I don't see what you are getting at there.
When you make an irrelevant comment, sometimes people will tell you it's irrelevant.
You could ask an English teacher there at your high school to explain it to you.
Ah, semantics (part 1). This article headlined anti and pro gun forces shows the commonly understood descriptives of both terms.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/politics/gun-policy-two-different-worlds/index.html
"Both sides are so vested in intractable arguments that there is little room for political common ground. While both sides share a desire to keep children safe, it's like they are living in two different worlds.
On one side, the gun rights advocates argue that a well-armed populace can best defend the innocent. They say that if the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School were armed -- or if there were armed security at the front door -- fewer lives would have been lost.
On the other side, the gun control advocates are fighting to protect lives by limiting access to guns. They say that if the weapons used in the Newtown massacre weren't so readily available -- there are at least 310 million non-military firearms in the U.S. today -- then the 27 people who were murdered might still be alive."
Just in case you have not figured it out, the anti in the headline are the gun rights advocates. The pro are the gun control advocates.
Yes, you'd like to use a definition which, because it isn't based on any objectivity, is for all practical purposes useless. That just shows that you aren't interested in effective, honest communication. But as far as expressing your self righteous indignation, you're doing a fine job. Keep it up.
Ah semantics (part 2). Give us your definition of anti-gun control and show how it is the real life definition.
Opposing gun control. It's the real life definition because when the component parts are assembled in that order (unless you separate it into "anti-gun" and "control"... but that would make it even more bizarre and less meaningful than the way you're trying to use it now), that's the only rational meaning. Rational. Your mileage may vary.
My arguments are neither dishonest nor the result of cultural artefacts. Any claim that honesty is down to culture is very dodgy ground and likely to be considered extremely offensive.
Wahh. The indignation and feigned persecution routine would fly farther in the religion forums.
Ah semantics (part 3). That depends on the definition of anti-gun control. You believe you hold the one true definition and I have got it horribly wrong. I have explained my use of the term and it fits what i have claimed.
Yes, you've redefined a term to suit your agenda. But of course that isn't an honest way to engage in a dialog.
Of course you do.
Ah semantics (part 4). So does that mean your definition of anti-gun control is anti all forms of gun control, every single one of them? Also, by gun control do you mean support for all forms of gun control, every single one of them? Does that mean these guys, described as anti-gun control
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nat...ol-activists-launch-online-petition-1.4371430
who want to deport Piers Morgan also want all gun control laws ended, every single one of them?
Just because many people who write magazine articles are crappy communicators is no reason for you to emulate them.
I say the answer is no, term anti-gun control applies to the likes of the NRA and the majority of gun owners who want a minimal amount of gun control and favour gun rights over gun controls. But that does not mean they want no gun controls whatsoever.
So everyone is pro-gun control because even the people who are anti-gun control support gun control.
Ah semantics (part 5). I would accept that everyone who owns a gun supports some forms of gun control at a level of overall gun control that is less than those who do not own a gun.
And since you clearly have no idea what "less than" means in that context, should anyone care what you have to say about it? It's just your unsupported subjective opinion based on what appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the issue, an irrational fear, a bizarrely obsessive concern about how people in other countries live their lives, and the resultant sense of self righteousness. You're welcome to it, of course. But it has no place in a discussion among grown-ups.
Ah semantics (part 6) By your definition of anti-gun control, not mine.
Yes, of course. You'd define anti-gun control as favoring some unspecified type, style, and/or amount of gun control.
I see a whole different topic in effectiveness and enforcement.
Effectiveness and enforcement are integral to the issue of gun control and not a whole different topic. It's clear you aren't willing to discuss the issue rationally and honestly. Remember, you believe anti-gun control means being against some gun control but for some gun control. Your opinion on effectiveness and enforcement and how they relate to the topic of gun control is based on something other than objective reality.
I am well aware of the overlaps between the two, the agreements (such as over mental health and waiting 5 days) and the disagreements (such as over banning handguns). You are very mistaken if you think I see this as you describe.
Given that nothing in your arguments has anything to do with objective reality, and much of it is built on some verbiage you seem to be inventing as you go along, you are very mistaken if
you think you see this as you describe.
Your ability to explain is limited due to your style of argumentum ad nauseam, being offensive and semantics.
Ah yes, semantics. Hate to have objective meanings for the words we use in a conversation, eh? That semantics stuff reduces the likelihood that you'll get away with dishonesty and logical fallacies. I can see why you wouldn't want to involve semantics. Do note that your disdain for semantics is causing you to fail at communicating effectively.
