11
   

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

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Sat 21 Dec, 2019 12:58 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
It allows for the faster operation of the trigger by the shooter, and it allows for a more accurate aiming of the weapon.

No it doesn't. And as evidence of this fact, we have your failure to provide anything to show that it is true. A simple side-by-side comparison between a rifle with a pistol-grip and a rifle without a pistol grip would prove your unfounded belief.

What's happening here is that you've spoken the proud words and have invested so much emotional energy into trying to make your unfounded claim concerning pistol-grips true that every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide anything to support that claim, you hit the reset button by restating that claim, pretending that you haven't been asked to prove it. But the fact is, you've been asked to prove it many time, and each time you have failed to provide any proof. Instead, you try to create the illusion that you are somehow exempt from having to prove your claim because the simple act of asking you to do so amounts to a strawman argument. Nobody but you is buying into that bullshyt. I think that, not even deep down, you understand this as well as anyone else.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2019 02:04 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You are talking about ordinary weapons used for normal hunting of varmints and game animals. I'm talking about human-hunting rifles.

That is incorrect. Human-hunting rifles are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:
Semi-auto-only rifles are not human-hunting rifles.

More precisely, some are, some aren't.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sat 21 Dec, 2019 02:16 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It allows for the faster operation of the trigger by the shooter, and it allows for a more accurate aiming of the weapon.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Glennn wrote:
And as evidence of this fact, we have your failure to provide anything to show that it is true. A simple side-by-side comparison between a rifle with a pistol-grip and a rifle without a pistol grip would prove your unfounded belief.

Yes, a side-by-side comparison would prove my claim. It would be the foundation of my claim.

Glennn wrote:
What's happening here is that you've spoken the proud words and have invested so much emotional energy into trying to make your unfounded claim concerning pistol-grips true that every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide anything to support that claim, you hit the reset button by restating that claim, pretending that you haven't been asked to prove it. But the fact is, you've been asked to prove it many time, and each time you have failed to provide any proof. Instead, you try to create the illusion that you are somehow exempt from having to prove your claim because the simple act of asking you to do so amounts to a strawman argument. Nobody but you is buying into that bullshyt. I think that, not even deep down, you understand this as well as anyone else.

Jeez what a melodramatic drama queen.
Glennn
 
  0  
Sat 21 Dec, 2019 02:43 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Yes it does.

You always come this far, but when asked to prove it, you fail miserably. But you go ahead and keep repeating it, and I'll go on showing your failure to prove it.
Quote:
Yes, a side-by-side comparison would prove my claim. It would be the foundation of my claim.

Yes, that's what I've been telling you. Now that you've admitted that much, take it one step further by providing that which would prove your belief. Otherwise, admit that you have no basis for your unfounded claim.
Quote:
Jeez what a melodramatic drama queen.

I don't doubt that that's how you would interpret an accurate assessment of your lack of proof of what you claim. But the fact remains that it is accurate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Of course, you could sort of improve your failing position here by at least showing some effort to vindicate yourself.

Let's start you off by asking for your answers to these pertinent questions:

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those items are the reasoning behind the anti-gun nuts' desire to ban so-called assault weapons. You're being asked justify that kind of reasoning.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 12:48 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Yes it does.

You always come this far, but when asked to prove it, you fail miserably. But you go ahead and keep repeating it, and I'll go on showing your failure to prove it.

Try it yourself for your proof.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Yes, a side-by-side comparison would prove my claim. It would be the foundation of my claim.

Yes, that's what I've been telling you. Now that you've admitted that much, take it one step further by providing that which would prove your belief. Otherwise, admit that you have no basis for your unfounded claim.

So, go and prove it for yourself.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Jeez what a melodramatic drama queen.

I don't doubt that that's how you would interpret an accurate assessment of your lack of proof of what you claim. But the fact remains that it is accurate.

Rife with melodramatic drama queenery.

Glennn wrote:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Of course, you could sort of improve your failing position here by at least showing some effort to vindicate yourself.

Let's start you off by asking for your answers to these pertinent questions:

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those items are the reasoning behind the anti-gun nuts' desire to ban so-called assault weapons. You're being asked justify that kind of reasoning.


Wow, argumentum hominis paleas ad nauseum across two threads.
Glennn
 
  0  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 09:32 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
So, go and prove it for yourself.

You are the one making the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. You are also the one who has failed to show anything to verify that claim.
Quote:
Wow, argumentum hominis paleas ad nauseum across two threads.

Sorry, but you're trying to make the case that rifles with pistol-grips make that rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. When you do that, you're just asking for someone to challenge that unfounded belief of yours.

