InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.
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:Nuh-uh.
That is incorrect. The lack of either full-auto or burst-fire capability means that these weapons are not human-hunting rifles.
InfraBlue wrote:There is justification for the banning of assault weapons.
There may be guns that are labeled as assault weapons that there is justification for banning for some reason or other.
But the mere label "assault weapon" does not provide this justification.
InfraBlue wrote:How do you know I cannot prove my claim?
Generally if someone can prove their claims they will do so when those claims are challenged.
InfraBlue wrote:I say that's an obfuscatorily artificial distinction that'll be made moot by future gun control legislation.
There will not be any such future legislation.
InfraBlue wrote:It's patently obvious that you're confused as to my whole argument for banning assault weapons.
Well, it's not like you are being clear about what that argument is.
InfraBlue wrote: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.
A semi-auto-only AR-15 isn't an assault weapon.
Assault weapons:
a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,
b) accept detachable magazines,
c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and
d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.
This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.
This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.
This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.
This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.
InfraBlue wrote: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."
The semi-auto-only AR-15 is an animal-hunting rifle. You've wrongly referred to it as a human-hunting rifle multiple times.
InfraBlue wrote:Likewise, one would not call, properly at least, an "assault rifle" an "animal hunting rifle."
A semi-auto-only AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor an assault weapon (which are interchangeable terms that mean the same thing).
InfraBlue wrote:No one in the world has disproven it either, for that matter, including you.
"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:My inference does have some credibility since it's backed by logic.
Your logic fails to take into account the fact that the .223/5.56 has very little recoil to begin with.
InfraBlue wrote:Nuh-uh.
That is incorrect. 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.
InfraBlue wrote:Uh-huh.
There may be human-hunting rifles that there is justification for outlawing. But the justification for outlawing them will not be the mere fact that they are a human-hunting rifle.
That justification will be some reason other than the fact that the weapon is referred to by the term "human-hunting rifle".
How do you know I cannot prove my claim?
You're getting your arguments mixed up, again. I keep repeating my response to your repetition of the falsehood that lack of proof makes a claim untrue.
Says you.
I say that's an obfuscatorily artificial distinction that'll be made moot by future gun control legislation.
Heh, you're the one that's been banging on about pistol grips, with your straw man arguments about them. My argument for the banning of assault weapons doesn't revolve around pistol grips, as you've been misaprehending and mischaracterizing it.
You not keeping up with your own arguments promps me to take your words at face value, which do come across as contradictory when you throw in sarcasm into your already convoluted argument.
Astute souls do know the difference, and recognize the logical fallacy you're making.
About 3.8, give or take 0.2.
It's patently obvious that you're confused as to my whole argument for banning assault weapons.
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.
Your logic is faulty, and it's based on a straw man argument to boot. The term "human hunting rifle" refers to the rifle, not the person.
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
Likewise, one would not call, properly at least, an "assault rifle" an "animal hunting rifle."
You don't know that.
I arrived at that conclusion through inference and that's how it stands.
No one in the world has disproven it either, for that matter, including you.
Quote:How do you know I cannot prove my claim?
Well let's see. How about your inability to prove your claim?
Quote:
You're getting your arguments mixed up, again. I keep repeating my response to your repetition of the falsehood that lack of proof makes a claim untrue.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to prove your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire, and you have admitted as much. So now your argument is that though you cannot prove your claim, someone somewhere can, and that your claim should therefore stand. That's not reality.
Quote:Says you.
No, it's actually true that the authority you've appealed to has no more proof that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous than you have. If they had the proof, they'd have published it, and you would no doubt be parroting it. But that's not happeining.
Quote:
I say that's an obfuscatorily artificial distinction that'll be made moot by future gun control legislation.
Sorry, but it is an undeniable fact that forty-seven of the fifty States understand the difference between style and function when it comes to what an assault rifle really is. At any rate, you're now appealing to an unknown future to bolster your unproven claims. But that's silly.
