Who knows? Maybe you were accusing them of inhaling cocaine ...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=c&p=2

camouflage
1917, from Fr. camoufler, Parisian slang, "to disguise," from It. camuffare "to disguise," probably alt. by Fr. camouflet "puff of smoke," on the notion of "blow smoke in someone's face." The British navy in World War I called it dazzle-painting.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=uk.net.news.config

3. <definition of> uk.net.news.config
To waffle on for hours on end, also to blow smoke out of your own butt for the good of the usenet community (NOT)

I suppose I should anticipate, from that last:

Will try and win a conversation by boring the fuck out of anyone that happens to question ANYTHING.

and pre-empt by saying "so's yer old man".