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

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.

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.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your assertion any less incorrect.

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.

Seeing as how you have difficulty keeping up with your own arguments

No. My lack of proof stands as a testament that I haven't proven it, not that I cannot prove it.

Given the fact that pistol grips help control recoil, and recoil adversely affects accuracy and rate of fire

My use of the term "human-hunting rifle" is not inaccurate in regard to the point oralloy is making about selective fire.

More precisely, they allow for more accurate and faster firing. While I don't have evidentiary proof

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.

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.

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.

My use of the term "human-hunting rifle" is not inaccurate in regard to the point oralloy is making about selective fire.

More precisely, they allow for more accurate and faster firing.

While I don't have evidentiary proof, I do have a logical inference.

Nuh-uh.

Nuh-uh.

There is justification for the banning of assault weapons.

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

Quote:

Repeating yourself doesn't make your assertion any less incorrect.

Nothing has proven me incorrect about the fact that you cannot prove your claim.

You keep repeating that I haven't proven my claim. This goes back to your idea that asking you to prove your claim amounts to making a claim. But the simple fact is that I did not make the original claim; you did. And the fact remains that you haven't proven it to be true; no one has.

Quote:

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.

Yes, it is clear that you have appealed to an authority whose basis for their reasoning is no less absent than yours.

Forty-seven of the fifty States understand the absence of proof and the difference between style and function.

Quote:

It isn't about pistol grips, per se.

It's a little too late for you to back out of your claim now. You have definitely tried to make a case against rifles with pistol-grips. And you have definitely come up empty handed when asked to prove that a pistol-grip make a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. Again, having this pointed out to you does not amount to a claim. It amounts to showing that you have nothing whatsoever to show that your claim is valid.

Quote:

Seeing as how you have difficulty keeping up with your own arguments

Your failure to recognize sarcasm does not amount to me not keeping up with my own arguments. You simply omitted the rest of my post which makes my position quite clear; that being that your claim is baseless.

Quote:

No. My lack of proof stands as a testament that I haven't proven it, not that I cannot prove it.

By now there is not a soul who believes that your lack of proof stands as a testament to the fact that you cannot prove your claim; not just that you haven't.

Quote:

Given the fact that pistol grips help control recoil, and recoil adversely affects accuracy and rate of fire

So how many inaccurate shots do you think a shooter would make with an AR-15 if it lacked a pistol-grip. Or, how many inaccurate shots do you think a shooter would make an AR-15 that didn't lack a pistol-grip.

Your whole argument for banning a rifle because it has a pistol-grip is based on supposition. So tell me how this supposed advantage you believe a pistol-grip gives a shooter would amount to more deaths.

How do you know I cannot prove my claim?

I say that's an obfuscatorily artificial distinction that'll be made moot by future gun control legislation.

It's patently obvious that you're confused as to my whole argument for banning assault weapons.

Quote:

My use of the term "human-hunting rifle" is not inaccurate in regard to the point oralloy is making about selective fire.

But you also used that term when responding to my posts. And I'm telling you that 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. Therefore, calling a rifle with a pistol-grip a "human-hunting rifle" was a simple appeal to emotion.

Quote:

More precisely, they allow for more accurate and faster firing. While I don't have evidentiary proof

Wrong. A pistol-grip does not afford a shooter a faster rate of fire.

You made that up, and you hoped it would stand.

But there is no one in the world who has proven that claim, least of all you.

You're incorrect as to the accuracy of the term "human hunting rifle," it's a figurative synonym for "assault weapon," e.g. the AR-15.

That all rifles are capable of being used to shoot humans doen't negate the fact that different rifles are referred to by different terms, so while an animal hunting rifle could definitely be used to shoot humans, one would not call that animal hunting rifle an "assault rifle," or "assault weapon" or "human hunting rifle."

Likewise, one would not call, properly at least, an "assault rifle" an "animal hunting rifle."

No one in the world has disproven it either, for that matter, including you.

In 1940 the human-hunting rifle had not yet been invented.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Pistol grips are among the features restricted by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

InfraBlue wrote:

no one has disproved my claims about pistol grips make a rifle especially dangerous, either.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Your inference has no credibility since it is not backed by evidence.

My inference does have some credibility since it's backed by logic.

InfraBlue wrote:

My use of the term "human-hunting rifle" is not inaccurate in regard to the point oralloy is making about selective fire.

It was inaccurate for you to refer to guns that have neither full auto nor burst fire capability as human-hunting rifles, as only rifles with such capabilities count as human-hunting rifles.

It should also be noted that even if we had been talking about actual human-hunting rifles, simply being a human-hunting rifle does not justify banning a weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

More precisely, they allow for more accurate and faster firing.

Claim dismissed for lack of proof.

InfraBlue wrote:

While I don't have evidentiary proof, I do have a logical inference.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Nuh-uh.

Uh-huh.

Those are not human-hunting rifles