A 65-year-old American man who rigged his home with a booby trap to keep out intruders has been killed by the device.
Ronald Cyr called police in the town of Van Buren in the state of Maine to say he had been shot.
Police found a door had been designed to fire a handgun should anyone attempt to enter. Mr Cyr was taken to hospital but died of his injuries.
It is not uncommon for home-owners to install such traps - but it is illegal.
Clearly a school shooting no different in principle than others like columbine.
There's nothing magical about ergonomic improvements in the military's weaponry that "gives the willies."
You're the one making the claim that the military has incorporated pistol grips and other features in their weaponry "to give the willies.".
You've lost your focus seeing as how you are the one banging on about magic.
It's a pretty ridiculous straw man argument to talk about arthritis
The hysteria is yours seeing as you're the one going on about magic, demons, monsters
No. Pistol grips do not give me "the willies." What's giving me the willies is your psychotic obsession with pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.
You're the one banging on about monsters.
You're not keeping up. The ban was about assault weapons, not assault rifles.
The public will have its way.
I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
Yes, you do have to justify your alternate claim that the military implements pistol grips and other features
You have an obsession with the AR-15.
A non-fatal gang-related shooting is no different in principle from Columbine?
Quote:There's nothing magical about ergonomic improvements in the military's weaponry that "gives the willies."
Wrong. Without anything to support your belief that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, you nonetheless assign powers to it that only exist in your mind.
Quote:You're the one making the claim that the military has incorporated pistol grips and other features in their weaponry "to give the willies.".
Wrong again. The military incorporates pistol-grips for reasons of ergonomic improvement. But you keep uttering your hysterical concerns about that ergonomic improvement, imagining that that simple shift of the wrist creates an especially dangerous rifle.
I think you're mad because you searched and searched for something from the military that you could use to justify your hysterics, and you came up dry. And you believe that if you repeat yourself over and over, people will start to believe that you actually found something to validate your hysteria. But no, you're still left with your unfounded hysteria. I've even shown you that law enforcement personnel don't share your irrational fear that a pistol-grip on a rifle is something so terrible that rifles with pistol-grips need to be banned.
Also, I'm still waiting for you to fill us all in on just how much more accurate and just how much faster a pistol-grip makes a rifle. You should start there, because without that, you're just another anti-gun nut trying to create a mystique around a pistol-grip that makes sense only to the hopeless gullible. So, how many more shots in a ten second interval can a rifle with a pistol-grip get off compared to one without a pistol-grip. You understand that in the absence of that info, you are left with only your hysterics to fall back on, so make the best of this.
Quote:You've lost your focus seeing as how you are the one banging on about magic.
Nope. Anyone can see and read all about the special powers you've assigned to this thing called a pistol-grip. You are the author of these magical properties you speak of.
Quote:It's a pretty ridiculous straw man argument to talk about arthritis
You are becoming dense. My comment regarding arthritis was to indicate that in order for a pistol-grip to do what you believe it does for a shooter, the shooter would have to be arthritic to the extent that without a shift of the wrist, they would find it extremely difficult to pull the trigger.
Quote:The hysteria is yours seeing as you're the one going on about magic, demons, monsters
Actually the hysteria belongs to the one who assigns special powers to a rifle by virtue of a shift of the wrist. My mention of magic, demons, and monsters was designed to indicate the silliness of your unproven beliefs about the benefits of the pistol-grip.
Quote:No. Pistol grips do not give me "the willies." What's giving me the willies is your psychotic obsession with pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.
I see. You are the one campaigning for the ridiculous banning of the AR-15 rifle based on the fact that it has a pistol-grip, but I'm the one obsessing. Sure. The point you're really making--but don't know it--is that if anyone argues against your obsession, that makes them obsessed. That's convenient to your obsession, but makes no sense in the real world of discussion.
Quote:You're the one banging on about monsters.
We've already established who has created a boogeyman out of a simple shift of the wrist, and that someone is . . . you.
Quote:You're not keeping up. The ban was about assault weapons, not assault rifles.
Really? Then by all means, do tell me the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. This should be extremely enlightening.
Quote:The public will have its way.
Indeed! And whether or not you like it, the public in 43 states has had its way. You have no point.
Quote:I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
I see. So your idea of an especially dangerous rifle is one that does not result in more deaths. You're probably going to have to ask someone to explain the absolute contradiction in your statement there.
Quote:Yes, you do have to justify your alternate claim that the military implements pistol grips and other features
You're forgetting that it is you who has the irrational fear of a pistol-grip. It gives you the willies. It appears that any ergonomic improvement such as a pistol-grip scares you to the point of holding two diametrically opposed ideas about it; like saying that a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle doesn't result in more deaths, while also saying that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. You're going to have to resolve that conflict and then get back to us with a new and improved theory.
Quote:You have an obsession with the AR-15.
Hmm, you come out with your unproven fears of the AR-15, stating that the pistol-grip makes it an extremely dangerous weapon that doesn't result in more deaths, and you beleive that anyone who calls you on that ridiculous contradiction is the one obsessed. Funny thing about obsessions is that the obsessed are the last to recognize their obsession.
