Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

No mistake. The specific features in question were all superficial and did not make the weapons unusually dangerous in any way.

Mistake. The specific features make the weapons especially dangerous.

oalloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Superficial appearances were what that fraudulent definition was all about.

Mistaken once again. Specific features defined weapons as assault weapons in the law.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I've explained my position on gun regulation thoroughly throughout this thread. You merely negate my position with opinions.

That is incorrect. I negate your position by pointing out the reality that your claims are untrue.

InfraBlue wrote:

I reject your opinions.

That is incorrect. It is reality that you are rejecting.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Mistake. The specific features make the weapons especially dangerous.

That is incorrect. Those features do nothing to make a weapon dangerous.

InfraBlue wrote:

Mistaken once again.

No mistake. The specific features in question are all harmless and superficial.

InfraBlue wrote:

Specific features defined weapons as assault weapons in the law.

Specific features that are all harmless and superficial.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Mistake. The specific features make the weapons especially dangerous.

That is incorrect. Those features do nothing to make a weapon dangerous.

Erroneous observation. The key phrase here is "especially dangerous."

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Mistaken once again.

No mistake. The specific features in question are all harmless and superficial.

Mistaken yet again. The specific features are form functional and neither harmless or superficial.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Specific features defined weapons as assault weapons in the law.

Specific features that are all harmless and superficial.

Repetitive. See my response directly above.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. You are rejecting reality. I negate your position by pointing out the reality that your claims are untrue.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Erroneous observation. The key phrase here is "especially dangerous."

No error. A feature that does nothing to make a weapon dangerous, does nothing to make a weapon especially dangerous.

InfraBlue wrote:

Mistaken yet again. The specific features are form functional and neither harmless or superficial.

That is incorrect. The features in question are all harmless and superficial.

InfraBlue wrote:

Repetitive.

Don't blame me. I merely correct the errors.

InfraBlue wrote:

See my response directly above.

Your response was incorrect. The features in question are all harmless and superficial.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

See previous.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Erroneous observation. The key phrase here is "especially dangerous."

No error. A feature that does nothing to make a weapon dangerous, does nothing to make a weapon especially dangerous.

Features in combination make a weapon especially dangerous.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Mistaken yet again. The specific features are form functional and neither harmless or superficial.

That is incorrect. The features in question are all harmless and superficial.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Repetitive.

Don't blame me. I merely correct the errors.

Unless you're being compelled by someone else, you're to blame for the repetition.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
See my response directly above.

Your response was incorrect. The features in question are all harmless and superficial.

Nuh-uh.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

See previous.

That is incorrect. You cannot point out any motivation for outlawing pistol grips other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Features in combination make a weapon especially dangerous.

That is incorrect. No combination of those features makes a weapon especially dangerous in any way.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. The features in question are harmless and superficial.

InfraBlue wrote:

Unless you're being compelled by someone else, you're to blame for the repetition.

That is incorrect. I am not responsible for you repeatedly posting untrue statements. I merely correct your untrue statements.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. The features in question are harmless and superficial.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Features in combination make a weapon especially dangerous.

Really? So what is it about a flash-suppressor and pistol grip that makes a rifle especially dangerous?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

A flash suppressor can make a shooter harder to pinpoint locate (especially at night) lending evasiveness- making him more dangerous. A pistol grip can make a weapon easier to handle- which could make firing/aiming/loading more convenient/quicker. Thus making the shooter more dangerous.

1 Reply

@snood,

The context was the sort of dangerousness that would justify outlawing a weapon.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It wasn’t stated that way. The question was simply asked how those accessories could make a weapon more dangerous.

2 Replies

@snood,

It is what was meant by the modifier "especially".

The entire discussion is about progressives futilely trying to justify a ban on such weapons so that they can avoid condemnation for trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

0 Replies

@snood,

So give me an example of an incident in which it was reported that a mass shooter used a flash suppressor. Furthermore, give me an example of a public official or law enforcement personnel stating that if it weren't for the flash suppressor on the shooter's rifle, lives would have been saved. The same goes for the pistol grip.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You’re ridiculous, and so transparent in your moving of the obfuscation goalposts. You asked how those accessories could make a weapon more dangerous. I say how, then you ask for “specific reports”, or some such.

If I say a telescopic scope makes a weapon more dangerous, that’s self-explanatory. I couldn’t give you a specific report about a mass shooting showing that, either.

The ENTIRE purpose of adding accessories to a gun is to make it more user-friendly. More convenient shooting=more effective shooting=a more dangerous shooter.

The ONLY people who would deny that are fools or liars.

2 Replies

@snood,

That was an awful lot of words you used there to get around having to say that there's absolutely no evidence that a flash suppressor or pistol-grip would have caused more deaths in a shooting.

Quote:

If I say a telescopic scope makes a weapon more dangerous, that’s self-explanatory.

And if I say that a telescopic scope (telescopic scope is a redundant term. It's called a telescopic sight) has not been a factor in any mass shooting incidents, that would expose your comment as one based on anti-gun nut hysteria.

Quote:

I couldn’t give you a specific (or any) report about a mass shooting showing that, either.

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know