InfraBlue wrote:It's inferred. Like what you're doing with disease and tobacco use.
Inferring something that isn't true doesn't change the fact that it isn't true.
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.
In regard to these weapons, it means "more effective."
You've written something altogether different than your initial comparison.
You're constantly changing the goal posts, as it were.
You change the goal posts.
It's not self evident. The military could have chosen those guns for a reason completely unrelated to the presence of a pistol grip.
InfraBlue wrote:In regard to these weapons, it means "more effective."
I've yet to see any evidence that these features have a noticeable impact on the effectiveness of a weapon.
But even if such evidence is forthcoming, merely being more effective does not create a compelling government interest in restricting a weapon.
InfraBlue wrote:You've written something altogether different than your initial comparison.
That is incorrect. I wrote the same thing.
InfraBlue wrote:You're constantly changing the goal posts, as it were.
You change the goal posts.
I've not changed any goal posts. I merely asked you to justify why it would matter that someone uses a flash suppressor verses some other method.
It's not "to give the willies," as Glennn would have us believe?
Quote:It's not "to give the willies," as Glennn would have us believe?
It does give some people the willies, and you are one of those people.
The fact remains that I have asked you repeatedly to explain how a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle makes it especially dangerous. And the only thing you've offered in response is your insistence that a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle makes that rifle more accurate and facilitates a more rapid rate of fire. However, when pressed to support that claim, you basically say: it just does.
I would suggest that you hunt down side-by-side comparisons of rifles with and without a pistol-grip that would actually prove that what you say is true concerning rate of fire and improved accuracy. Otherwise you're left with nothing but your unproven claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. I would assume that the anti-gun folks would have by now done such a comparison in order to show that they are not nuts obsessed with pistol-grips. You should probably hunt down one of those side-by-side comparisons and post it so that you don't look like just another hysterically obsessed nut with nothing but your word to show that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous.
I doubt that even the cops are all that worried about rifles with pistol-grips.
The military failed in their purpose for these features, as you would have us believe.
I'm not saying "it just does." I'm saying that I've inferred my conclusion by judging the evidence.
try looking for information that the military implements these features to "give the willies," as you would have us believe.
try looking for information that the military implements these features to "give the willies," as you would have us believe.
They're worried about assault weapons in general.
Quote:The military failed in their purpose for these features, as you would have us believe.
Now you're back to deciding that rifles with pistol-grips should be banned because there are pistol-grips on military rifles. You've made a mountain out of a mole hill with your irrational fear of pistol-grips. Making a rifle more ergonomically correct doesn't make it any faster or more accurate. And as if to drive that very point home, here you are again, still unable to present anything that would validate your irrational fear of pistol-grips.
Quote:I'm not saying "it just does." I'm saying that I've inferred my conclusion by judging the evidence.
Right. And you have yet to bring any of this evidence you speak of to the table, which translates to you saying: it just does.
Quote:try looking for information that the military implements these features to "give the willies," as you would have us believe.
Not a very good attempt at a turn around. You are the one who has claimed that a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle makes that rifle especially dangerous. So the onus is on you to prove that a pistol-grip makes a rifle faster and more accurate. So produce something to back that up.
Quote:They're worried about assault weapons in general.
Well yeah. And they have a right be worried about automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. That's why they're illegal. However, we're talking about rifles with pistol-grips. And the cops aren't much worried about pistol-grips on rifles.
I have no irrational fear or otherwise, of pistol grips.
Says who?
This isn't a one way street. I've provided my inferences. Back up your assertions.
No, try keeping up. They're worried about assault weapons, e.g. AR-15's, semiauto AK-47's, SKS's, etc. Automatic weapons are rare, so they're not as worrisome as assault weapons.
Quote:I have no irrational fear or otherwise, of pistol grips.
I see. So, whereas you believe that they make a rifle especially dangerous to the extent that you want them banned, you have no fear of them. I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that you do.
Quote:Says who?
No one has to say it. Your lack of proof that a pistol grip increases accuracy and rate of fire speaks for itself.
