@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
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.
Repeating yourself doesn't make your assertion any less incorrect.
Glennn wrote: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.
You're making a lot of assumptions here that you're basing your straw man arguments on. The gun control I'm arguing for is about the banning of assault weapons as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It isn't about pistol grips, per se.
Glennn wrote:
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.
Seeing as how you have difficulty keeping up with your own arguments, I decided to take your words at face value.
Glennn wrote: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.
No. My lack of proof stands as a testament that I
haven't proven it, not that I cannot prove it. A claim, or otherwise, from you is irrelevant to the fact that your conclusion is fallacious.
Glennn wrote: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 continue making assumptions here that you're basing your straw man arguments on. The gun control I'm arguing for is about the banning of assault weapons as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It isn't about pistol grips, per se.
Glennn wrote:
You made a claim. You can't prove it. No one has . . . ever. Would you like to add anything to your lack of proof?
Absolutely, I'll add this: no one has disproved my claims about pistol grips make a rifle especially dangerous, either. Given the fact that pistol grips help control recoil, and recoil adversely affects accuracy and rate of fire, my inference that they increase a rifle's accuracy and rate of fire by controlling recoil is more credible than the claim that they do not.