Please explain how that supports your claim that I said I have proof.
Very good. So you didn't mean to imply you
had the proof, only that you believe it exists but, apparently, you can't access it. Fair enough.
However, that leaves us in pretty much the same situation. You made a claim, therefore by the rules of polite debate, the burden of proof is on you to support it. Since you made the claim, I made the reasonable assumption that you could support it, since that's how these things work. You seem to think you've scored a point by now claiming that you don't have the proof and implying that my reasonable assumption is somehow totally unreasonable. In reality, the fact that you can't support your claim is problematic from the standpoint of polite debate--making claims that you know ahead of time you can't substantiate is actually not a point in your favor at all.
You seriously doubt something but even if it's true, most people would be wrong.
You made a claim that most people believe that expressing a desire for something implies a concern about any other outcome. I said that I don't believe that. I don't. I strongly believe that most people are pretty clear on the difference between preferring something over another option vs. being concerned about the other option.
If I go into a restaurant and say I don't want the mashed potatoes, I want the broccoli, I seriously doubt that "most people" would automatically interpret that to mean that I have a concern about the mashed potatoes.
But, here's the important part. Even in the very unlikely event that it turns otu that most people really are confused about the difference between preference and concern, they would be wrong to interpret my statement as if those two things are the same--because that's not how I meant it and I've explained in detail, and more than once, exactly what I did mean.
How is asking you to explain a statement
you made utter BS? Did you see how when confusion arose about what I meant by saying I wanted one thing and didn't want another I explained it so my meaning was clear? That's how it works.
Why would you even get involved in a discussion if you are going to get angry when people ask what you mean?
I never said or insinuated that have anything. I did not use any possessive words.
I get that. If you would read what I posted in post #65, you would see that I just quoted your claim EXACTLY, word, for word, and asked what you meant by it. No possessive words added, nothing modified at all.
You posted this statement--here it is exactly as you posted it, without any emphasis or commentary.
I would argue that the states with Constitutional carry prove you concern is statistically invalid.
I would ask you again what you meant, but at this point, it's pretty obvious what you meant--and equally obvious that you really don't want to admit it.
What you meant was: "John, I disagree with your opinion." But that didn't sound good enough to post--it needed some dressing up. So in spite of the fact that you have made it abundantly clear that you had no proof, and apparently that you were also aware you would be unable to point to any proof elsewhere, you decided to use the word "prove" to try to give extra weight to your opinion. Similarly, in spite of the fact that you have no statistics on the topic and can't point to any either, you decided to use the term "statistically invalid" to make your comment seem more like a statement of fact than just an expression of opinion.
That would have worked really well, except for the fact that I was interested enough to ask about the proof and the statistics. In effect, your bluff was called. That left you with two options and rather than making the proper choice, you chose to bluster. At this point I can't tell if you mistakenly believe that your bluster is working, or if you just don't know when to quit.
) and there was considerable diffrences in both states. ( one had "duty to retreat").
