3
   

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

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:33 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:

Seeing as how this may be a case of a non sequitur fallacy on your part in regard to inconsistent reasoning, what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's milk. Maybe it's soft drinks. No, it can't be one of those things; although an allergic reaction to milk . . .

Hmm, I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can figure this thing out. What does your gut tell you?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:33 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Nothing would satisfy your criteria for this, as well, I'm sure.

No longer violating our civil liberties would satisfy me.

Progressives paying heavy compensation to victims of past violations would satisfy me.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:35 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Says you.

I'm good at pointing out facts.


InfraBlue wrote:
You're confused as well.

No confusion. Glennn accurately characterized your position.


InfraBlue wrote:
Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act are assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.


InfraBlue wrote:
You're severely confused as to the purpose for banning them.

No confusion. The only purpose in banning an ordinary hunting rifle is the sadistic pleasure that progressives get from violating people's civil liberties.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:47 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.

Wrong! Your alleged human-hunting rifles double as animal-hunting rifles, and animal-hunting rifles double as alleged human-hunting rifles. Your use of the term is an attempt to appeal to the emotions. Fact is, you have nothing to show that the features you believe make a rifle especially dangerous actually make a rifle especially dangerous. And when faced with that fact, you appeal to an authority who shares your deficiency in reason.

Your ambiguous use of the word "double" aside, human hunting rifles and animal hunting rifles are not the same. You attempt to obfuscate the issue with ambiguous verbage and assinine focus on gun features instead of the guns themselves because of your psychological fixation with these weapons. The authority you appeal to is your own mental/emotional deficiency.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:49 pm
@InfraBlue,
Glennn is merely pointing out that you are wrong. That is not obfuscation.

You are the person who makes features like pistol grips the subject of discussion. If you did not demand that guns with these features be outlawed, no one would be arguing about these features.

Double:
verb
3 Be used in or play another, different role.
'a laser printer doubles as a photocopier'
http://www.lexico.com/definition/double
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:02 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The intent of these laws is to reduce the incidences of these behaviors.

The only intent of laws against pistol grips is to provide sadistic pleasure to progressives by violating people's civil liberties.

You're severely deluded.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Criminals' ability buy illegal guns would be greatly curtailed if these guns were not available in the first place.

People have the right to have them, and they will not give up this right. So guns are going to remain available.

Ignoring the fact that this reply is a non sequitur, OK.

oralloy wrote:

Your claim is incorrect anyway. Prohibition did not prevent people from drinking alcohol. The war on drugs does not prevent people from consuming drugs.

You're confused. I was referring to drunk driving laws, not prohibition or the war on drugs.

oralloy wrote:

Gun availability has little impact on crime in any case. Murder with a knife is just as deadly as a murder with a gun. Rape at knifepoint is just as brutal as rape at gunpoint.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. See here, again.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:02 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Your ambiguous use of the word "double"

Ambiguous?? There is nothing ambiguous about telling you that an animal-hunting rifle can "double" as a human-hunting rifle. But since you claim to be confused by the word, I'll humor you. When something is said to double as something, that means that it either looks like the other thing, or it functions like the other thing.

In this case, since an animal-hunting rifle can function as a human-hunting rifle, your use of the term can be seen as an appeal to the emotions of the reader, or a genuine reflection of your hysteria.
Quote:
The authority you appeal to is your own mental/emotional deficiency.

But I am not the one who has appealed to an authority. You appealed to an authority that shared your deficiency when it came to reason. I appealed to reason. It is reasonable to conclude that in the absence of any proof of your claims concerning "deadly" rifle features, it would be silly to believe you.

Oh hey, have you come up with any ideas as to what might be the cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers? Anything at all?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:16 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.

Wrong. Human-hunting rifles always have a selective fire switch. Rifles without a selective fire switch are just ordinary hunting rifles.

Nuh-uh.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:18 pm
@InfraBlue,
Your denials of reality do not change reality. Human-hunting rifles always have a selective fire switch. Rifles without a selective fire switch are just ordinary hunting rifles.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:19 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
You're severely deluded.

That is incorrect. Everything that I've said is entirely true.


InfraBlue wrote:
Ignoring the fact that this reply is a non sequitur, OK.