So let's get to that . . . again:

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those items are the reasoning behind the anti-gun nuts' desire to ban so-called assault weapons. You're being asked justify that kind of reasoning.
Quote:
Rife with melodramatic drama queenery.

Oh I don't know about that. Let's parse this out.

Quote:
What's happening here is that you've spoken the proud words and have invested so much emotional energy into trying to make your unfounded claim concerning pistol-grips true that every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide anything to support that claim, you hit the reset button by restating that claim, pretending that you haven't been asked to prove it.

You have invested so much emotional energy into your claim about pistol-grips.
Quote:
every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide anything to support that claim, you hit the reset button by restating that claim, pretending that you haven't been asked to prove it.

It is true that every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide any proof of your claim regarding pistol-grips, you pretend that you haven't been asked to do so.
Quote:
But the fact is, you've been asked to prove it many time, and each time you have failed to provide any proof.

It is true that you have been asked many times to prove your claims about pistol-grips, and have as many times failed to provide any proof.
Quote:
Instead, you try to create the illusion that you are somehow exempt from having to prove your claim because the simple act of asking you to do so amounts to a strawman argument.

It is true that you believe you are exempt from your obligation to support your claim concerning pistol-grips because you are of the opinion that asking you to support your claim amounts to a strawman argument.
Quote:
Nobody but you is buying into that bullshyt.

It is true that no reasonable person is buying into your silly excuse for not answering the questions of:

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 09:49 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
You're mischaracterizing the law I demand.

You've repeatedly referred to the 1994 law against having pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, and you have repeatedly called for it to be reinstated.


InfraBlue wrote:
The inferrence is backed up by observation.

Nonsense. You've not provided any such observations. You have not backed up your claims.


InfraBlue wrote:
To be clear, I'm pressing to ban AR-15 rifles, not pistol grips in and of themselves.

Can you point out any feature(s) of a semi-auto-only AR-15 that would justify outlawing it?
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 09:51 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Observation backs up my claim.

Nonsense. You have not provided any observations to back up your claims.


InfraBlue wrote:
Fire a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip as fast as you can pull the trigger and compare the rate with a similar rifle that has a straight grip.

Backing up your claims is your job, not mine.


InfraBlue wrote:
You are incorrect in your first assertion. You are correct in your second assertion. You're muddling these different weapons.

I am not incorrect in any part of it. The AR-15 is nothing more than an ordinary hunting rifle, and there is no justification for outlawing it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 09:52 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
See my previous post.

Your previous post only made a vague reference to observations that you have failed to provide. You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims.
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 09:53 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
See my earlier post.

Your earlier post only made a vague reference to observations that you have not provided. There was no evidence provided in that post to back up your claims.


InfraBlue wrote:
You're incorrect.

If you are able to back up your claims, how come you are not doing so?


InfraBlue wrote:
One thing is producing a conclusion based on inference; another thing is producing evidence to back up a claim. You're confusing the two.

No confusion. You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims.
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 09:54 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Says you.

I'm fond of pointing out facts and reality.
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 10:22 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
What is true here and what you claim to be true are two starkly different things.

That is incorrect. Everything that I've said is completely true in every respect.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 10:23 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Human-hunting rifles are always capable of either full-auto or burst-fire.


InfraBlue wrote:
More precisely, some are, some aren't.

That is incorrect. Semi-auto-only rifles are not human-hunting rifles.
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 10:24 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Glennn wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
It allows for the faster operation of the trigger by the shooter, and it allows for a more accurate aiming of the weapon.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Nonsense. Where is the evidence to prove this absurd claim?


InfraBlue wrote:
Yes, a side-by-side comparison would prove my claim. It would be the foundation of my claim.

Nonsense. Let's see some evidence.
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 10:25 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Try it yourself for your proof.
InfraBlue wrote:
So, go and prove it for yourself.

Proving your claims is your job, not ours.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 12:19 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
So, go and prove it for yourself.

You are the one making the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. You are also the one who has failed to show anything to verify that claim.

You can verify my claims for yourself. That you refuse to do so is your business.

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
Wow, argumentum hominis paleas ad nauseum across two threads.

Sorry, but you're trying to make the case that rifles with pistol-grips make that rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. When you do that, you're just asking for someone to challenge that unfounded belief of yours.

You're incorrect. My belief is founded.

Glennn wrote:
So let's get to that . . . again:

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?


__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those items are the reasoning behind the anti-gun nuts' desire to ban so-called assault weapons. You're being asked justify that kind of reasoning.

