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

oralloy wrote:

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

That's incorrect. It is not a fact. It's an assertion.

Yeah, Glennn makes a lot of assumptions in regard to his straw man arguments.

oralloy wrote:

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

In your and Glennn's minds, that is, for the sake of your straw man arguments.

"Normal English language," and what you assert is "normal English language" are two starkly different things.

oralloy wrote:

That you committed a grave violation of people's civil liberties matters quite a lot.

Your deluded opinion is duly noted.

In your own mind you use the normal usage of the English language. That is vastly different from the normal usage of the English language, however.

There is no comparison in singling out a method.

That's incorrect. It is not a fact. It's an assertion.

Yeah, Glennn makes a lot of assumptions in regard to his straw man arguments.

In your and Glennn's minds, that is, for the sake of your straw man arguments.

Your argument is a straw man, however. Phobia of pistol grips isn't talked about in the article.

You're argumentum ad nauseam doesn't make you any less incorrect.

Human-hunting rifles are anything but ordinary outside of the military.

Says you.

Human-hunting rifles are anything but ordinary outside of the military.

The old chestnut that says,
"what stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns" ,
has been shown to be total bullshit.

so with that brilliant awakening , what do you propose to be done to stop all the gun deaths in which our country is the 1st world's leading nation in senseless gun deaths.

The old chestnut that says,
"what stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns" ,
has been shown to be total bullshit.

InfraBlue wrote:

"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.

Make up your mind. Do you say that a shift in the wrist does or does not result in more deaths?

"I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths. That's your straw man argument."
http://able2know.org/topic/212871-66#post-6936467

InfraBlue wrote:

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

Don't be silly. Of course they are synonymous.

InfraBlue wrote:

The error is yours in pursuing your straw man argument.

Glennn is not pursuing any straw man argument.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your projecting your obsession of the pistol grip onto me.

You are the one who insists on outlawing them for no reason. How is that his obsession?

InfraBlue wrote:

Simply put, it would make a shooting more efficient.

You cannot provide any evidence that adding a pistol grip to a semi-auto weapon makes that weapon shoot more efficiently.

InfraBlue wrote:

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

That is incorrect. You are the one who keeps pressing to ban them for no reason.

InfraBlue wrote:

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

Glennn is not making any straw man arguments.

InfraBlue wrote:

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

Don't be silly. What else does a pistol grip do on a semi-auto rifle besides shift the position of a wrist slightly?

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Can you establish any other significance for a pistol grip on a semi-auto rifle?

InfraBlue wrote:

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

Glennn is not making any straw man argument.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

That's sophistry. What you are wrongly referring to as an assault weapon is just an ordinary rifle with a pistol grip attached to it.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's not obsession that's inference. Take it or leave it.

Your inference is factually incorrect.

InfraBlue wrote:

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

No it doesn't. If there were other implications, you would have stated them by now.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

He is not making any straw man argument. He is pointing out that your claims are factually incorrect.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Instead of calling your claims obsessional, let's just call your claims factually incorrect.

InfraBlue wrote:

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 is not making any straw man arguments. He merely points out that your claims are factually incorrect.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. You have erroneously claimed that they improve efficiency, you have erroneously referred to rifles with pistol grips as human-hunting rifles, and you have erroneously claimed that there is justification for outlawing them.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're the one banging on and on with your straw man arguments about pistol grips.

Glennn is not making any straw man arguments. He merely points out that your claims are untrue.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Pointing out that your claims are untrue is hardly chasing his own tail.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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

That's incorrect. It is not a fact. It's an assertion.

It is an assertion of a fact.

Adding a pistol grip to a semi-auto weapon does not increase its rate of fire. The rate of fire of a semi-auto weapon remains one round for each trigger pull even when a pistol grip has been added to it.

Adding a pistol grip to a semi-auto weapon does not make it any more accurate. A gun's accuracy is related to the quality of the sights and the precision of the gun's workmanship, not to the presence of a pistol grip.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yeah, Glennn makes a lot of assumptions in regard to his straw man arguments.

Glennn did not make any straw man arguments.

It is reasonable for people to assume when conversing in the English language that everyone in the conversation is using the normal accepted definitions for words.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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

In your and Glennn's minds, that is, for the sake of your straw man arguments.

That is incorrect. A change that transforms "an ordinary gun" into "a weapon that is vastly more dangerous than an ordinary gun" would be revolutionary.

Neither Glennn nor I have made any straw man arguments.

InfraBlue wrote:

"Normal English language," and what you assert is "normal English language" are two starkly different things.

That is incorrect. Here is what "especially" means in the normal English language:

particularly; mainly; to a marked degree; unusually
Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition
http://www.yourdictionary.com/especially

To an extent or degree deserving of special emphasis; particularly.
The American Heritage® Dictionary Of The English Language, Fifth Edition
http://www.yourdictionary.com/especially

1 Used to single out one person or thing over all others.
2 To a great extent; very much.
Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.lexico.com/definition/especially

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

That you committed a grave violation of people's civil liberties matters quite a lot.

Your deluded opinion is duly noted.

There is no delusion in my opinion. Your atrocities are truly horrific.

InfraBlue wrote:

In your own mind you use the normal usage of the English language. That is vastly different from the normal usage of the English language, however.

That is incorrect. The dictionaries agree with my usage of the term especially dangerous.

InfraBlue wrote:

There is no comparison in singling out a method.

That is incorrect. Singling out one method is differentiating it from the methods that were not singled out.

Quote:

That's incorrect. It is not a fact. It's an assertion.

He was not incorrect. You are incorrect. A pistol-grip does not make a rifle shoot faster or more accurately.

I've repeatedly ask you to show something to validate that unfounded belief of yours, and you've repeatedly failed to do so.

Quote:

Yeah, Glennn makes a lot of assumptions in regard to his straw man arguments.

You said that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing both accuracy and rate of fire. Whenever someone asks you to prove that assumption, you start crying about being confronted with a strawman. You know how lame that is, right? Right.

Quote:

In your and Glennn's minds, that is, for the sake of your straw man arguments.

It is not in our minds that you made the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. You actually said those things. It is also not in our minds that, upon repeatedly being asked to support that unfounded belief of yours, you have failed to produce anything. If you believe that you have, it is all in your mind.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your argument is a straw man, however. Phobia of pistol grips isn't talked about in the article.

That is incorrect. That article was entirely about phobia of pistol grips.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're argumentum ad nauseam doesn't make you any less incorrect.

I am completely correct in every respect.

InfraBlue wrote:

Human-hunting rifles are anything but ordinary outside of the military.

We are not talking about human-hunting rifles. We are talking about ordinary weapons used for normal hunting of varmints and game animals.

InfraBlue wrote:

Says you.

Says the English language.

Quote:

Human-hunting rifles are anything but ordinary outside of the military.

Here you go again trying to take away the difference between a select-fire rifle and a non select-fire rifle. But all the talk in the world is not going to change the facts.

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that an animal-hunting rifle must be anything but ordinary, too, since they double as a human-hunting rifle whenever a shooter desires.