Quote:This isn't a one way street. I've provided my inferences. Back up your assertions.
Inferences does not constitute proof.
A person shooting a semiautomatic rifle without a pistol-grip can pull the trigger only so fast. You believe that a shift of the wrist will allow a shooter to pull the trigger faster. You have shown nothing to back up that claim. Instead, you are asking me to prove that a person shooting a semiautomatic rifle without a pistol-grip can shoot just as fast as a person shooting a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol-grip. So, you see how silly your position is?
And just to further expose the silliness of your position, let's assume that someone shooting a rifle with a pistol-grip can get off an extra two or three shots in fifteen seconds. Give me a scenario of a past shooting in which you believe that extra two or three shots in fifteen seconds justifies banning pistol-grips. But first, tell me how many more shots in fifteen seconds you believe a pistol-grip affords a shooter and how you arrived at that number.
Quote:No, try keeping up. They're worried about assault weapons, e.g. AR-15's, semiauto AK-47's, SKS's, etc. Automatic weapons are rare, so they're not as worrisome as assault weapons.
First of all, you're engaging in that mindless exercise of incorrectly defining an assault weapon, and then repeating it ad nauseum. Even most anti-gun proponents know enough to call semiautomatic rifles with pistol-grips assault style weapons. They acknowledge the fact that the rifle is in the style of an assault weapon, but does not function as one.
Here is a survey of law enforcement personnel concerning their answers to questions about concealed carry, AR-15s, etc. They don't seem to share your irrational fear of pistol-grips.
https://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-law-enforcement-survey.pdf
You're incorrect, however.
. . . says you.
Inferences are good enough for the CDC. They're good enough for me.
I'm not asking you to prove that a person shooting a semiautomatic rifle without a pistol-grip can shoot just as fast as a person shooting a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol-grip. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that the military implements features such as pistol grips on their weaponry "because it gives the willies," as you would have us believe.
It sounds like you could use a calculator.
I'm going by the definition provided in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, thank you very much.
Thanks for the link.
Quote:You're incorrect, however.
No I'm not. You say that rifles with pistol-grips are especially dangerous; so dangerous in fact that you want them banned. And in the same breath you say that you have no fear of them. You honestly don't hear yourself and your contradictory statements.
Quote:. . . says you.
Yes, I did say it. And I said it because it is true that your lack of proof that a pistol grip increases accuracy and rate of fire speaks for itself.
Quote:Inferences are good enough for the CDC. They're good enough for me.
Your inferences concerning the special dangerousness of rifles with pistol-grips is based on nothing tangible. Your only argument is: Well the military uses rifles with pistol-grips, and that has to count for something. But it doesn't. If it did, you'd have produced something objective to prove your point by now.
On the other hand, the CDC's claim that smoking accounts for the vast majority of lung cancer deaths is based on objective numbers.
For instance:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
. . . based on an analysis similar to that reported here, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer among male never, former, and current smokers in the United Kingdom was calculated as 0.2 percent, 5.5 percent, and 15.9 percent, respectively, reaching 24.4 percent among heavy smokers (>5 cigarettes/day)..
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/164/12/1233/76936
Quote:I'm not asking you to prove that a person shooting a semiautomatic rifle without a pistol-grip can shoot just as fast as a person shooting a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol-grip. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that the military implements features such as pistol grips on their weaponry "because it gives the willies," as you would have us believe.
No. You would have us believe that there are pistol-grips on military rifles because they make the rifle especially dangerous. If you could provide something from the military--or anyone--stating that pistol-grips on rifles make them especially dangerous, which, according to you, means that they increase the rate of fire and accuracy, then you'd be believable.
Quote:It sounds like you could use a calculator.
Actually it sounds like you need to accept the fact that you're unable to provide an example of an instance in which a pistol-grip proved to make a rifle especially dangerous. Fact is, you have no proof that a pistol-grip makes a rifle faster and more accurate.
Quote:I'm going by the definition provided in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, thank you very much.
