10
   

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

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2019 12:06 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The claim stands until disproved.

Wrong.

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

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

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Specifically, Hitchen's razor is in regard to the truthfullness of a claim, not the claim itself. Applied to the claim itself, Hitchen's razor leads to an infinite regress, e.g. the back and forth between some non-believers in god saying believers have no proof that god exists, and vice versa.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2019 12:38 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
The claim stands as it is, a claim.

Your claims can stand wherever they want. Without supporting evidence, claims lack credibility.


InfraBlue wrote:
According to one site, it's about better control of recoil.
I infer that better control of recoil allows for better accuracy and rate of fire.

I think we've already agreed that accuracy doesn't justify outlawing a rifle.

Do you have any evidence to support a claim that recoil impedes rate of fire to begin with in a semi-auto-only .223/5.56?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2019 01:09 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The claim stands as it is, a claim.

Your claims can stand wherever they want. Without supporting evidence, claims lack credibility.

Good, you're starting to get it.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
According to one site, it's about better control of recoil.
I infer that better control of recoil allows for better accuracy and rate of fire.

I think we've already agreed that accuracy doesn't justify outlawing a rifle.

You're right, we did.

oralloy wrote:

Do you have any evidence to support a claim that recoil impedes rate of fire to begin with in a semi-auto-only .223/5.56?

No.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 24 Dec, 2019 04:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
The claim stands as it is, a claim.

Yeah, and unsupported claims are a dime a dozen.
Quote:
Another example is your claim that my claim is not true is also a claim of belief.

Except that my claim about your claim is supported by the fact that you can provide any proof of your claim.
Quote:

According to one site, it's about better control of recoil.

Gee, you might have something there, if it weren't for the fact that an AR-15 has little recoil. I've already provided videos of women shooting AR-15s, and with bump stocks to boot. But for your edification, I will post it again.

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15 with a bump-stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwR9di_admE

Is it your contention that without the pistol grip, the barrel of that gun would have been pointing straight up by the time the last shot left the barrel? Cuz that would just be absurd.
Quote:
No it doesn't. It merely points out that your claim is unsubstantiated as well as mine.

But I have made no claims. You, on the other hand, have claimed that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. I asked you to prove that claim. And you are trying to convince readers that my question amounts to a claim. But even an idiot understands that asking you to prove your claim is not a claim. In fact, I'm guessing that readers recognize that little ploy of yours as an act of desperation.
Quote:

So, when you said, "I guess that is your way of saying that you have no proof of what you've claimed. I can accept that," you're really not accepting that, and continuing with your obsessive repetition.

Uh, yeah, the problem with that is that you won't admit you have no proof of your claim without trying to pull me into your sinking boat by way of asserting that asking you to prove your claim amounts to a claim in itself. And as I've already said, no reader is buying that. They're probably wondering just how stupid you think they are.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 10:43 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
The claim stands as it is, a claim.

Yeah, and unsupported claims are a dime a dozen.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Another example is your claim that my claim is not true is also a claim of belief.

Except that my claim about your claim is supported by the fact that you can provide any proof of your claim.


Glennn wrote:
Quote:
According to one site, it's about better control of recoil.

Gee, you might have something there, if it weren't for the fact that an AR-15 has little recoil.


I've already provided videos of women shooting AR-15s, and with bump stocks to boot. But for your edification, I will post it again.

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15 with a bump-stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwR9di_admE


Little recoil does not amount to no recoil.

Glennn wrote:
Is it your contention that without the pistol grip, the barrel of that gun would have been pointing straight up by the time the last shot left the barrel? Cuz that would just be absurd.

No.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
No it doesn't. It merely points out that your claim is unsubstantiated as well as mine.

But I have made no claims. You, on the other hand, have claimed that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. I asked you to prove that claim. And you are trying to convince readers that my question amounts to a claim. But even an idiot understands that asking you to prove your claim is not a claim. In fact, I'm guessing that readers recognize that little ploy of yours as an act of desperation.

What any idiot would understand, but you fail to, is that by saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true," you are making a claim, and not merely asking a question. You are claiming that by not producing proof of my claim, your claim of not true is verified. That is incorrect. Lack of proof doesn't prove that something is incorrect.

Glennn wrote:
Quote:

So, when you said, "I guess that is your way of saying that you have no proof of what you've claimed. I can accept that," you're really not accepting that, and continuing with your obsessive repetition.

Uh, yeah, the problem with that is that you won't admit you have no proof of your claim without trying to pull me into your sinking boat by way of asserting that asking you to prove your claim amounts to a claim in itself. And as I've already said, no reader is buying that. They're probably wondering just how stupid you think they are.


Astute readers would see that I was responding to your fallacious claim that lack of proof proves that a claim is untrue. Only stupid people confuse that point that I was making.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Dec, 2019 11:21 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Little recoil does not amount to no recoil.

