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

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

The claim stands as it is, a claim.

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.

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?

The claim stands as it is, a claim.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Little recoil does not amount to no recoil.

you are making a claim, and not merely asking a question.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

You're merely being repetatively incorrect.

That is not my belief.

No sir, that is not my contention.

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

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?

It is neither correct nor reasonable.

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

I got the illogic of your claim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

It doesn't make it false.

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.

Right, I wouldn't want a rifle banned solely because it has a pistol grip.

What's a good idea is not banging on . . .

Liberal men have limp wrists, which makes it hard for them to shoot guns.