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

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

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.

Semi-auto-only rifles are not human-hunting rifles.

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.

Yes it does.

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

Jeez what a melodramatic drama queen.

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.

So, go and prove it for yourself.

Wow, argumentum hominis paleas ad nauseum across two threads.

Rife with melodramatic drama queenery.

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.

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.

You're mischaracterizing the law I demand.

The inferrence is backed up by observation.

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

Observation backs up my claim.

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.

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

See my previous post.

See my earlier post.

You're incorrect.

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

Says you.

What is true here and what you claim to be true are two starkly different things.

Nuh-uh.

More precisely, some are, some aren't.

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.

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

Try it yourself for your proof.

So, go and prove it for yourself.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.