Little recoil doesn't amount to missing the target without a pistol-grip.
Quote:
you are making a claim, and not merely asking a question.

Yeah, my question is whether or not you have anything at all to prove your claim. As expected, you don't. Rather than concede that point, you are attempting to frame my question as a claim in an effort to somehow turn the tables here. But the fact is that you were asked to prove your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. And you can't. I'm not claiming that you can't prove it. I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 09:16 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Little recoil does not amount to no recoil.

Little recoil doesn't amount to missing the target without a pistol-grip.
Quote:
you are making a claim, and not merely asking a question.

Yeah, my question is whether or not you have anything at all to prove your claim.

No. You're having difficulty keeping up with your own arguments, again. What I was referring to is your statement that, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true." That is incorrect.

Glennn wrote:
As expected, you don't. Rather than concede that point, you are attempting to frame my question as a claim in an effort to somehow turn the tables here. But the fact is that you were asked to prove your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. And you can't.

This point is moot seeing as how it doesn't address the point I was making that you're incorrect in saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true."

Glennn wrote:
I'm not claiming that you can't prove it.

You have been for last umpteen pages.

Glennn wrote:
I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.

That's very different from saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true."
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Dec, 2019 09:45 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
No. You're having difficulty keeping up with your own arguments, again. What I was referring to is your statement that, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true." That is incorrect.

No. It is literally true that if you make a claim, and I ask you for proof of that claim, and you fail to provide that proof, then your claim is false until proven otherwise. And your claim concerning pistol-grips and recoil is yet another unproven claim of yours. You apparently believe that without a pistol-grip, a shooter would miss their target because of recoil. What do you have to back up that claim? So far, nothing.

I've already provided videos of women shooting AR-15s, and with bump stocks to boot.

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15 with a bump-stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwR9di_admE

Is it your contention that without the pistol grip, those girls would have missed their targets?
Quote:
This point is moot seeing as how it doesn't address the point I was making that you're incorrect in saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true."

No. You're overcomplicating this. The fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies that it is not true.
Quote:
That's very different from saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true."

I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Dec, 2019 02:02 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
No. You're having difficulty keeping up with your own arguments, again. What I was referring to is your statement that, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true." That is incorrect.

No. It is literally true that if you make a claim, and I ask you for proof of that claim, and you fail to provide that proof, then your claim is false until proven otherwise.

You're merely being repetatively incorrect.

Glennn wrote:

And your claim concerning pistol-grips and recoil is yet another unproven claim of yours. You apparently believe that without a pistol-grip, a shooter would miss their target because of recoil.

That is not my belief.

Glennn wrote:

I've already provided videos of women shooting AR-15s, and with bump stocks to boot.

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nda8yPNbI

Here is a girl shooting an AR-15 with a bump-stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwR9di_admE

Is it your contention that without the pistol grip, those girls would have missed their targets?

No sir, that is not my contention.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
This point is moot seeing as how it doesn't address the point I was making that you're incorrect in saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true."

No. You're overcomplicating this. The fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies that it is not true.

See my reply above about your repetetiveness.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That's very different from saying, "the fact that you cannot verify your claim verifies my claim that it is not true."

I'm saying that your lack of proof when asked to provide it stands as a testament to the fact that you can't prove it. No claim from me was necessary to that conclusion.

You're incorrect. My lack of proof stands as a testament that I haven't proven it, not that I cannot prove it.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2019 11:43 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
You're merely being repetatively incorrect.

Telling you that your claims are untrue after you repeatedly fail to offer proof of those claims is a reasonable response.
Quote:
That is not my belief.

Yes it is. You've made a claim that a shooter would miss more shots if it weren't for the pistol-grip on their rifle.
Quote:
No sir, that is not my contention.

That's more like it!
Quote:
My lack of proof stands as a testament that I haven't proven it, not that I cannot prove it.

I claim that you cannot prove it. Got anything?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2019 11:27 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
You're merely being repetatively incorrect.

Telling you that your claims are untrue after you repeatedly fail to offer proof of those claims is a reasonable response.

It is neither correct nor reasonable.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That is not my belief.

Yes it is. You've made a claim that a shooter would miss more shots if it weren't for the pistol-grip on their rifle.

One thing is a shooter missing more shots, another thing is a shooter missing their target.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
No sir, that is not my contention.

That's more like it!

OK.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
My lack of proof stands as a testament that I haven't proven it, not that I cannot prove it.

I claim that you cannot prove it. Got anything?

I got the illogic of your claim.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2019 11:49 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
It is neither correct nor reasonable.

So just for the record, you want everyone to know that even after you have admitted that you have no proof of your claim, it is nevertheless unreasonable for someone to point out that you have no proof of your claim. You needn't worry. There's no one reading this thread who doesn't understand exactly where you're coming from.
Quote:
One thing is a shooter missing more shots, another thing is a shooter missing their target.