Yes, someone changed the definition of assault weapon to include the presence of a pistol-grip and flash suppressor without justifying that change. They are much like you, in that they, too, are unable to explain how a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. That's why only seven states banned the AR-15.
You're appealing to those who are as much in the dark as you are when it come to the difference between style and function, and who are just as mute as you when it comes to explaining their position.
I do not fear pistol grips.
It speaks much better than your claim that the military implements features such as pistol grips in their weaponry "because it give the willies," however.
It's merely your contention that the use of pistol grips by the military counts for nothing.
What should be banned are weapons defined by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Yeah, they use these objective numbers to arrive at their inferred conclusions.
Actually, it sound like you can't come up with proof that the military implements features such as pistol grips in their weaponry "to give the willies."
all states banned all assault weapons as defined by that law.
Quote:I do not fear pistol grips.
Sure you do. You've given yourself over to the mystique that others have assigned to them. You believe that they make a rifle especially dangerous with nothing to validate that fear.
Quote:
It speaks much better than your claim that the military implements features such as pistol grips in their weaponry "because it give the willies," however.
You have shown absolutely nothing objective to validate your baseless claim that pistol-grips make a rifle more accurate and increase its rate of fire.
Your problem is that you've taken an ergonomic improvement and attached magical powers to it. So have you found any statements from the military or encyclopedias or anyone who doesn't share your hysterical position to support your belief in the magical powers of the pistol-grip? Of course you didn't.
You have become hysterical in your assessment of just what a shift of the wrist will do for as shooter. Perhaps if the shooter had some kind of arthritic condition that limited their wrist movement, you would not sound so hysterical.
Or better yet, tell us of just one incident in which that demonic shift of the wrist obviously resulted in more deaths. That's the basis of your hysterics, so you should be able to provide an example. But you won't because you can't. But that won't stop you from repeating it in the hope that if you repeat the lie often enough, it will become reality.
Quote:It's merely your contention that the use of pistol grips by the military counts for nothing.
No. It's your contention that pistol-grips on military rifles count for something.
If it really does, then bring me the data, the study, or ANYTHING to show that it counts for something. You are going off the deep end in your quest to make a monster out of that shift of the wrist.
Quote:What should be banned are weapons defined by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Uh, yeah, I've already mentioned that 43 states recognize the hysterics of people like yourself who've assigned a silly mystique to the pistol grip, and they've not banned it.
Quote:Yeah, they use these objective numbers to arrive at their inferred conclusions.
Yes, and you have no objective numbers to arrive at your inferred conclusion. You see the difference there?
Actually, the CDC's numbers prove what they say. Based on the numbers, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer among male never, former, and current smokers in the United Kingdom was calculated as 0.2 percent, 5.5 percent, and 15.9 percent, respectively, reaching 24.4 percent among heavy smokers (>5 cigarettes/day).
Hysterics don't count for anything.
Quote:Actually, it sound like you can't come up with proof that the military implements features such as pistol grips in their weaponry "to give the willies."
You sound like you're getting ready to give some numbers to justify your hysterics concerning how much deadlier a rifle with pistol-grips is. But from past experience, we know that that's just you making noise again.
Quote:all states banned all assault weapons as defined by that law.
Well then it sounds like I can't own an AR-15 if it has a pistol-grip. Correct?
I believe that they along with other features make a rifle especially dangerous because they and other features are implemented in military weaponry to make them especially dangerous
You've shown absolutely nothing objective to validate your baseless claim that the military has incorporated pistol grips and other features in their weaponry "to give the willies."
You're the one banging on about magic.
You bringing up arthritic conditions is what is hysterical.
Now demons?
Oh yeah, It's your contention that pistol grips on military rifles count for "giving the willies." Right.
Monsters now. In regard to reality, can you say "delusional"?
The ban wasn't about pistol grips, it was about assault weapons.
This law, or a law along its lines will pass through congress again.
I'm sure the military has the numbers, though.
Like talk about magic, demons, and monsters, and arthritic conditions. Exactly.
