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

InfraBlue wrote:

Says you.

I'm fond of pointing out facts and reality.

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

My belief is founded.

You're chasing your own tail, again.

It's your redundancy and repetitiveness

I've provided all of the proof that you're going to get.

The illusions are in your own head.

The support that I've provided for my claim concerning pistol grips is all you're going to get.

Those aren't my arguments.

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

Repetitiveness doesn't make you any less incorrect.

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.

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.

Quote:

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

Now you're pretending to not understand that when you make a claim, it is your responsibility to prove it. The fact is that it is your claim, and therefore your responsibility to prove it. Since it is obvious that you have no intentions of doing so, we can dismiss your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire.

Quote:

My belief is founded.

On what? You must believe that if you repeat that often enough, it will become true. But that, too, is a false belief of yours.

Nowhere in this or any other thread have you shown that a pistol-grip makes a rifle more accurate by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire.

Quote:

You're chasing your own tail, again.

No. I've been chasing your tail. And whether you like it or not, your failure to show that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire confirms that your tail has been caught.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is obvious that you refuse to answer those questions because your answers would not support your unfounded beliefs about pistol-grips, etc.

Quote:

It's your redundancy and repetitiveness

If you continue not answering the question of how a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, you can expect to be asked again and again until you come up with something.

Quote:

I've provided all of the proof that you're going to get.

Yes you have. And thus far, it adds up to nothing.

Quote:

The illusions are in your own head.

No. All anyone has to do is look at some of your previous posts to determine that when someone asks you to prove your claim, you view that as a strawman argument.

But of course it's not.

Quote:

The support that I've provided for my claim concerning pistol grips is all you're going to get.

But I received nothing, meaning that you had no support whatsoever for your claim.

Quote:

Those aren't my arguments.

Well I happen to know that you are of the opinion that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, and therefore, needs to be banned.

So that is definitely your argument.

However, you have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that you have nothing to support that argument.

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

Quote:

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

Oralloy is not obligated to verify your claims. That's just silliness.

That you refuse to verify your claims is your business.

Quote:

Repetitiveness doesn't make you any less incorrect.

But he's not incorrect at all. Repeating the fact that you have not provided any evidence to back up your claims is already correct.

Quote:

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

Truer words were never spoken.

So here's where we are. You made the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle more dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. When asked for proof of this claim, you declared that you don't have to prove it because it's up to us to prove your claim. Is that about right so far?

What you fail to understand is that when you doubt a claim you can attempt to disprove it

You have not proven this belief to be false.

You're misreading my argument about pistol grips.

I've already addressed your ruse.

You'll get the same answers that you've been getting for the past umpteen pages.

And with this assertion you still cannot get over your obsessive compulsion.

There is no illusion creation on my part.

This illusion of yours is your inability to distinguish my responses, which you have a mental difficulty to accept for what they are, with your straw man arguments about victims of rifles with grenade launchers, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts and pistol grips.

But given this conclusion of yours you're still compelled to chase your own tail.

You're wrong. You only think you happen to know that I am of the opinion that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous

Quote:

What you fail to understand is that when you doubt a claim you can attempt to disprove it

But the fact is that I doubt your claim because you have failed to prove it. The issue started with a claim made by you. And it ended with your failure to prove the claim you made. I'm here to help you to slowly process that realization.

What you fail to understand is that when you doubt a claim you can attempt to disprove it, or do nothing about it. The claim stands until disproved.

Quote:

You have not proven this belief to be false.

I don't have to because you haven't proven it to be true.

Quote:

You're misreading my argument about pistol grips.

Actually you must have forgotten your argument concerning pistol-grips. You most certainly did say that pistol-grips make a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. Would you like for me to retrieve those statements from the posts in which they are found?

Quote:

I've already addressed your ruse.

No you didn't. You have yet to answer these questions that are pertinent to your claims about pistol-grips, etc.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

When was 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 are the items that some anti-gun nuts believe make an AR-15 an especially dangerous rifle. If you don't care to answer those questions, just say that you would prefer not to, and I will stop hounding you.

Quote:

You'll get the same answers that you've been getting for the past umpteen pages.

That's impossible. You haven't given any answers.

Quote:

And with this assertion you still cannot get over your obsessive compulsion.

I guess that is your way of saying that you have no proof of what you've claimed. I can accept that.

Quote:

There is no illusion creation on my part.

Of course there is. Whenever you were pressed to offer proof of your claims, you accused the ones asking of engaging in a strawman argument. This is a matter of public record now. So . . .

Quote:

This illusion of yours is your inability to distinguish my responses, which you have a mental difficulty to accept for what they are, with your straw man arguments about victims of rifles with grenade launchers, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts and pistol grips.

Those items are the reason that anti-gun nuts are crying for the banning of the AR-15. Asking you to validate all that crying by requiring you to point out the last time someone fell victim as a result of each one is not a strawman argument.

Quote:

But given this conclusion of yours you're still compelled to chase your own tail.

As long as you deny that you have no proof of what you've claimed, then it is definitely your tail being chased.

