I have no problem, none at all, with other bloggers quoting my words from one or more blog posts. If they want to use them to try to show I have a "lame" argument, fine. Just do me one favor and make sure the quote is: a) correct and complete, and b) unchanged from the context intended. If either or both of those isn't done then I don't consider the tactics used to be "cricket" and I don't regard the counter arguments as valid. Instead, they are egregious and based upon a distortion of the original.
A case in point concerns a post of mine on gun insanity from several days ago, in which I argued that had the Roanoke killer Vester Flanagan ONLY been armed with a knife, he'd never have been able to inflict the level of damage he did with his Glock 9mm. Evidently, a pro-gun enthusiast blogger didn't cotton to my take and tried to use my own quote against me - to show my argument was "lame".
Problem is, his method was dishonest. For while he correctly quoted the first segment, i.e. "If gun sales were as limited in this country as in others, Flanagan might not have been able to carry out his foul deed", he totally left out the context and the specific hypothetical condition: i.e. that Flanagan was armed only with a KNIFE. That was the hypothetical I applied, not that he could get a "bomb" or do anything else, like "getting a gun from a ghetto" (?!) Hence, it wasn't kosher or cricket to change the conditions to try and shoot down the argument in a more facile way! (Resorting to the "straw man" fallacy.)
It's tempting, of course, to interject red herrings like "bombs" - gun types do it all the time. But they either take the rest of us for lacking common sense, or they lack it. A bomb, after all, has to be carefully assembled and one screw up and kA-BOOM. The guy is blown to bits without completing his goal. In the end, given the complexities, it'd always be easier to choose a knife than a bomb. So, it's a red herring to drag a bomb into the mix when the hypothetical condition sets out a knife. Obviously, Mr. Pro Gun couldn't squirm out of the given hypothetical so dragged in a bomb. (And compounding the original offense even more egregiously, dragged in a "gun from the ghetto" in the next breath!)
As I noted, given THAT hypothetical condition - which the gun blogger carefully excluded- it is doubtful Flanagan would be able to kill two people and severely wound a third. The time factor, as well as the inconvenience of having to use a manual weapon up close and personal - as opposed to neatly discharging a powerful firearm from a distance -would likely have prevented it. And I stand by that.
As I noted in my corollary to the pet chant: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"
Yes, BUT IF guns didn't make killing so easy then people wouldn't kill so many people.
And, like it or not, Mr. Pro Gun was not able to disprove that, again using the hypothetical given and without resorting to 'add ins' that I never cited.
The hard, logical fact that gun aficionados refuse to accept is that guns DO make killing easier. Expeditious is probably the best word. Also, from the stats I cited, 70 percent of gun murders happen in the home, not outside it. - or done by nuts. The persons doing the killing were always originally in the proper state of mind but "lost it" in a fiery argument. Then turned the gun on one or more loved ones. These are stats the gun guy has yet to refute, and also, whether HE personally would do such a thing or not is immaterial. He is one guy - I am writing of thousands of documented, actual cases from 2009-2014.
Again, I don't mind anyone contradicting me, or arguing in an opposite way - but I do expect if you use any quotes from my blog you do so honestly, and not twist them around - or omit sections- to try and make your own arguments less onerous.
I don't believe that's asking too much!