10
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 07:30 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
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.


Not uncommon?? I've heard of laws against such devices, but this is the first that I've ever heard of someone actually using one.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 08:24 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Clearly a school shooting no different in principle than others like columbine.

A non-fatal gang-related shooting is no different in principle from Columbine?

Be serious.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 05:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 05:40 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
A non-fatal gang-related shooting is no different in principle from Columbine?

Yes. Believe it or not, that is their thinking. To their credit, they know better than to actually come out and defend that kind of thinking.

Watch this:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two women were shot outside a South Carolina State University residential building, according to university officials. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Witnesses told investigators some kind of argument or fight happened off-campus between multiple people. Those people then came onto the SCSU campus, he said. Police are working to identify the gunman and determine whether they have any connection to the university, Clark said. A student who says she was wounded said it began as an argument between two males that led to shots being fired.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, is this anyone's idea of school children being slaughtered, and a reason to ban guns?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2019 05:35 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Heh, you can read minds now.

Glennn wrote:
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.

What is the purpose of these ergonomic improvements?

Glennn wrote:
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.

It isn't only about pistol grips. What need to be banned are weapons based on those that the military uses with the only difference being selective fire, like those in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Where did I write about "special powers," and "magical properties"? You're confusing what I've written with your risible straw man arguments.

Glenn wrote:
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.

Oh, that's what you meant to say!

Glennn wrote:
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.

Actually, I didn't assign "special powers to a rifle by virtue of a shift of the wrist." Those are your straw man words. You came up with these ridiculous arguments because of the vacuousness of your extremist stance on gun control. That is all you have, your dumb straw man arguments.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Get it straight, man. I'm campaigning for the banning of military based weapons like the AR-15 whose sole distinction is the lack of selective fire.

Like I said, you've got to get over your psychotic obsession with pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

Glennn wrote:
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.

What we've established is the vacuousness of your argument that has lead you to put up stupid straw man arguments about "monsters" and "a boogeyman."

Glennn wrote:
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.

Have a look here.

Glennn wrote:
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.

The public wants gun control, they will have their way. Point.

Glennn wrote:
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.

It's not a contradiction. It's your inability to distinguish between what I've written about assault weapons and your asinine straw man arguments. You've got your brain all muddled.

Glennn wrote:
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.

You're merely repeating you stupid straw man arguments. Vacuous argument indeed.

Glennn wrote:
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, projection much?
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2019 06:15 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2019 08:32 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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?

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.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Heh, so you don't have a reason for these ergonomic improvements? They're not "to give the willies" in a more ergonomic manner?
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2019 10:17 pm
@InfraBlue,
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. Having made those contradictory statements in your posts for all to see, it is quite evident that you are the author of any confusion in this vicinity. Screaming about a nonexistent strawman will not distract readers from the self-defeating contradictory nature of your statement.
Quote:
Heh, so you don't have a reason for these ergonomic improvements? They're not "to give the willies" in a more ergonomic manner?

A pistol-grip on a rifle is an ergonomic improvement. You believe that they make a rifle especially dangerous. And your proof of this claim is that the military has pistol-grips on their rifles. But that's not proof of anything. The reason you can't find anything from the military or anywhere that supports your beliefs about pistol-grips is because it doesn't exist. If it did exist, you'd have it here in a heartbeat to prove that you don't just make shyt up.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 13 Dec, 2019 07:57 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Where did I say that?

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
Heh, so you don't have a reason for these ergonomic improvements? They're not "to give the willies" in a more ergonomic manner?
A pistol-grip on a rifle is an ergonomic improvement.

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" in a more ergonomic manner?

Is it "to make a monster" out of a shift of the wrist?

Is this shift of the wrist particularly "demonic"?

Is it for the benefit of the "arthritic" in the military?

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?

You have no earthly idea so you trot out your asinine straw man arguments that you attempt to attribute to me?
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Dec, 2019 10:19 am
@InfraBlue,
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:
It's been established that a pistol grip on a rifle is an ergonomic improvement.

Now you're making sense.
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.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 13 Dec, 2019 11:27 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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." Yet another thing, which is what I actually said, is that the features found on these weapons are those found on combat weapons, features implemented by the military not “because it gives the willies,” as you would have us believe, but because of their overall effectiveness.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Like I've said, projection much?

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
You're falling behind again.

Says the person who got caught talking out both sides of their mouth.

No, what I'm doing is not falling for your stupid straw man arguments.

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
The question is, what is the purpose of this ergonomic improvement?

To add comfort, perhaps?

Ah, a supposition at last, arrived at by inference. Very good.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Your conclusions are erroneous, to say the least.

Glennn wrote:
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.

A supposition arrived at by inference, obviously.

Glennn wrote:
But you have really went over the deep end with your obsessive interpretation of the benefit of that ergonomic improvement.

