Guns are the problem

[skypilot]

The commissioner's report doesn't say that. You keep insisting the commissioner's report is alarmist, but all this really tells me is that you haven't read it.

Here you go. Read it and tell me where the alarmist language is. Here's a tip: there is no discussion of an increase in restricted firearms. There are just columns of numbers in Table 11-1. Same as every year: columns of numbers. Yup. But they used alarmist columns!
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/2015-co...irearms-report



Ah, yes. This is a familiar argument. I believe we normally see it expressed as, "But if it saves one life...."



I've talked to the people involved on both sides. No one believes this. You're seeing monsters under the bed.

You're being typically naive and deceitful.

Their written answer was a denial of intent and then they turned around and tried to justify their ridiculous billboard.

Were you caught up in the drug sweep with your "sources" Welsh?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/...bust-1.3086680

[JBen]

Just one other thing I want to add unless "called" into it.

Way back, I said I was surprised this was even being "debated". How people react on FB or social media should be of zero concern to the issue at hand. Just as its of zero concern ultimately when Cecil's get shot, there are always going to be people who take to social media and T off.

Was the slogan appropriate or not.
done.

[welsh]

Context is your friend and not one of your strong points.

Um, yup. Lots of room for context and nuance here:
But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report....

Yup. I can see how context could intervene between "alarmist" and "report" and somehow prevent that adjective from modifying the noun, and nullify the tacit claim to have knowledge of said report. There's so much nuance there, which I just ignored.

You had not read the report, but you still wanted to tell us what it said.

Keep digging!

so Welsh,
A) how much collateral damage would be acceptable
B) would "Alcohol is the problem" be acceptable
C) explain why And if not, why is "guns are".

Let me send you back two pages:
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post991078

Please try to follow the thread.

Were you caught up in the drug sweep with your "sources" Welsh?

LOL. You do realize that the Windsor Crime Stoppers organization has no connection to the London Crime Stoppers organization except in name, right? That these organizations have separate boards of directors?

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that I've talked to the people involved on both sides. Nobody who has actually talked to the Crime Stoppers people believes the BS you're spewing.

[skypilot]

Um, yup. Lots of room for context and nuance here:
But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report....

Yup. I can see how context could intervene between "alarmist" and "report" and somehow prevent that adjective from modifying the noun, and nullify the tacit claim to have knowledge of said report. There's so much nuance there, which I just ignored.

You had not read the report, but you still wanted to tell us what it said.

Keep digging!



Let me send you back two pages:
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post991078

Please try to follow the thread.



LOL. You do realize that the Windsor Crime Stoppers organization has no connection to the London Crime Stoppers organization except in name, right? That these organizations have separate boards of directors?

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that I've talked to the people involved on both sides. Nobody who has actually talked to the Crime Stoppers people believes the BS you're spewing.

So you are selling the BS that CS board ran this by both sides of the gun "issues" crowd(according to their own words) and it passed muster? Then you state that you asked both sides of the issue and that has some legitimacy? You're a poor comedian Welsh among other things and have zero credibility with gun owners who really know you. You are unbeliveably full of it.

No legitimate gun owner or unbiased board member would approve that offensive wording on the billboard.

Then when called on their poor administration they tried to rationalize their bias and then play CYA.

[welsh]

Then you state that you asked both sides of the issue and that has some legitimacy?

No, I said that I have spoken to the people involved on both sides of this, and none of them believe your nonsense line that this was a deliberate attack on gun owners.

You're a poor comedian Welsh among other things....

Care to clarify what those other things are?

No legitimate gun owner or unbiased board member would approve that offensive wording on the billboard.

See post #14.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post990724

Please try to follow the thread.

[skypilot]

There was no possible way to meet the "intent of the message"(if we assume their intent was unbiased).

The reasonable interpretation of Guns are the Problem, in Crime Stopper's context, is that "consumers" would report illegal guns via phone.

It then follows a legal determination of legal gun ownership would have to be deduced and a phone call placed. I submit nobody calling would know legitimacy of gun ownership therefore any calls placed would be biased and prejudicial.

There is no way for the public to determine legality of a gun in possession of a person, so ANY and ALL guns "viewed" were deemed illegal and calls would be made. That is the danger created and the bias of their message.

For you or them to deny the ability to think logically thru that message's wording, at even a minimalist level continues to indicate willful deceitfulness and or utter stupidity on your collective parts.

I awake every morning knowing that in the eyes of Canadian Government, I am a criminal by statute of a BS law and that I can have my rights trampled at whim by an PHONED IN investigation, falsely arrested, charged and drug thru a "legal process" that is intended to discourage gun ownership, deny rights and have property seized.

Me seeing Monsters under the bed? No just wormy little backstabbers pretending to be gun owners and biased Non Profit organizations taking donations from citizens unaware of their intentions.

[JBen]

Not biting Welsh, other than to say. You obviously have time and motivation to dig up old threads. To what purpose is both "uncertain" and clear. Do suggest if you have that much time and energy on your hands to prove nothing......... Read the press release in that thread, and some of the quotes -and wording in it. I think you often use an eltist expression that runs like "straw men", red herrings and my oh my isn't it funny how your trying so hard to shift focus, deflect, start yet another fight. Could it be because your butt hurt ( poor you, must really hurt that ego) because people (no one agrees with you on this) disagree, and aren't bowing to your superiority?

Now seeing as how your busy as always insulting people's intelligence etc, insinuating they are dim witted, wear tin foil hats ( another favourite of yours),are caterwauling, blah blah blah.

do try stay on topic, keep up with us.
Is or isn't it appropriate.

[welsh]

I awake every morning knowing that in the eyes of Canadian Government, I am a criminal by statute of a BS law and that I can have my rights trampled at whim by an PHONED IN investigation, falsely arrested, charged and drug thru a "legal process" that is intended to discourage gun ownership, deny rights and have property seized.

Me seeing Monsters under the bed?

You've answered your own question, in the preceding paragraph.

No just wormy little backstabbers pretending to be gun owners....

Thanks, man. I love you too.

[JBen]

Good to see it finally settled.

In summation:
the slogan is not appropriate. It is therefore offside, horribly worded, choose a label. All will be accurate.

Given the above, if some or many take varying degrees of exception. They are perfectly justified, it's "offside". And if some few go even further and spew some vitriol, they A) are perfectly entitled to feel how they feel and B) have some justification.
Again, the wording is "offside".

Which begs the question. Why argue it? Why make something of it. Why.......

Much ado about nothing.
Funny all that (and yes I to could point back a lot further to having first said.
"I'm surprised this is being debated, and some subsequent comments that get people's backs up)

which is really um.....perplexing.....given the slogan was
choose a label be it offside, confusing, really bad choice of words.

people, be they gun owners, or consumers have every right to sound off when ads are..........

what a collasal.........

[skypilot]

It is clearly Prima facie. They state Guns are the Problem. Therefore any gun is the problem. Their intent stands on the face of what they themselves posted on the billboard.

Text has meaning when it is read and comprehended by the consumer. There is no way to interpret their meaning other than Guns are the Problem, thus their intent is clear upon their own stated face value.

The fact that you and they, according to your claim of consultation with "them," claim no intent simply has no significance. The words mean what they mean.

Now they and you, wish to walk back the message and then they further claim it was reviewed by both sides of the gun issue(according to their letter responding to complaints. No reasonable gun owner would agree to such a biased wording to be place on a billboard.

It is clear their intent was biased simply because of the wording AND the way it was received. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the wording "Guns are the Problem" unless one delves into sheer stupidity and/or the lack of remedial understanding of English, society and law.