57
   

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

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:10 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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.

Glennn wrote:
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.

I did make that claim. That is not my argument for banning assault weapons such as the AR-15, however. You're drawing a false analogy.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
Could you ask someone to rewrite your post for you.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:13 pm
@Glennn,
Stuff it. That clear enough for you?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:20 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
That does not mention pistol grips..

That is incorrect. Pistol grips are one of the specific features that you called for banning.


MontereyJack wrote:
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.

More sophistry. The fact that the law only focuses on semi-auto rifles does not change the reality that the law is all about forbidding pistol grips on those rifles.


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

Wrong again. That law does not prohibit semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. It merely forbids pistol grips on semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:21 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
No violation of civil liberties is involved in stopping conservatives from violating civil rights for fun.

Conservatives are not violating anyone's civil rights, for fun or otherwise, and your call to outlaw semi-autos has nothing to do with conservatives.

Outlawing semi-autos is very much a civil liberties violation, as it does not serve any compelling government interest.

You cannot provide any motivation for wanting to outlaw semi-autos other than the sadistic enjoyment that progressives get from violating people's civil liberties.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:22 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The posts he claims prove i said it was all about pistol grips do not.

Wrong. You expressed support for a law that is all about outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.

Your words:
"assault-style weapons with ONE functional feature (which oralloy mistakenly refers to as "cosmetic features") will be banned"


MontereyJack wrote:
Youre as wacked as he is about them.

People don't like it when progressives try to violate their civil liberties for fun.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:24 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:32 pm
@oralloy,
An ordinary rifle with the capability of firing 100 thats one hundred shots in under a minute and a half. Thats Murder Incorporated.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:37 pm
@MontereyJack,
It can only fire that fast by using large detachable magazines.

And other ordinary rifles will fire just as fast if those other ordinary rifles are using those same large detachable magazines.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 10:51 pm
@oralloy,
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 rea l world bites you again.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 11:01 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

It's a big deal because they aren't just ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 11:16 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 11:21 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Untrue. I posted rhe video of 30 aimed shots with 6 shot. Mags in well under 30 sevonds. Do the math.

I must have missed the part of the video where they used five (or six) shot magazines in a long gun.

But even if small magazines really are just as lethal in a long gun, all that does is eliminate the justification for restricting large magazines.


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

Funny, I don't notice any bites. Reality and I get along quite well actually.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 09:17 am
@oralloy,
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.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 09:44 am
@InfraBlue,
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?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 10:06 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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

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

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

Yes they are.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 10:25 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Some human hunting rifles are capable of selective fire, some aren't.

Your use of the term "human-hunting rifle" is inaccurate. Hunting is an activity performed by the hunter. The rifle is not the hunter. And all rifles are capable of being used to shoot humans. And before you say that rifles with pistol-grips are more effective because they are more accurate and fire faster, remember that you'll have to provide something to validate that claim.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 11:00 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Yes. You missed it in the video.

Nonsense. What is the timestamp of the part of the video where they used five or six round magazines in a long gun?


MontereyJack wrote:
You are therefore talking thru your hat as usual.

You cannot point out anything untrue in any of my posts.


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

We've been regulating them for the past 50 years already -- ever since 1968.


MontereyJack wrote:
Your cavils would be ineffective.

I acknowledge that if your claims are true, there would be no justification for restricting magazine capacity.

That's fine with me. I was uncomfortable with the whole concept of magazine limitations anyway.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 11:01 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
That's partially correct. Some human hunting rifles are capable of selective fire, some aren't.

That is incorrect. Capability of either full-auto or burst-fire is necessary in order for a weapon to count as a human-hunting rifle.


InfraBlue wrote:
Yes they are.

That is incorrect. The lack of either full-auto or burst-fire capability means that these weapons are not human-hunting rifles.

There is also the small matter of the fact that "merely being a human-hunting rifle" (or a military issue weapon) is no justification for outlawing a weapon. But that is a bridge that we'll need to cross only if we start talking about actual human-hunting rifles.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 11:10 am
@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.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 01:29:34