Heh, you can read minds now.
What is the purpose of these ergonomic improvements?
Quote:Heh, you can read minds now.
No need to do that. You've clearly voiced your belief that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, thereby assigning powers to it that you cannot show to be real. In fact, you yourself have disproven your own belief that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by also stating that it doesn't result in more deaths. I don't mean to run your head into a wall of your own making, but this contradiction of yours is now a matter of public record, and you can scream "strawman" all you want, but it won't change the fact that you've betrayed yourself with your own words.
Would you care to defend your contradiction?
Quote:What is the purpose of these ergonomic improvements?
According to you, it makes a rifle especially dangerous, while at the same time not resulting in more deaths. First show something to prove that it makes a rifle especially dangerous. And then explain how it doesn't result in more deaths. See the web you've weaved for yourself. Good luck unraveling it.
I've already replied to your confusion of your own stupid straw man arguments and what I've written. You're merely talking in circles.
Heh, so you don't have a reason for these ergonomic improvements? They're not "to give the willies" in a more ergonomic manner?
Quote:I've already replied to your confusion of your own stupid straw man arguments and what I've written. You're merely talking in circles.
No. You said that a pistol-grip on a rifle makes it especially dangerous and also that it doesn't result in more deaths.
Quote:A pistol-grip on a rifle is an ergonomic improvement.Heh, so you don't have a reason for these ergonomic improvements? They're not "to give the willies" in a more ergonomic manner?
Where did I say that?
I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
You're falling behind again.
It's been established that a pistol grip on a rifle is an ergonomic improvement.
The question is, what is the purpose of this ergonomic improvement?
Is it "to give the willies"
Is it "to make a monster" out of a shift of the wrist?
Is this shift of the wrist particularly "demonic"?
If it's not for any of these straw man arguments of yours, then what the hell is the purpose of this ergonomic improvement, according to you?
Quote:Where did I say that?Quote:I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
Do you want me to hunt down the post in which you said that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous? I don't think so.
Talking bullshit is one thing. Not being able to keep track of it all happens to be the price you pay. Welcome to your world.
Quote:You're falling behind again.
Says the person who got caught talking out both sides of their mouth.
Quote:The question is, what is the purpose of this ergonomic improvement?
To add comfort, perhaps?
Quote:Is it "to give the willies"
Only to people like yourself who insist that it makes a rifle especially dangerous despite your inability to produce one iota of proof to that effect.
Quote:Is it "to make a monster" out of a shift of the wrist?
Again, only to people like yourself who insist that that it makes a rifle especially dangerous despite your inability to produce one iota of proof to that effect.
Quote:Is this shift of the wrist particularly "demonic"?
Only to people like yourself who insist that it makes a rifle especially dangerous despite your inability to produce one iota of proof to that effect.
Quote:If it's not for any of these straw man arguments of yours, then what the hell is the purpose of this ergonomic improvement, according to you?
For more comfort, obviously.
But you have really went over the deep end with your obsessive interpretation of the benefit of that ergonomic improvement.
However, we also have your Freudian slip where you clearly state that you never said that that shift of the wrist results in more deaths. So there may be hope for you yet.
One thing is saying that "a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths;" another thing is saying that "a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous."
Ah, a supposition at last, arrived at by inference. Very good.
Your conclusions are erroneous, to say the least.
Who has gone over the deep end with obsession is you, what with you endlessly banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.
So, you don't agree with me. Understood. Move on.
I never said that a "shift of the wrist results in more deaths."
Quote:One thing is saying that "a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths;" another thing is saying that "a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous."
What you're trying to do is reconcile your assertion that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous with your other assertion that a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle does not result in more deaths.
The best you can hope for is to try to convince readers that, in the context of this discussion, you had no idea that "shift of the wrist" is synonymous with pistol-grip.
I recommend that you just own up and admit your error and find another angle from which to condemn the pistol-grip.
And to that end, I suggest finding a side-by-side comparison of the rate of fire and accuracy between a rife with a pistol-grip and one without a pistol-grip. That way, we don't have to rely on your simple assurance that you pulled from the air. Or, you could find something straight from the military that would support your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. However, the fact that none of the other anti-gun nuts obsessed with the pistol-grip have performed such a side-by-side comparison, or obtained something from the military to prove their point, should indicate just how fruitless that would be when it comes to validating your obsession with the pistol-grip.
And I should remind you that you have yet to show how this imagined benefit that a pistol-grip affords a shooter would impact a shooting.
Quote:Ah, a supposition at last, arrived at by inference. Very good.
Sorry, but my supposition concerning comfort does not imply increased rate of fire and accuracy. That is an inference of yours based on your lack of a side-by-side comparison or something from the military that would support your obsession.
Quote:Your conclusions are erroneous, to say the least.
You're losing your focus again. I am not the one who has come to conclusions about pistol-grips based on nonexistent evidence; that was you. I'm asking you to back up your conclusion . . . for the sixth or seventh time now. Still waiting.
Quote:Who has gone over the deep end with obsession is you, what with you endlessly banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.
