Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 people),[6][7] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 people).[8] These deaths included 21,175 suicides,[8] 11,208 homicides,[9] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[8]

A compelling government interest was irrelevant in regard to the challenges against the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

These weapons were designed for assault with the only difference from their military issue counterparts being selective fire,

which makes them a danger to the public.

Quote:

Self-deluded!

I see.

So now, basing my opinion on your claim on your failure to prove that claim makes me self-deluded.

Only in your mind.

Quote:

That's right aggregate, not in and of itself. The context was assault weapons that have that feature.

Uh huh. And now explain how a flash suppressor in combination with a pistol-grip or bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous. And when you draw a blank on that, explain your lack of explanation.

Quote:

Once again, those features in aggregate, not in and of themselves

I see. So once again, how does a pistol-grip in combination with a bayonet-mount make a rifle especially dangerous?

Quote:

these rifles are no different from military issue rifles save selective fire.

Yeah, and select-fire is what makes them different from rifles used by the military.

That's not my claim.

I asked you to clarify what you meant by "the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers." You've been cagey ever since about clarifying what you meant, and have made it into some kind of "gotcha" game.

Heh, having a semiautomatic option on a selective fire rifle does make it a semiautomatic rifle, among its other options. You ASSumed that I meant that these rifles are exclusively semiautomatic.

How is that statement contradictory, exactly?

Says the man blinded by his obsession with AR-15's.

Exactly, this opinion of yours is based on your appeal to your own reasoning

Go back and read my response to this endless question of yours.

Go chase your straw man argument yourself.

Excellent circularity!

Quote:

That's not my claim.

By now, everyone has heard you say that a pistol-grip alone, as well as in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous. We've also heard you say that we should forget about those features and focus on the rifle, which contradicts your previous statement. But you go right on ahead pushing the inconsistencies of your position. We don't mind.

Quote:

I asked you to clarify what you meant by "the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers." You've been cagey ever since about clarifying what you meant, and have made it into some kind of "gotcha" game.

Oh but I have gotten you. You are avoiding having to acknowledge that it is the drunk driver who is responsible for innocent people being killed, and not the alcohol. You are aware that if you acknowledge that, you will also have to acknowledge that it is the murderer who is responsible for innocent people being killed, and not the gun. So you are actually showing us all who the cagey individual here is.

But you could easily dispel the current perception that you are being cagey by confirming that the drunk driver is responsible for innocent people being killed, and not the alcohol. Whudeeyasay?

Quote:

Heh, having a semiautomatic option on a selective fire rifle does make it a semiautomatic rifle, among its other options. You ASSumed that I meant that these rifles are exclusively semiautomatic.

I made the claim that the military does not use semiautomatic rifles. You made the claim that they do. In order to not be caught making yet another untrue claim, you tried to make believe that select-fire rifles are semiautomatic rifles simply because semiautomatic is one of the settings. But that was dishonest of you.

So now you have to explain why the military isn't using the civilian version of the AR-15 since you believe that they do use semiautomatic rifles.

Quote:

How is that statement contradictory, exactly?

You claimed that those features make the rifle especially dangerous. Then you turned around and told me to forget about those features, and focus on the rifle. You don't see that your claim that it is those features that make the rifle especially dangerous flies in the face of your comment that those features should not be looked at. In other words, you claim that, though it's the features that make the rifle especially dangerous, I should focus on the rifle, and not the features that make it dangerous.

It's really not important that you understand how you contradict yourself. What's important is that everyone else sees it.

What's consistently inconsistent is your taking of what I've said and coming up with a straw man conclusion about what I've said.

More precisely, it's the drunk driver abusing alcohol

Quote:

Says the man blinded by his obsession with AR-15's.

I don't own an AR-15; nor do I want one. Referring to my claim to the right to own a gun for home protection as an obsession with a gun I do not own or want to own is a desperate attempt on your part to gain some traction for your obsessive condemnation of a semiautomatic rifle; in this case, the AR-15.

Quote:

Exactly, this opinion of yours is based on your appeal to your own reasoning

When you fail to prove your claim, and I point it out to you, I'm not appealing to my reason. I'm pointing out to you that you have failed to show that your claim is true. Previously, you defended that failure of yours by making another failed claim--stating that you could prove it if you wanted to, but that you couldn't be bothered to do so. And now you're trying to make your failure into my failure.

Quote:

Go back and read my response to this endless question of yours.

Or, you could just stop being cagey and explain how a flash suppressor, alone, or in combination with a pistol-grip or bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous.

Quote:

Go chase your straw man argument yourself.

That is still not a response to the question of how a pistol-grip in combination with a bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous. You made that claim. The least you can do is explain why that is true.

Quote:

Excellent circularity!

Claiming circularity is not a response to having it pointed out to you that select-fire is what makes the difference between rifles used by the military and rifles not used by the military.

Selective fire rilfes are semiautomatic weapons, among other things. There is nothing dishonest about that.

The military likes the additional firing options on the rifles they issue.

It's about the rifles, not their individual features.

What everyone sees, gun nuts notwithstanding, is that the contradiction is in your own head, muddled as it is with your inability to see the rifle for its features in your psychotic possessory obsession with these rifles.

You don't have to own one to be obsessed with them.

Yeah, own a gun for home protection, but AR-15's shouldn't be an option.

You've gone further and claimed that it is untrue based on your appeal to what you regard as rasoning and logic.

Better yet, go back and read my response to this endless questin of yours.

It is circularity when, after I had already pointed that out to you, you restate what I had already pointed out to you.

Selective fire rilfes are semiautomatic weapons, among other things.

It's about the rifles, not their individual features.

No it doesn't.

Yeah, own a gun for home protection, but AR-15's shouldn't be an option.

Quote:

What's consistently inconsistent is your taking of what I've said and coming up with a straw man conclusion about what I've said.

The conclusion you speak of is drawn from your own words. You said that a pistol-grip alone, as well as in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous. You also said that we should forget about those features and focus on the rifle instead. That's a contradiction in anybody's book. But that's the least of your problems because you have absolutely nothing to show to prove your claim that any of those features, whether alone or in combination with the others, make a rifle especially dangerous. And you think that those problems will go away if you just mention the word "strawman." Sorry, but you actually have to answer for your claims. That's how debate works.

Quote:

More precisely, it's the drunk driver abusing alcohol

And what do you propose we do about the alcohol involved in the incident?

Whether through conscious deception or unconscious incomprehension, you've taken my words and defenstrated them and replaced them with your straw man argument.