I have no stance on this particular event as I have not looked into it fully.
What I do have a stance on is right and wrong rhetorical practices. You are in the wrong.
as opposed to ike just making stuff up about me not reading the articles I post
Since you're having difficulties with your reading comprehension, I didn't say he arbitrarily doesn't count. I'm saying the existence of one guy being contrary to the majority doesn't discredit the majority. This seems to be a constant theme in how your worldview operates, discrediting and disproving people to stick it to them, like it's supposed to be an offense. You are incredibly immature.
The point you're trying to argue here makes no sense and it seems like it's a knee-jerk response to my implication. If you think otherwise, I'd suggest you start to refine your point a little bit more beyond posting an article and then going on the defense.
your statement was as follows:
it sure does riddle me brain why gun violence victims would favor stricter gun control
an absolute statement that gun violence victims favor stricter gun control
not "many gun violence victims" or "the large majority of gun violence victims", just "gun violence victims", implying all gun violence victims
I provide one counterexample that disproves this absolute statement and you immediately move to joke that I don't read the articles I post which makes absolutely no sense and when I joke that you don't read sources either you call it deflection and then start insinuating that because the counterexample I provided is some guy in congress his opinion matters less than those of 17-year-old teenagers
that's what happened
loving projecting? What? I straight up just said I didn't want to read an article. If you can't get to the point and require everyone to read an entire article before they can respond to anything you're saying, nobody is going to bother. If you think it is unreasonable that I didn't just sift through three articles you didn't even read yourself, then congratulations you're a dumbass.
because that's how you contribute to arguments; willingly not expose yourself to differing points of view
Whataboutism was a tactic invented by the soviets, y'know
disregarding that what I said wasn't "whataboutism" of course you'd know what was invented by the soviets
Also to avoid this garbage fire of an argument from going on too long, gun control won't work. Maybe gun control becoming stricter for people who are felons or have mental issues but uh yeah...
this guy had his ar for a pretty long time, long before Annoying Orange removed these restrictions
meanwhile a day later, a white supremacist organization divulges involvement with the shooter and Tactical Nuke goes radio-silent about this
how loving disingenuous can you get
jesus christ I was literally the first post after the one that reported it