Is sounds like you're not getting ready to give anything to justify your hysterical assertion that the military implements features such as pistol grips "to give the willies."
No. The law didn't go far enough. It merely banned the manufacture of these weapons from the date the law was enacted, September 13, 1994. It grandfathered these weapons manufactured before that date.
Quote:I believe that they along with other features make a rifle especially dangerous because they and other features are implemented in military weaponry to make them especially dangerous
Yes, and your assumption concerning the magical implications of that shift of the wrist when holding a rifle will remain in the realm of belief as long as you continue to offer nothing to support that belief.
Quote:You've shown absolutely nothing objective to validate your baseless claim that the military has incorporated pistol grips and other features in their weaponry "to give the willies."
You are again trying to shift the burden proof onto me.
Quote:You're the one banging on about magic.
You seem to have lost your focus. You are the one who has assigned magical powers to a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle. I hold no belief in such magic.
Quote:You bringing up arthritic conditions is what is hysterical.
When you regain your focus, you will understand that I brought up the condition of arthritis to offer the only situation in which a pistol-grip would prove to be effective in increasing a rifle's rate of fire and perhaps accuracy. I was making fun of your hysterical ideas concerning a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle.
Quote:Now demons?
Well, one would be hard-pressed to explain your hysterical ideas concerning the powers of the pistol grip without evoking some way-out-there concept like demonic possession. Of course, all you have to do is tell us of just one incident in which that demonic shift of the wrist resulted in more deaths. You might start by telling us how many more shots a rifle with a pistol-grip will afford a shooter in a ten second timeframe.
Quote:Oh yeah, It's your contention that pistol grips on military rifles count for "giving the willies." Right.
No. It gives you the willies. No one else here shares your apprehension when it comes to a pistol-grip on a rifle.
Quote:Monsters now. In regard to reality, can you say "delusional"?
Delusional is a good word to use to describe a person who makes a monster out of a simple shift of the wrist when holding a rifle.
Quote:The ban wasn't about pistol grips, it was about assault weapons.
But you said that pistol-grips make a rifle especially dangerous. An AR-15 has a pistol-grip. Therefore, according to your beliefs, a pistol-grip turns a rifle into an assault rifle. And you hold this belief despite your lack of proof that it causes a shooter to fire faster and more accurately.
Quote:This law, or a law along its lines will pass through congress again.
It's like I said: 43 out of 50 states do not share your hysterical, unproven belief that a shift of the wrist increases accuracy and rate of fire. One would think that forcing you to confront the fact that you can't come up with even one incident in which that shift of the wrist resulted in more deaths would cause you to rethink this mystique you've created in your mind around the pistol-grip.
Quote:I'm sure the military has the numbers, though.
Sure. We'll just go with your belief in your sureness.
Quote:Like talk about magic, demons, and monsters, and arthritic conditions. Exactly.
Those words describe your concept of how a pistol-grip effects a rifle. Those things don't exist, much like your proof that a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
Quote:Is sounds like you're not getting ready to give anything to justify your hysterical assertion that the military implements features such as pistol grips "to give the willies."
I don't have to justify my opposition to what you have yet to prove. So far, we have your assurance that the military has the numbers to prove that your hysterics concerning pistol-grips is well founded. The truth is that a pistol-grip does not increase accuracy or rate of fire. The military has no numbers to help you because they don't exist. You're going to have to accept that fact, or try to convince us with your assurance.
Quote:No. The law didn't go far enough. It merely banned the manufacture of these weapons from the date the law was enacted, September 13, 1994. It grandfathered these weapons manufactured before that date.
So what you're saying is that I can't go out and buy an AR-15 today? Because ya know, if I can, then that means that you were also confused when you said that all states banned all assault weapons as defined by that law.
Its nuts like you and others on this site who will cause a total ban on high powered guns.
Love the complete lack of logic where such adds on does not effect the working of the firearms but then banning pointless hardware on the rifles is unconstitutional
unconstitutional for some reason.
Post on Glenn. The more the gun nuts post the sooner that real gun control will arrive.
