Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

Quote:

All that you and the statements that you quote about what the CDC says, and the CDC itself have are inferences.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Smoking accounts for the vast majority of lung cancer deaths, causing 90 percent of all lung cancer deaths in men and about 80 percent in women. In 2000, a Surgeon General report revealed that tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, with 43 being known carcinogens.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

You don't seem to know a declarative statement when you hear one. Apparently you believe that they are guessing at what they are telling you.

Quote:

You're asking me to draw a conclusion from an inference.

No, you're simply refusing to accept that smoking darkens the lungs and accounts for the vast majority of lung cancer deaths. Essentially, you believe in a cause without an effect.

Quote:

So, where's this study?

You can be shown that cigarette smoke contains carcinogens; that carcinogens are known to cause cancer; that there are 43 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke; and that the CDC has stated that 90% of all lung cancer deaths are caused by cigarette smoke, but those facts are meaningless to you. I can't help you with that.

Quote:

What I've inferred is a conclusion that certain of these features that include pistol grips make a rifle especially dangerous and that these rifles with such features should be banned.

Your inferences are meaningless. The point is that you have nothing to back your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. I have invited you to explain how it is that a simple shift of the wrist when holding a rifle makes it especially dangerous. So far, you have come up emptyhanded.

I accept that smoking darkens the lungs and accounts for the vast majority of lung cancer deaths.

I have explained it.

You're mischaracterizing what I said. Saying that the specific features described in The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act make the weapons especially dangerous is not saying that these "turn a rifle into something more than a rifle." Those are your words, not mine.

"Especially dangerous" here means "more effective" in regard to the guns' purpose.

Not all murders and mass murders are committed at close range, e.g. Las Vegas. The point about banning flash suppressors is precisely about the capability of hiding a shooter's location with this feature.

The word play is his. Perhaps in your interpretation of words it conveys the same meaning, but not in mine.

Yeah, that's Glennn's rational, as well, for the military implementing some of these features in their weaponry, "'cause it gives the willies."

And continues...

InfraBlue wrote:

You're mischaracterizing what I said. Saying that the specific features described in The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act make the weapons especially dangerous is not saying that these "turn a rifle into something more than a rifle." Those are your words, not mine.

"Especially dangerous" means that a weapon is far more dangerous than an ordinary rifle.

"Something more than a rifle" means that a weapon is far more dangerous than an ordinary rifle.

Seems pretty similar to me.

InfraBlue wrote:

"Especially dangerous" here means "more effective" in regard to the guns' purpose.

That is incorrect. "Especially dangerous" means that a weapon poses a danger far in excess than that posed by an ordinary gun.

InfraBlue wrote:

Not all murders and mass murders are committed at close range, e.g. Las Vegas. The point about banning flash suppressors is precisely about the capability of hiding a shooter's location with this feature.

Why does it matter if a shooter hides their location with a flash suppressor versus some other method (like a longer barrel for example)?

That's merely your opinion.

Thanks for explaining your all's alternate language.

Heh, you're telling me what I mean to say. You're a card.

You're making the comparison, not I.

What is it about gun nuts and willies?

You have a weird fascination.

Every time it's mentioned out you come screaming about how it's not the case at all.

Why do you feel the need to constantly go on about it?
You don't have to answer that, we all know why.

You've offered no evidence that the reason why the M4 has a pistol grip is because of the military implementing the feature.