You're chasing your own tail, again.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Rife with melodramatic drama queenery.

Oh I don't know about that. Let's parse this out.

Quote:
What's happening here is that you've spoken the proud words and have invested so much emotional energy into trying to make your unfounded claim concerning pistol-grips true that every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide anything to support that claim, you hit the reset button by restating that claim, pretending that you haven't been asked to prove it.

You have invested so much emotional energy into your claim about pistol-grips.

No, the energy I've invested into my claim about pistol grips amounts to the calories metabolized in tapping keystrokes on a keyboard and engaging my brain in replying to your redundant straw man arguments and repetitive disagreement with my position on gun regulation. It's your redundancy and repetitiveness along with melodramatic words and phrases that you use, e.g. "proud words," emotionally motivated assumptions, e.g. "pretending," "create the illusion," "deep down inside,"emotional energy," that reveals your emotional response to my position on gun control. You're projecting.

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide anything to support that claim, you hit the reset button by restating that claim, pretending that you haven't been asked to prove it.

It is true that every time you are reminded that you have failed to provide any proof of your claim regarding pistol-grips, you pretend that you haven't been asked to do so.

I'm not pretending to do anything. I've provided all of the proof that you're going to get. That you can't leave it is your psychological weakness.

Glennn wrote:
Quote:
But the fact is, you've been asked to prove it many time, and each time you have failed to provide any proof.

It is true that you have been asked many times to prove your claims about pistol-grips, and have as many times failed to provide any proof.

Read my response above.

Glennn wrote:
Instead, you try to create the illusion that you are somehow exempt from having to prove your claim because the simple act of asking you to do so amounts to a strawman argument.

The illusions are in your own head.

Glennn wrote:
It is true that you believe you are exempt from your obligation to support your claim concerning pistol-grips because you are of the opinion that asking you to support your claim amounts to a strawman argument.

The only thing that's true is your assumption of what I believe I am exempt from. The support that I've provided for my claim concerning pistol grips is all you're going to get. That you're psychologically incapable of accepting that fact is your weakness.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Nobody but you is buying into that bullshyt.

It is true that no reasonable person is buying into your silly excuse for not answering the questions of:

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?


Those aren't my arguments. Those are your straw man arguments. What's bullshit is your attempt to pass them off onto me. I refuse to play your bullshit games. That you cannot accept the fact that I refuse to play your bullshit games and endlessly pursue them is your own psychological hang up.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 12:26 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're mischaracterizing the law I demand.

You've repeatedly referred to the 1994 law against having pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, and you have repeatedly called for it to be reinstated.

That much is correct. You mischaracterized the law I demand in what I quoted from you, however.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The inferrence is backed up by observation.

Nonsense. You've not provided any such observations. You have not backed up your claims.

Yes I have.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
To be clear, I'm pressing to ban AR-15 rifles, not pistol grips in and of themselves.

Can you point out any feature(s) of a semi-auto-only AR-15 that would justify outlawing it?

Not in and of themselves, but in the aggratate such as that which costitute an AR-15 makes the outlawing of the AR-15 justifiable.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 12:30 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Observation backs up my claim.

Nonsense. You have not provided any observations to back up your claims.

Yes I have.

oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
Fire a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip as fast as you can pull the trigger and compare the rate with a similar rifle that has a straight grip.

Backing up your claims is your job, not mine.

That you refuse to verify my claims for yourself is your business.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You are incorrect in your first assertion. You are correct in your second assertion. You're muddling these different weapons.

I am not incorrect in any part of it.

Yes your are.

oralloy wrote:
The AR-15 is nothing more than an ordinary hunting rifle, and there is no justification for outlawing it.

The AR-15 is not an ordinary hunting rifle. There is justification for outlawing it.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 12:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
See my previous post.

Your previous post only made a vague reference to observations that you have failed to provide. You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims.

Your lacking reading comprehension is your problem. I cannot help you with that. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Sun 22 Dec, 2019 12:39 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
See my earlier post.

Your earlier post only made a vague reference to observations that you have not provided. There was no evidence provided in that post to back up your claims.

See my previous post.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're incorrect.

If you are able to back up your claims, how come you are not doing so?

I have backed up my claims. That you don't accept my back up is your problem.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
One thing is producing a conclusion based on inference; another thing is producing evidence to back up a claim. You're confusing the two.

No confusion.

Yes, confusion.

oralloy wrote:
You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims.

Repetitiveness doesn't make you any less incorrect.
0 Replies
 
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 07:06:36