Quote:
Heh, you're the one that's been banging on about pistol grips, with your straw man arguments about them. My argument for the banning of assault weapons doesn't revolve around pistol grips, as you've been misaprehending and mischaracterizing it.
Funny. I haven't been banging on about pistol-grips. However, I have been banging back at your banging on about them.
You keep arguing that, though you cannot prove that they make a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire, it can be proven. I don't think you really hear yourself. But just for the sake of argument, who is it that you believe can prove it?
Quote:
You not keeping up with your own arguments promps me to take your words at face value, which do come across as contradictory when you throw in sarcasm into your already convoluted argument.
Since sarcasm obviously confuses you, I will refrain from using it in the future . . . maybe.
My argument is not convoluted. Yours, on the other hand, is based on things you cannot prove.
You have insisted that though you cannot prove the points you want to make, someone somewhere can, and that I should accept that. You also insist that, though 47 out of 50 states are smart enough to understand that a pistol-grip does not make a rifle especially dangerous, I should give you the benefit of the doubt by acknowledging that your appeal to an unknown future trumps reality.
Quote:Astute souls do know the difference, and recognize the logical fallacy you're making.
No. Astute souls know that your lack of proof stands as a testament to the fact that you cannot prove your claim; not just that you haven't. They also know that your appeal to some unknown person at some unknown location who can prove what you have failed to prove is just so much ridiculousness.
Quote:About 3.8, give or take 0.2.
And your proof of this claim is?
Quote:
It's patently obvious that you're confused as to my whole argument for banning assault weapons.
Well I certainly know that you believe that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. However, it is patently obvious that you cannot prove that claim, as you have already stated.
Quote: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.
And would you care to point me to the source of this that you call a synonym for assault rifle. Thanks in advance.
Quote:Your logic is faulty, and it's based on a straw man argument to boot. The term "human hunting rifle" refers to the rifle, not the person.
Uh huh. And your made up term designed to appeal to emotion is made null and void by the fact that any rifle can be used to hunt humans.
Quote: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
But where did you find the term "human-hunting rifle"? Did you just . . . make it up?
Quote:Likewise, one would not call, properly at least, an "assault rifle" an "animal hunting rifle."
Wrong. An assault rifle can be used to kill animals, and people use AR-15s to hunt animals (not that a semiautomatic rifle is an assault rifle).
Quote:You don't know that.
You made the claim that a rifle with a pistol-grip increases its rate of fire. I asked you so show some proof of that claim. You failed to show anything to that effect.
Quote:I arrived at that conclusion through inference and that's how it stands.
Oh, well then I arrived at my conclusion about your claims because of your total lack of proof regarding those claims.
Quote:No one in the world has disproven it either, for that matter, including you.
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Do you understand what that means?
I'm not unable to prove my claim.
I am not unable to prove my claim, merely I haven't sought to prove it or disprove it.
Your using assumptions about appeals to authority in regard to proof that a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous to base your argument on.
Who is this authority that you claim I'm appealing to in regard to proof that a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous?
I was referring to those certain assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Go back and see who started this tangent about pistol grips.
It only makes your already confused arguments more confusing.
OK, but this knowledge doesn't negate the fact that it's patently obvious that you're confused as to my whole argument for banning assault weapons.
Quote:I'm not unable to prove my claim.
I'll bet you say that to everyone who corners you with your own unproven claim.
Quote:I am not unable to prove my claim, merely I haven't sought to prove it or disprove it.
I see. So you come in to a thread to make a claim concerning the topic, and when asked to prove it, you begin a new argument, claiming that your failure to prove your claim says nothing about the truth of your claim. You don't ever have to worry about whether or not anyone understands your position. It's quite clear.
Quote:Your using assumptions about appeals to authority in regard to proof that a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous to base your argument on.
Assumptions? But you did in fact appeal to the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. But just like you, they have never shown that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. Forty-three States are aware of the deficiencies in your and their claim.
Quote:Quote:
Who is this authority that you claim I'm appealing to in regard to proof that a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous?
Have you really forgotten already?