Who has gone over the deep end with obsession is you, what with you endlessly banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

I've explained my position on assault weapons. You've driven yourself to obsession, what with your resort to head-up-the-ass straw man arguments, by the fact that you disagree with that position.

So, you don't agree with me. Understood. Move on.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Heh, Freudian slip? I never said that a "shift of the wrist results in more deaths." What's occurring is that, in your obsession, you're confusing your stupid straw man arguments with what I've actually written.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Dec, 2019 02:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
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 synonomous with pistol-grip?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2019 11:33 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

"A shift of the wrist when holding a rifle does not result in more deaths," is not my assertion. That's your straw man argument.

Glennn wrote:
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.

"Shift of the wrist" is not synonymous with pistol grip.

Glennn wrote:
I recommend that you just own up and admit your error and find another angle from which to condemn the pistol-grip.

The error is yours in pursuing your straw man argument.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Your projecting your obsession of the pistol grip onto me.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Simply put, it would make a shooting more efficient.

Glennn wrote:
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.

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. It was like pulling teeth with you.

Glennn wrote:
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.

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."

You're not keeping up with your own straw man arguments and your conclusions about them.

Glennn wrote:
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.

I'm not the one banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles. You are.

Glennn wrote:
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.

The discussion ended some time ago. You've merely gone in circles trying to hook me into chasing your straw man arguments.

Glennn wrote:
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.

"A shift of the wrist" is your argument, not mine, that's why it doesn't jibe with my argument.

Glennn wrote:
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?

I'm claiming that "shift of the wrist" is your wording, not mine, and for you it's synonymous with pistol grip. It isn't for me.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2019 11:03 am
@InfraBlue,
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 fall into that category since you are unable to prove that a pistol-grip makes a rifle more accurate and capable of firing at a faster rate. Rest assured that as long as you try to move past that fact, I will continue to bring it back to your attention.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two women were shot outside a South Carolina State University residential building, according to university officials. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Witnesses told investigators some kind of argument or fight happened off-campus between multiple people. Those people then came onto the SCSU campus, he said. Police are working to identify the gunman and determine whether they have any connection to the university, Clark said. A student who says she was wounded said it began as an argument between two males that led to shots being fired.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, is this your idea of school children being slaughtered en masse, and a reason to ban guns?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2019 05:36 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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?

You're arguing in circles about a straw man of yours.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Trust me when I tell you that those are your words, not mine. I'm not about to assume any particular meaning to your words given your propensity for straw man arguments.

Glennn wrote:
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.

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.

Glennn wrote:
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.

That's not obsession that's inference. Take it or leave it. Well, you've demonstrated with your tail chasing that you cannot leave it. That's your obsession.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Sorry, but for you "ergonomic improvement" means "more comfortable." "Ergonomic improvement" has other implications.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Yes you have. Those are your straw man arguments and you've arrived at conclusions about them that you've attempted to attribute to me.

Glennn wrote:
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.

"More comfort" isn't a special attribute?

Glennn wrote:
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?

I've got an inference. My claim that pistol grips along with other attributes make a rifle more effective in its purpose isn't obsessional. What's obsessional is your inability to take it or leave it by banging on and on about pistol grips.

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
I'm not the one banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out your obsessive repetition of your straw man arguments about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

Glennn wrote:

I've made no erroneous, unproven claims about pistol-grips here. You are the one who is guilty of that.

I haven't made erroneous claims about pistol grips. You're the one banging on and on with your straw man arguments about pistol grips.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Sure, that is one possible end of a discussion. The end of this discussion, however, ended when you disagreed with my stand on the banning of assault weapons. The rest has been you chasing your own tail. Rest assured I'll continue to point out that fact to you.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2019 05:41 pm
@InfraBlue,
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?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2019 05:48 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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, and instead bang on and on with your tail chasing straw man arguments. That's your obsession.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2019 06:16 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two women were shot outside a South Carolina State University residential building, according to university officials. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Witnesses told investigators some kind of argument or fight happened off-campus between multiple people. Those people then came onto the SCSU campus, he said. Police are working to identify the gunman and determine whether they have any connection to the university, Clark said. A student who says she was wounded said it began as an argument between two males that led to shots being fired.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, is this your idea of school children being slaughtered en masse, and a reason to ban guns?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2019 02:10 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Like I said, obsessional circles.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 09:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
It your opinion that it isn't true, much like the tobacco companies' opinion about disease and tobacco use.

That is incorrect. That a pistol grip does nothing to make a semi-auto rifle shoot faster or more accurately is a fact, not an opinion.


InfraBlue wrote:
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.

I think Glennn was assuming that you were using the normal English language understanding of the term "especially dangerous".

A change that would make a gun "especially dangerous" as those words are understood in the normal English language would be quite revolutionary.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2020 at 06:42:34