Both of which is neither here nor there since you have failed to offer anything to support your claim.
Quote:
I got the illogic of your claim.

My claim is that you have failed to prove your claim, which is a totally logical claim. You are the only one who doesn't want to acknowledge that fact.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 12:45 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It is neither correct nor reasonable.

So just for the record, you want everyone to know that even after you have admitted that you have no proof of your claim, it is nevertheless unreasonable for someone to point out that you have no proof of your claim. You needn't worry. There's no one reading this thread who doesn't understand exactly where you're coming from.

Again, one thing is to point out that I have no proof of my claim. Another thing, with which you've completely muddled in your head, is concluding that lacking proof of a claim equates to falsehood of that claim.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
One thing is a shooter missing more shots, another thing is a shooter missing their target.

Both of which is neither here nor there since you have failed to offer anything to support your claim.

But you do have them muddled in your head.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I got the illogic of your claim.

My claim is that you have failed to prove your claim, which is a totally logical claim. You are the only one who doesn't want to acknowledge that fact.

I'm acknowledging the fact that you're confusing your claim, which is a totally logical claim, that I have failed to prove my claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous with your other claim that my failure to prove my claim establishes that my claim is false, which is a totally illogical claim.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 09:43 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Again, one thing is to point out that I have no proof of my claim. Another thing, with which you've completely muddled in your head, is concluding that lacking proof of a claim equates to falsehood of that claim.

It is one thing for you to have absolutely no proof of your claim that a pistol-grip on a rifle makes it especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. However, it is another thing for you to say that, despite your failure to prove that claim, you would like us to pretend that you could prove it if you wanted to, and then allow something to be banned based on your failure to prove your claim about it. Yeah, not going to happen.
Quote:
I'm acknowledging the fact that you're confusing your claim, which is a totally logical claim, that I have failed to prove my claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous with your other claim that my failure to prove my claim establishes that my claim is false, which is a totally illogical claim.

Sorry, but when it comes to banning something based on your claim about that something, you're going to have to prove that claim of your. You haven't.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 11:46 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Again, one thing is to point out that I have no proof of my claim. Another thing, with which you've completely muddled in your head, is concluding that lacking proof of a claim equates to falsehood of that claim.

It is one thing for you to have absolutely no proof of your claim that a pistol-grip on a rifle makes it especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. However, it is another thing for you to say that, despite your failure to prove that claim, you would like us to pretend that you could prove it if you wanted to, and then allow something to be banned based on your failure to prove your claim about it. Yeah, not going to happen.

That's not the basis for my argument to ban assault weapons.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I'm acknowledging the fact that you're confusing your claim, which is a totally logical claim, that I have failed to prove my claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous with your other claim that my failure to prove my claim establishes that my claim is false, which is a totally illogical claim.

Sorry, but when it comes to banning something based on your claim about that something, you're going to have to prove that claim of your. You haven't.

It doesn't make it false.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 12:30 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:

That's not the basis for my argument to ban assault weapons.

Riiiight. So even though you claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, you're okay with that, and you wouldn't want a rifle banned because it has one? Sure . . .
Quote:
It doesn't make it false.

You made a claim. You can't be bothered to show anything to prove your claim. Yes, we all get that. And in light of the fact that you have absolutely nothing to prove your claim, perhaps it would be a good idea to not make that claim again until you can offer something to show that it is true.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 01:17 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:

That's not the basis for my argument to ban assault weapons.

Riiiight. So even though you claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, you're okay with that, and you wouldn't want a rifle banned because it has one? Sure . . .

Right, I wouldn't want a rifle banned solely because it has a pistol grip. I want those rifles whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire banned.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't make it false.

You made a claim. You can't be bothered to show anything to prove your claim. Yes, we all get that. And in light of the fact that you have absolutely nothing to prove your claim, perhaps it would be a good idea to not make that claim again until you can offer something to show that it is true.

What's a good idea is not banging on with illogical conclusions about lack of proof of a claim equating with falsehood of that claim. In the meantime, I'll continue to voice my conjectures as to a variety of things for which I don't have immediate proof, thank you.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 02:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Right, I wouldn't want a rifle banned solely because it has a pistol grip.

Okay. So, if a rifle has a pistol-grip, what item in combination with that pistol-grip prompts you to call for the banning of that rifle?
Quote:
What's a good idea is not banging on . . .

Say, that reminds me that you have yet to verify your claim that I'm the one who injected the issue of pistol-grips into these threads. Or is that just another one of your claims that you made before knowing whether or not it's true? Or, is it another case of you saying that you could prove it, but have decided not to?
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
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 0.07 seconds on 01/17/2020 at 07:40:06