I do wonder why you didn’t call him on that declaration
Partially explained here, with the addendum that I saw his declaration and your response simultaneously.
but instead just chose to jump all over my case on technical grounds
It's not "technical" to point out that you didn't prove the thing you said you did, dude. At all.
If you'd simply argued with the implication or disputed how relevant the fact was (or even just expressed skepticism that it was true!), I'd have had no issue with it. And if you'd actually debunked what he was saying with a source, I'd have repped it in a heartbeat (I always rep that kind of thing). But you
specifically said you'd debunked it and then threw in an extra jab with "so there goes your declaration." You don't get to simultaneously make a big point of emphasizing how you've smacked something down and then go "oh, I didn't realize we were getting all
technical" when someone points out it wasn't really debunked.
Basically, if you wanna spike the football, don't try to turn someone else into a jerk for pointing out you didn't
technically cross the goal line.
So, statistically, and since we don’t receive confirmation or denial for every single shooting in this country, it seems almost certain that NRA members have been involved in shootings in the past 100 years or so. Is THAT a fair and reasonable enough declaration for you? Or am I still playing fast and loose with the "truth"?
I'm not sure where the sarcasm or incredulity here is supposed to be coming from. Yes, that statement--different from the one you made and I responded to--is fair and reasonable. I'd have had zero issue with it if that's what you'd said.
I stand by the use of "bankrolling". They provided the funds for this program. They therefor "bankrolled him so he could become an even better shooter".
Bankrolling
a program is different than bankrolling
a person. This wouldn't be controversial in any other context. If you pay for people's dog training you didn't "bankroll" their dog fighting ring, and if you teach them a martial art you didn't "bankroll" them beating people up.
Even the word "bankroll" was clearly chosen for the insidious connotation it has over "fund" or "sponsor" or whatever. This kinda rhetoric seems pretty dissonant with the disparaging talk about "semantics."
But we can continue to argue about meaningless semantics and avoid the obvious notion that the NRA has its fingerprints all over many of these shootings either through programs and certificate awardings (which, as you note, can be technically ignored in this context) or through the fact that many of these shooters have taken full advantage of the over excessive gun rights that the NRA has worked so hard to expand.
Yeah, I've seen this kinda thing before. Obvious overstatement, someone points out it isn't accurate, person is chastised for distracting from <more nuanced version of the argument that should have been advanced from the beginning>. Nevermind that "you should be making the more nuanced version of this argument" was literally what I said. See below.
Is there a distinction between a member and an organization? Absolutely, but we can differ on what we believe was the implication of a statement made by someone who seems willing to make an unproven technical statement as a matter of fact.
Sure, but I already accounted for that with this part:
If you want to argue that the distinction doesn't matter for purposes of the argument, go ahead, but it seems weird to act like this is a definitive debunking, without making any acknowledgement of the difference or offering any attempt to explain it.
I suppose if he responds with "See! You didn’t provide absolute proof that any shooter has ever been an NRA member!" Then my response would be ok then prove to me every single shooter has not been an NRA member. In this case, thats a negative that could be proven because they either have been or havent been.
Please don't mistake my response to you for an endorsement of him. The fact that I think your response to him was unfair in no way implies that he's right, and my disagreeing with you is not some stealth way to take his side.
I think the problem here is that this is a serious issue and it's very easy to regard criticism, fair or not, as some kind of annoying roadblock to a righteous cause. Kinda reminds me of the whole "punching Nazis" in the face debate, where some people say "yeah, you can't punch people in the face for their beliefs" and the other side basically saying "BUT NAZIS." Same thing here: say something that isn't really true or overstate something, and when someone disputes it, it's "BUT PEOPLE ARE DYING." I see that as a reason to be more careful in talking about it, not less, and just in general I don't think being right about an important issue should generally be used as cover for cutting argumentative corners.