Gun Control & RKBA

Straw Man

(6,777 posts)

46. Wrong again, on several counts.

Fri Apr 7, 2017, 12:01 PM

Apr 2017

Now consider the article title excerpted above being 'A Study of the Ford Pinto'.... The Pinto was typical of the small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973. This kind of car delivered good gas mileage but often...

The name "Pinto" indicates a specific model of car. "Small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973" designates a kind of cars. The title of the article doesn't change that. The obvious referent of "this kind" is the only one of the two possible antecedents that is in fact a "kind." Add this to the rule of the closest antecedent and you have two reasons to think that the reference is not to the Pinto alone, nor is it to the AR-15 in the original example.

Quite reasonable to think 'this kind of car' referred back to the pinto.

Not reasonable at all. See above.

straw man: The rule for demonstrative pronouns like "this" is the same as the rule for all pronouns: when in doubt, they refer to the closest antecedent,

You agree that the sentence wording made what tupper was referring to 'in doubt', by your above wording. Thank you, you make my case. My reply took this doubt into account when I wrote my reply:

The doubt was yours alone. Rules exist to resolve doubt; doubt has been conclusively resolved -- see above.

You may, of course, chose to ignore the evidence and remain in doubt; that is your prerogative. But don't pretend that yours is a reasonable interpretation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sandy Hook families take gun case to state Supreme Court [View all] TupperHappy Mar 2017 OP

Where do these victims find such incompetent lawyers?!?!?! ManiacJoe Mar 2017 #1

I think that your new friends Dunning and Kruger might be their lawyers n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #2

ar15 white man's toy jimmy the one Mar 2017 #3

How often are AR15s converted to full auto? How many illegally converted AR15s have been seized... Marengo Mar 2017 #4

Probably a few but you'd have ask in France or Australia discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #5

"can" and "can easily" are two very different things. ManiacJoe Mar 2017 #6

Anyone who can convert an AR to full auto... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #7

Exactly. But those who get their gun knowledge from Hollywood ManiacJoe Mar 2017 #8

if anyone can do it wincest Mar 2017 #15

I've no doubt whatsoever that you actually believe what you wrote there. friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #9

iconic amnesia jimmy the one Mar 2017 #12

You're are correct, I *have* seen this bullshit before. Thanks for the link to previous broadcasting friendly_iconoclast Mar 2017 #18

That is not what I claimed. TupperHappy Mar 2017 #10

ar & ak conversions which I do not condone or endorse in any way jimmy the one Mar 2017 #11

It is illegal to convert any semi auto firearm into full auto. The law is there. yagotme Mar 2017 #13

Is it "illegaler"? Beats me. Paladin Mar 2017 #14

Sorry. yagotme Mar 2017 #17

I'm not sure about "illegaler" but it might get you double secret probation. discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2017 #53

Used to be Correctional Officer. yagotme Apr 2017 #54

Correction. Straw Man Mar 2017 #29

no cigar jimmy the one Apr 2017 #38

I don't smoke cigars. Straw Man Apr 2017 #39

you make my case re AR15 jimmy the one Apr 2017 #42

Wrong again, on several counts. Straw Man Apr 2017 #46

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #47

Amazed this is still being debated, but let me interject something. TupperHappy Apr 2017 #48

Bravo for the hide inspiring response discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2017 #49

And I thought my response was pretty mild ... Straw Man Apr 2017 #50

neither did I discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2017 #51

"ar15 white man's toy" wincest Mar 2017 #16

proves nothing jimmy the one Mar 2017 #19

"proves nothing" yagotme Mar 2017 #21

gun ownership demographics melm00se Apr 2017 #40

Insufficient data. yagotme Apr 2017 #41

Goodness Blue_Warrior Mar 2017 #20

to agree, or disagree, with oxymoronic hyperbole jimmy the one Mar 2017 #25

If there weren't a correction, it wouldn't be you discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #26

As I suspected you had nothing to back up your assertion. Blue_Warrior Mar 2017 #32

A 500 dollar rifle makes you rich....LOL....now that's RICH. ileus Mar 2017 #23

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #35

do not employ these illegal conversion kits jimmy the one Apr 2017 #43

So, you know such a hypothetical kit would be instant felony to possess and they aren't readily avai AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #44

file your taxes soon, but don't file your AR jimmy the one Apr 2017 #45

You're right of course about the lawyers. pablo_marmol Mar 2017 #22

The whole "negligent entrustment" idea... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2017 #24

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2017 #27

welcome to DU gopiscrap Mar 2017 #28

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2017 #30

You're welcome gopiscrap Mar 2017 #31

I didn't see the post you responded to, its been removed. TupperHappy Mar 2017 #33

of course it was marketed to civilians. It's a civilian rifle. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #34

is your avatar wincest Mar 2017 #36

Good catch, yes it is. AtheistCrusader Mar 2017 #37

It will cost the families dearly but the precedence benefit will prove useful... Baconator Apr 2017 #52