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

Quote:

the point I'm making, however, is that those made for hunting animals wouldn't be as effective in hunting humans because human hunting rifles were made for that express purpose.

And the point I'm making is that you have absolutely nothing to offer that would support that claim.

Quote:

That's not my argument for banning assault weapons such as the AR-15.

Really? Cuz I could have sworn I heard you make a distinction between rifles with pistol-grips and rifles without pistol-grips. To be precise, you said that a rifle with a pistol-grip was especially dangerous because it increased accuracy and rate of fire. Yes, I definitely recall you making that exact point. And if my memory is accurate, you couldn't provide anything to support that claim.

That does not mention pistol grips..

if you knew logic you'd know the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions. Necessary conditions are semi auto and detachable mags. Pistol grips are merely one among several sufficient conditions.

And i repeat it has always been about the banning of the necessary conditions. Your logic is dumb.

No violation of civil liberties is involved in stopping conservatives from violating civil rights for fun.

The posts he claims prove i said it was all about pistol grips do not.

Youre as wacked as he is about them.

There is the fact that these weapons are based on military issue weapons that were expressly made for hunting humans, the only difference being the absence of selective fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

There is the fact that these weapons are based on military issue weapons that were expressly made for hunting humans, the only difference being the absence of selective fire.

Assuming for a moment that this is true, so what? Why would that be such a big deal? Without the selective fire switch they are still just an ordinary hunting rifle.

Untrue. I posted rhe video of 30 aimed shots with 6 shot. Mags in well under 30 sevonds. Do the math.

And of course larger magazines are widely available but you dont need em. The real world bites you again.

No, you're incorrect. Lack of evidence for a claim does not prove the falsehood of that claim.

Anyhow, what, then, did you mean by this, "I'm not claiming that you can't prove it"?

Yeah, my question is whether or not you have anything at all to prove your claim. As expected, you don't. Rather than concede that point, you are attempting to frame my question as a claim in an effort to somehow turn the tables here. But the fact is that you were asked to prove your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. And you can't. I'm not claiming that you can't prove it. I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.

You continue to be incorrect. An unproven claim isn't false because it is unproven. You're confusing the terms "unproved" with "disproved."

That is incorrect. Human-hunting rifles are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

Without the selective fire switch, these guns are no longer human-hunting rifles.

Some human hunting rifles are capable of selective fire, some aren't.

Yes. You missed it in the video.

You are therefore talking thru your hat as usual.

That is why we need to regulate semi autos with vdetachable mags dire ctly. And thsat would fall withinn scalias directive.

Your cavils would be ineffective.

That's partially correct. Some human hunting rifles are capable of selective fire, some aren't.

Yes they are.

Quote:

No, you're incorrect. Lack of evidence for a claim does not prove the falsehood of that claim.

That is incorrect. When you and everyone else and their brother cannot prove a claim, that proves that that claim is false.

If there was any truth to your claim, anti-gun nuts would have done a side-by-side comparison between a rifle with a pistol-grip and a rifle without a pistol-grip to determine whether or not a rifle with a pistol-grip is especially dangerous by increasing accuracy and rate of fire. But no such proof exists. Therefore, the cry to ban them is based on hysteria.

Quote:

Anyhow, what, then, did you mean by this, "I'm not claiming that you can't prove it"?

Well, let's look at that in context:

Quote:

Yeah, my question is whether or not you have anything at all to prove your claim. As expected, you don't. Rather than concede that point, you are attempting to frame my question as a claim in an effort to somehow turn the tables here. But the fact is that you were asked to prove your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. And you can't. I'm not claiming that you can't prove it. I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.

That particular statement was intended as sarcasm. I would think that everything that preceded and followed that statement would have tipped you off, but I guess it went over your head.

I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.

Quote:

You continue to be incorrect. An unproven claim isn't false because it is unproven. You're confusing the terms "unproved" with "disproved."

Oh, I see. Well since your unproven claim is the basis for your desire to ban a rifle because your believe its pistol-grip makes it especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire, I'm telling you that you need to disprove my claim that a pistol-grip does no such thing. Otherwise, a rifle will be banned because of your unproven claim. And that just wouldn't be fair, would it?

You made a claim. You can't prove it. No one has . . . ever. Would you like to add anything to your lack of proof?