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

@InfraBlue,

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

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

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.

And again.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

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

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're only going in circles.

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

Just refer to the previous responses to your tail chasing.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

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

InfraBlue wrote:

Just refer to the previous responses to your tail chasing.

Correcting your untrue statements isn't tail chasing.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

And again.

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

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

You're being redundantly incorrect.

Everything that I've said is completely true. 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:

You haven't waivered in your incorrectness.

No incorrectness on my end. 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:

You're consistent in your incorrectness.

Still no incorrectness on my end. A semi-auto-only AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor an assault weapon (which are interchangeable terms that mean the same thing).

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Very little recoil does not equal no recoil, and with quick firing it would make itself more apparent.

Claim dismissed for lack of evidence.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

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:

Wrong. The justification for outlawing them will be precisely because they are human hunting weapons.

That is incorrect. Merely being labeled as a "human-hunting weapon" does not justify outlawing a weapon. There has to be an actual feature that makes a weapon a serious danger.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

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?

I've told you that I'm not opposed to background checks and limits on magazine size. If that's good with you, that's great. If that's not enough for you, then what's your next move?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Very little recoil does not equal no recoil, and with quick firing it would make itself more apparent.

This is another of your claims that you cannot show to be true. You're going to have to show something to prove that very little recoil results in missed targets without a pistol-grip.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

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

Yeah, I know. And you want us to believe that, though you haven't proven that claim, you could if you wanted to, and that we should give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your claim as good as proven.

Anyway, If you're so sure that that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, why would you not agree that such rifles should be banned? After all, they're especially dangerous.

Quote:

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.

I've already said that I'm not opposed to background checks. What more do you want?

1 Reply

CNN provided a list of 44 "school shooting's in just 46 weeks. The idea is to make people think that children are being shot down in the classroom every frickin' week.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

A 19-year-old student was shot by a masked gunman while getting out of a car at Achievement Academy, a high school. His injuries were non-life-threatening. Authorities believe an altercation occurred between the victim and shooter.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is that anyone's idea of an incident in which children were being shot down in the classroom?

0 Replies

Next one:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

A man was shot in the leg outside a dorm on the Langston University campus. He was taken via helicopter to an Oklahoma City hospital. At around 9 p.m. on Tuesday, the Langston University Police Department responded to shots fired near Young Hall. Officers learned that a male had been shot in the right leg and that the suspects fled the campus in a vehicle.

“Based on the evidence available, we believe that this is an isolated incident,” Langston Media Relation Specialist Christina Gray said. “We don’t believe that any other members of the community are in harm’s way related to the shooting at this time.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is that anyone's idea of an incident in which children were being shot down in the classroom?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong. Those harmless features are just as harmless in the aggregate.
Nuh-uh.

InfraBlue wrote:
Just refer to the previous responses to your tail chasing.

Correcting your untrue statements isn't tail chasing.

Uh-huh.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
And again.

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

And again.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

See here.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

And here.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Very little recoil does not equal no recoil, and with quick firing it would make itself more apparent.

This is another of your claims that you cannot show to be true. You're going to have to show something to prove that very little recoil results in missed targets without a pistol-grip.

It's a hunch.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
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?

I've told you that I'm not opposed to background checks and limits on magazine size. If that's good with you, that's great. If that's not enough for you, then what's your next move?

Yes, I think there should be background checks, as well as safety instructions. Do you think that will ever happen? I'm doubtful, the topic seems too polarizing.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

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

Yeah, I know. And you want us to believe that, though you haven't proven that claim, you could if you wanted to, and that we should give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your claim as good as proven.

Sure.

Glennn wrote:

Anyway, If you're so sure that that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, why would you not agree that such rifles should be banned? After all, they're especially dangerous.

Quote:
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.

I've already said that I'm not opposed to background checks. What more do you want?

I want you stop with your ridiculous pistol grip tangent.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know