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

InfraBlue wrote:

In your mind only.

That is incorrect. I posted a fact in reality.

The M4 carbine is evidence.

In your mind, that is.

In your alternate English, that is.

That is not what I meant, nonetheless.

Yes, you did. Saying flash suppressors verses longer barrels is making a comparison.

I already have.

You're talking in circles.

InfraBlue wrote:

What you're asking for is ridiculous because you'd need a controlled experiment to answer your question. That's much like the tobacco companies saying that there is no proof that smoking causes cancer because there are no controlled experiments proving that it does, that all we have are inferences.

It's not ridiculous to ask you to back up your claims.

Quote:

It's ridiculous to ask for an instance in which pistol-grip or flash suppressor proved to make a murder or mass murder more deadly because that would require a controlled experiment in which one would take groups of people and attempt to murder them with these weapons.

You shouldn't make claims that you cannot back up.

My back up is the fact that the military implements these features in their weaponry to make them more effective in their purpose. This does not include "to give the willies."

It's inferred. Like what you're doing with disease and tobacco use.

I didn't say anything about a "revolutionary breakthrough that dramatically turns a rifle into an especially dangerous gun." I said these features make a rifle especially dangerous.

You're right. 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.

InfraBlue wrote:

A pistol grip allows for faster and more accurate shooting.

Says who?

InfraBlue wrote:

So then you don't think a pistol grip is an ergonomic improvement?

What does it matter even if it is?

Says me.

Nuh-uh.

InfraBlue wrote:

The M4 carbine is evidence.

That is incorrect. You've provided no evidence that the reason why it has a pistol grip is because of any implementation by the military.

InfraBlue wrote:

That is not what I meant, nonetheless.

So what does the term "especially dangerous" mean when you use the term?

Yes, you did. Saying flash suppressors verses longer barrels is making a comparison.

I already have.

No. "That the military implements these features" is your claim.

Evidence would be some sort of proof that the reason why there are pistol grips on these guns is because the military has implemented them.

I'm saying that the military implements these features such as pistol grips in its weaponry, an example of which is the M4 carbine.

So then, pistol grips and bayonet mounts are implemented by the military "to give the willies," as Glennn would have us believe, but not selective fire switches. OK.