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

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Glennn wrote:
What feature in combination with a pistol-grip do you claim creates an especially dangerous rifle?

Those such as are found on AR-15's, AK47's and similar assault weapons.

In other words, perfectly harmless features like pistol grips.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

No, I'm saying you took the issue of pistol grips and started banging away about it, diverting this thread which is about guns, not pistol grips.

It is you who made it all about pistol grips when you demanded to outlaw them. Everything after that is in response to you.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes, your misapprehension leads to your mischaracterization.

No such misapprehension or mischaracterization.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
And the other things that the law covers, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, etc, are all equally as harmless as pistol grips are.

I agree.

So what is your motivation for demanding to outlaw harmless items, if not to violate people's civil liberties for fun?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
No, I'm saying you took the issue of pistol grips and started banging away about it, diverting this thread which is about guns, not pistol grips.

Jeez, ya know. I distinctly recall asking why a rifle should be banned because it had a pistol-grip. And if memory serves--and it does--you claimed that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous.

One thing is asking why a rifle should be banned because it had a pistol grip. That is your straw man argument. That is not my argument.

Another thing is my contention that a pistol grip makes a rifle especiall dangerous. You conflated the two and banged away with your conflation.

Glennn wrote:

Now you want to complain because I hammered you until you finally admitted that you have nothing to show in support of your claim. Don't worry, as long as you no longer make unsubstantiated claims about pistol-grips, I will no longer call you on it.

It's still my contention that pistol grips make rifles especially dangerous. Don't confuse that with your straw man argument asking why a rifle should be banned because it has a pistol grip. You'll merely continue to chase your own tail.

Glennn wrote:

And by the way, this thread is very much about condemning certain guns with certain features; for instance the pistol-grip. But now that you and I have settled that little disagreement, we need not mention it again.

You're confused. This thread isn't about condemning guns with certain features, for instance the pistol grip. It's about easy access to guns.

Glennn wrote:

So, what would you like to address next?

I'll address the next confused straw man argument you'll surely trot out.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I have no solution... .

Not quite sure why you quoted anything more than this.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

That is indeed the relevant part of the quote. People who engage in virtue signaling never have solutions.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

It's still my contention that pistol grips make rifles especially dangerous.

As I recall, you are using an alternative definition of "especially dangerous" that does not conform to the English language.

More to the point though, do you think that being "especially dangerous" (as you define the term) justifies outlawing a weapon?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Those such as are found on AR-15's, AK47's and similar assault weapons.

Sorry, but you're being asked what specific feature in combination with a pistol-grip you believe turns a semiautomatic rifle into an assault rifle?

You've changed the question.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Glennn wrote:
What feature in combination with a pistol-grip do you claim creates an especially dangerous rifle?

Those such as are found on AR-15's, AK47's and similar assault weapons.

In other words, perfectly harmless features like pistol grips.

No. In the aggregate they make for a highly efficient assault weapon.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No, I'm saying you took the issue of pistol grips and started banging away about it, diverting this thread which is about guns, not pistol grips.

It is you who made it all about pistol grips when you demanded to outlaw them. Everything after that is in response to you.

You're as confused as Glennn as to what my demand is.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

No confusion. When you demand a law that outlaws pistol grips, you are demanding to outlaw pistol grips.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

No. In the aggregate they make for a highly efficient assault weapon.

That is incorrect. Those harmless features are just as harmless in the aggregate.

Assault weapons are something quite different. 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.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Yes, your misapprehension leads to your mischaracterization.

No such misapprehension or mischaracterization.

Misapprehension and mischaracterization indeed.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
And the other things that the law covers, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, etc, are all equally as harmless as pistol grips are.

I agree.

So what is your motivation for demanding to outlaw harmless items, if not to violate people's civil liberties for fun?

My motivation is to ban those weapons that feature certain of these items, such as those whose difference from military issue weapons is selective fire because they're assault weapons, highly efficient killing instruments. My motivation is not to ban these harmless items in and of themselves themselves.

You can have all the pistol grips your heart desires.

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/dw/image/v2/BDCK_PRD/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-ctd-master-catalog/default/dw80786340/large/arr-631-304.jpg?sw=800&sh=800

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Oh now I get it. As long as they are only wounded or paralyzed it doesn't count. I just didn't understand the life-line that was crucial to describing crime. How about teenagers in a high school?

Look Glennn, I am trying to engage, not trying to prove that guns are good or bad, not comparing being shot in the head to being killed by a drunk driver. Gun violence and irresponsible gun owners should be discussed....but if it's only going to be "Oh Yeah, So you want to ban all Guns". what's the point? I know you know what I'm saying, you're just trying to play devil's advocate (or maybe not) maybe you just want to shatter opinions by insisting on answers to questions that have not been asked. Here's an example "So Glennn, why do you hate children or people killed by Stray bullets and why is that constitutional, please provide examples and links.....otherwise you are full of crap and I win ". Can you see what I'm trying to convey to you? The sentence I put in quotes is utter nonsense and an example of misdirection. If it's not crystal clear, this is what I think you are doing with those aggressive questions. You are too smart for this. I'm not trying to defeat you, I'm trying to have a conversation, What are you trying to do? Is this a conversation or an arm wrestling completion...if it's just arm wrestling...it's just a pissing contest.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You're merely restating your confusion.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No. In the aggregate they make for a highly efficient assault weapon.

That is incorrect. Those harmless features are just as harmless in the aggregate.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

Assault weapons are something quite different. 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.

You're only going in circles.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Oh now I get it. As long as they are only wounded or paralyzed it doesn't count. I just didn't understand the life-line that was crucial to describing crime. How about teenagers in a high school?

More virtue signaling I see.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

You're merely restating your confusion.

There is no confusion. When you demand a law that outlaws pistol grips, you are demanding to outlaw pistol grips.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

Wrong. Those harmless features are just as harmless in the aggregate.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're only going in circles.

It is reasonable for me to counter your untrue statements with true statements.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Misapprehension and mischaracterization indeed.

No misapprehension and no mischaracterization on my part. Everything that I've said is truthful and accurate.

InfraBlue wrote:

My motivation is to ban those weapons that feature certain of these items, such as those whose difference from military issue weapons is selective fire

In other words, you are trying to outlaw harmless features like pistol grips.

But what you are describing is your goal, not your motivation for trying to achieve that goal.

I predict that you will not provide any alternative motivation besides the desire to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

InfraBlue wrote:

because they're assault weapons,

Setting aside the fact that they aren't assault weapons, being labeled as an assault weapon does not in itself provide any justification for outlawing a weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

highly efficient killing instruments.

Having a pistol grip does not make a weapon any more efficient.

InfraBlue wrote:

My motivation is not to ban these harmless items in and of themselves themselves.
You can have all the pistol grips your heart desires.

That is pure sophistry. Allowing people to have a pistol grip that is not attached to a gun does not make it any less of a civil rights violation to prohibit pistol grips from being attached to a gun.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know