Apparently, in your world, you are free to express your baseless obsessions, and anyone who asks you to validate them is called obsessive. Interesting.
Quote:So, you don't agree with me. Understood. Move on.
Well, no. I'm enjoying our discussion. We should probably see it to its inevitable and obvious conclusion.
Quote:I never said that a "shift of the wrist results in more deaths."
You are correct. That was a typo on my part. What you said was that a shift of the wrist does not result in more deaths, which doesn't jibe with your statement that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous.
Are you still going to claim that, in the context of this discussion, you had no idea that "shift of the wrist" is synonymous with pistol-grip?
"A shift of the wrist when holding a rifle does not result in more deaths," is not my assertion.
I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
"Shift of the wrist" is not synonymous with pistol grip.
Your projecting your obsession of the pistol grip onto me.
Simply put, it would make a shooting more efficient.
I didn't imply increased rate of fire and accuracy for your supposition. I merely pointed out that you finally came out with a purpose for the implementation of pistol grips in their weaponry by the military.
You're losing your focus seeing as how these are your conclusions based on your straw man arguments about "giving the willies," and "making monsters out of a shift of the wrist," and shifts of the wrist being particulary "demonic."
I'm not the one banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.
The discussion ended some time ago. You've merely gone in circles trying to hook me into chasing your straw man arguments.
Quote:"A shift of the wrist when holding a rifle does not result in more deaths," is not my assertion.
You did say:Quote:I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths.
Whether you know it or not, you were saying that a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle does not result in more deaths. Of course, you could always say that, in the context of this discussion, you had no idea that "shift of the wrist" was synonymous with pistol-grip. But, who's going to believe that?
Quote:"Shift of the wrist" is not synonymous with pistol grip.
Trust me when I tell you that anyone with half the sense that god gave a goose is not going to believe that, in the context of this discussion, you had no idea that "shift of the wrist" was in reference to pistol-grip. But just for laughs, tell us what you thought "shift of the wrist" was in reference to, if not the pistol-grip.
Quote:Your projecting your obsession of the pistol grip onto me.
I am not the one obsessed with the pistol-grip. You are the one who believes that it makes a rifle especially dangerous, and therefore needs to be banned. I'm offering you the opportunity to provide us with a side-by-side comparison of the rate of fire and accuracy between a rife with a pistol-grip and one without a pistol-grip, or something from the military that would support your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. Short of that, you're going to have to accept your place among others who are hopelessly obsessed with the pistol-grip.
Quote:Simply put, it would make a shooting more efficient.
You mean by making the shooter more accurate and able to fire at a faster rate? I'm afraid that that's your obsession talking because you have nothing to show that would justify this belief of yours.
Quote:I didn't imply increased rate of fire and accuracy for your supposition. I merely pointed out that you finally came out with a purpose for the implementation of pistol grips in their weaponry by the military.
Sorry, but you did state that a pistol-grip increases accuracy and rate of fire without any evidence to support that statement. And as far as me "finally" coming out with a purpose of a pistol-grip, I have stated numerous times that a pistol-grip is an ergonomic improvement, meaning that it is more comfortable. But in your obsession, you've decided that this comfort translates to better accuracy and faster rate of fire, with nothing at all to support that particular belief of yours.
Quote:You're losing your focus seeing as how these are your conclusions based on your straw man arguments about "giving the willies," and "making monsters out of a shift of the wrist," and shifts of the wrist being particulary "demonic."
I have drawn no such conclusions concerning the pistol-grip.
You, on the other hand, have made unsubstantiated claims about them. So, for future reference, please try to keep in mind that I have assigned no special attributes to the pistol-grip.
Also, try to keep in mind that you are the one who has made the obsessive claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle more accurate and that it increases its rate of fire. Bottom line is this that you need to produce something to show that your claims are not based on your obsession with pistol-grips. Got anything?
Quote:I'm not the one banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.
Yes, you are.
I've made no erroneous, unproven claims about pistol-grips here. You are the one who is guilty of that.
Quote:The discussion ended some time ago. You've merely gone in circles trying to hook me into chasing your straw man arguments.
The end of a discussion occurs when one of the participants is unable to offer anything to support their claims.
You're the one banging on about it. My argument is about the banning of assault weapons. You've gone in circles about pistol grips.
Quote:You're the one banging on about it. My argument is about the banning of assault weapons. You've gone in circles about pistol grips.
Oh, then I must be mistaken about you saying that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous because it increases accuracy and rate of fire. Am I mistaken about that?
No, you're not.
What you're banging on and on about is your inability to take it or leave it
Quote:No, you're not.
Okay. So now that we've established that you believe that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire, we can move on to what you have to support this belief of yours.
Go.
Quote:What you're banging on and on about is your inability to take it or leave it
No. What I'm "banging on" about is your inability to support your belief that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire; so much so that you think they should be banned.
It your opinion that it isn't true, much like the tobacco companies' opinion about disease and tobacco use.
You forgot the modifier "revolutionary." No they don't. What's more those are not my words, they're Glennn's. Stick to what I wrote, not Glennn's straw man arguments.