Glennn wrote:
Quote:I was referring to those certain assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Ah, memory recovered!
Quote:Go back and see who started this tangent about pistol grips.
Oh oh. Sounds like another claim. I would think that you would have by now learned that when you make a claim, you're going to be asked to prove it. So is this going to be like your unproven claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire, or are you actually going to fetch me the post in which I injected the subject of pistol-grips into this topic. I await your return.
Quote:It only makes your already confused arguments more confusing.
My argument is not convoluted. Yours, on the other hand, is based on things you cannot prove. You have insisted that though you cannot prove the points you want to make, you could if you wanted to, but you just don't want to.
You also insist that, though 47 out of 50 states are smart enough to understand that a pistol-grip does not make a rifle especially dangerous, you believe that I should concede the point because you could prove it if you wanted to. Sorry, but though it is the Christmas season, I don't feel so giving when if comes to that.
Quote:OK, but this knowledge doesn't negate the fact that it's patently obvious that you're confused as to my whole argument for banning assault weapons.
I do know that you have claimed that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous because it increases its accuracy and rate of fire. And I don know that in your eyes, that is grounds for banning rifles with pistol-grips . . . unless of course you are now going to say that you're okay with something that makes a rifle especially dangerous, and that that alone is not a cause for concern. Is that what you're getting at?
When an illogical conclusion about my argument is arrived at it prompts a new argument to point out the illogicalness of that conclusion. The understanding of my position is helped by the pointing out of any illogical or fallacious conclusions about my position.
Again, that is not the claim of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
You're making the false claim that you haven't been banging on about pistol grips, that you've been banging back at my banging on about them. If you don't care to back up your claim we'll leave it at unproven.
One of these days I'll go to a range and rent a couple of similar rifles, the only diffference being a straight stock and one with a pistol grip, and make the comparison and tell you about it.
I don't know where you get your understanding of those 47 states' understanding of pistol grips, but to take it as a given this understanding is flawed, let alone not smart, as that is not what gun control such as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act is about.
Quote:
When an illogical conclusion about my argument is arrived at it prompts a new argument to point out the illogicalness of that conclusion. The understanding of my position is helped by the pointing out of any illogical or fallacious conclusions about my position.
Except that it is not illogical to conclude that you have failed to prove your original claim that a pistol-grip on a rifle makes that rifle an especially dangerous weapon. The fact of your failure is there for all to see. Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that your admission that you have not proven your claim is solid proof that you have not proven your claim.
So how did you seek to remedy your problem with credibility? You tried to save face by making another failed claim to cover your first failed claim. Your new claim is that, though you haven't proven your original claim, it doesn't mean that you can't prove it; it just means that you choose not to prove it. I don't think you really understand just how lame your explanation for your failures appears in real life, and how inept it makes you look.
Your thoughts?
Quote:Again, that is not the claim of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
And yet I believe it was you who has mentioned it. Let's see if you can remember why you have brought them up.
Quote:You're making the false claim that you haven't been banging on about pistol grips, that you've been banging back at my banging on about them. If you don't care to back up your claim we'll leave it at unproven.
Ah, the old tried and untrue attempt at a turn around. What is going on in your mind that prevents you from understanding that everyone knows quite well by now that you made a claim, and when challenged to prove it, you call on the challenger to prove it isn't true. If you can't prove your claim, then that's your problem.
Quote:One of these days I'll go to a range and rent a couple of similar rifles, the only diffference being a straight stock and one with a pistol grip, and make the comparison and tell you about it.
Sure you will. Do you know why no one has done so yet? Because it's a ridiculous claim to begin with.
Quote:I don't know where you get your understanding of those 47 states' understanding of pistol grips, but to take it as a given this understanding is flawed, let alone not smart, as that is not what gun control such as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act is about.
Oh, you mean there's nothing in it that supports your failed claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous?
My thought are, 1. my first claim is not failed, it's merely unproved. 2. My other claim is not failed because your conclusion is illogical about my first claim. 3. You don't have an understanding of how conjecture functions.