Quote:

You're wrong. You only think you happen to know that I am of the opinion that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous

It would appear that you've forgotten that you have said that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous; that it increases accuracy and rate of fire. Would you like for me to retrieve that from a previous post of yours?

You failed to finish quoting me in full, leaving out the pertinent retort to your redundant response.

What you fail to understand is that when you doubt a claim you can attempt to disprove it, or do nothing about it. The claim stands until disproved.

You are asking for proof. You can prove it for yourself.

What you erroneously attributed to me was, "a pistol-grip makes a rifle more accurate by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire."

What's bullshit is your attempt to pass them off onto me.

I looks like we're making progress with you.

So, you've demonstrated that you're utterly confused as to what your straw man arguments are and my responses to them.

It is a straw man argument because you attribute it to me.

As long as you've settled for your self that I have no proof of what I've claimed, and you persist in pursuing it, then it is definitely your tail that you're chasing.

Another thing is saying that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, and therefore, needs to be banned. That is not my argument.

Quote:

You failed to finish quoting me in full, leaving out the pertinent retort to your redundant response.

You stated that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. You also said that the reason it makes a rifle more dangerous is that it increases its accuracy and rate of fire. What pertinent retort do you believe altered those statements?

Quote:

What you fail to understand is that when you doubt a claim you can attempt to disprove it, or do nothing about it. The claim stands until disproved.

I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but a claim must be proved in order to stand. You have yet to prove it.

Quote:

You are asking for proof. You can prove it for yourself.

You made a claim. I asked you to prove that claim. You tell me that I can prove it for myself. However, your claim is not true. That's why I'm challenging you to prove what you have claimed.

Quote:

What you erroneously attributed to me was, "a pistol-grip makes a rifle more accurate by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire."

Oh but you did say that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous.

And when asked how a pistol-grip makes a rifle more dangerous, you did say that it makes a rifle more accurate and that it increases its rate of fire. Are you denying that you made those points?

Quote:

What's bullshit is your attempt to pass them off onto me.

Ah, so you are admitting that you are unaware of anyone falling victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, or a flash suppressor, or a bayonet mount, or a pistol-grip. Very good.

Quote:

I looks like we're making progress with you.

Not really. I've always known that you had no proof of what you have been claiming.

Quote:

So, you've demonstrated that you're utterly confused as to what your straw man arguments are and my responses to them.

Nope. No confusion on my part. When asked to support your claims, you accused the ones asking of engaging in a strawman argument.

Quote:

It is a straw man argument because you attribute it to me.

Don't worry. Now that you've admitted that you are unaware of anyone falling victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, or a flash suppressor, or a bayonet mount, or a pistol-grip, I will no longer confuse you with someone who believes that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous because it increases its accuracy and rate of fire.

Quote:

As long as you've settled for your self that I have no proof of what I've claimed, and you persist in pursuing it, then it is definitely your tail that you're chasing.

Don't worry. Now that you've admitted that you are unaware of anyone falling victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, or a flash suppressor, or a bayonet mount, or a pistol-grip, I will no longer confuse you with someone who believes that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous because it increases its accuracy and rate of fire. The chase is indeed over.

Quote:

Another thing is saying that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, and therefore, needs to be banned. That is not my argument.

Good. So you are saying that a rifle should not be banned because it has a pistol-grip, even though you claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire.

The claim stands until disproved

You're the one in doubt.

Saying my claim is not true is also an unsubstantiated claim,

You're reading what's not there. Very not good.

So what's with the obsessive repetition?

When your arguments are straw man arguments I'll call them for what they are.

The claim stands until disproved.

Why do they keep referring to an outdated piece of legislation, the 94 AW Ban, like it's the Constitution and it has all the answers?

Wrong.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Quote:

The claim stands until disproved

Sorry, but an unproven claim--for instance, your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous because it increases its accuracy and rate of fire--does not stand until you prove it. Saying so just doesn't cut it. You made a claim. You also have nothing to support that claim.

You remind me of someone declaring that the god exists by virtue of the fact that I cannot prove that it doesn't exist. But much like your claim that a pistol-grip increases accuracy and rate of fire, saying it exists simply doesn't cut it.

Quote:

You're the one in doubt.

No.

You're the one who is sure. Therefore, you need to show us why you're sure. By the way, I researched a bit, and I could find nothing to substantiate your claim. What did your search turn up?

Quote:

Saying my claim is not true is also an unsubstantiated claim,

The fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true.

Quote:

You're reading what's not there. Very not good.

When you are unaware of anyone falling victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, or a flash suppressor, or a bayonet mount, or a pistol-grip, no reading is necessary. Your admission is enough.

Quote:

So what's with the obsessive repetition?

Oh I think you know the answer to that. Perhaps if you would admit that the claim you made about pistol-grips is unproven, I would stop asking you to prove it.

Quote:

When your arguments are straw man arguments I'll call them for what they are.

Again, asking you to prove what you claim does not constitute a strawman argument. You just wish it did so that you don't have to prove what you have no proof of.