The fact that guns will always be available seems relevant to the subject of curtailing their availability.


InfraBlue wrote:
You're confused. I was referring to drunk driving laws, not prohibition or the war on drugs.

No confusion on my end. You were referring to gun laws in the comment that I replied to.


InfraBlue wrote:
Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

I doubt it. What other reason would you have for wanting to prevent criminals from having guns other than wanting to reduce the frequency or severity of crime?


InfraBlue wrote:
See here, again.

Your post is incorrect. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:35 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
To clarify, the aggregate features that make up those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire make these weapons especially dangerous.

You have consistently failed to show anything to substantiate your claim. As proof of what I say, I will ask you to remind us of the last time a flash suppressor was recognized as something that made the difference between a shooting and an "especially" bad shooting.

That's not my argument.

Glennn wrote:
And you can go ahead and combine a barrel shroud with a bayonet-mount, or flash suppressor, or, hell, all three of those features, and explain how, all together they just really ramp up the danger factor of the gun.

In the case of an AR-15, for example, they ramp up the danger factor because the only difference between it and its military issue counterpart is selective fire.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Says you.

No. It's actually true that NO ONE has explained how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous. If you believe someone has, then cite something that will validate that claim.


No one has explained or validated how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous to your satisfaction, and I'm sure no one will. And sure enough you'll continue chasing your tail about it.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
You're confused as to the claim they're making, as well.

No I'm not.

Yes, you are.

Glennn wrote:
But you certainly appear to be confused as to what makes a claim legitimate.

I'm clear enough on what makes a claim legitimate, thank you.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:39 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
In the case of an AR-15, for example, they ramp up the danger factor because the only difference between it and its military issue counterpart is selective fire.

You have not provided any evidence of any increase in danger factor.

And it's pretty clear that the reason why you do not provide any such evidence is because there is no increase in danger factor.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 04:59 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
That's not my argument.

Good. So now we've established that you've finally dismissed the idea that a flash suppressor will change a shooting into an especially dangerous shooting.
Quote:
In the case of an AR-15, for example, they ramp up the danger factor because the only difference between it and its military issue counterpart is selective fire.

Once again, you've forgotten that you've provided absolutely nothing to validate that claim. If you believe that you have, could you retrieve that proof from whichever post you believe it can be found in?
Quote:
No one has explained or validated how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous to your satisfaction

To my satisfaction? Actually, no one has explained or validated how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous, PERIOD. If you believe that anyone has, could you retrieve that info from wherever you believe it can be found?
Quote:
I'm clear enough on what makes a claim legitimate, thank you

Your continued failure to legitimize your claim indicates otherwise.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:03 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:

Seeing as how this may be a case of a non sequitur fallacy on your part in regard to inconsistent reasoning, what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's milk. Maybe it's soft drinks. No, it can't be one of those things; although an allergic reaction to milk . . .

Hmm, I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can figure this thing out. What does your gut tell you?

What's with the games?
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:06 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?

Gee, I don't know. What could it be??
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:28 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Your ambiguous use of the word "double"

Ambiguous?? There is nothing ambiguous about telling you that an animal-hunting rifle can "double" as a human-hunting rifle. But since you claim to be confused by the word, I'll humor you. When something is said to double as something, that means that it either looks like the other thing, or it functions like the other thing.

So then, if you mean human-hunting rifles double as animal-hunting rifles, and animal-hunting rifles double as alleged human-hunting rifles in the sense that they're exact copies of each other in their function, you're incorrect. They may "double," as in resembling closely, in function, but not exactly.

Glennn wrote:

In this case, since an animal-hunting rifle can function as a human-hunting rifle, your use of the term can be seen as an appeal to the emotions of the reader, or a genuine reflection of your hysteria.
Quote:
The authority you appeal to is your own mental/emotional deficiency.

But I am not the one who has appealed to an authority.

Yes you have. You've appealed to your own authority for opposing the banning of assault weapons such as those described and defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Glennn wrote:

You appealed to an authority that shared your deficiency when it came to reason.

This is merely an opinion of yours.

Glennn wrote:
I appealed to reason.

This is another mere opinion of yours.

Glennn wrote:
It is reasonable to conclude that in the absence of any proof of your claims concerning "deadly" rifle features, it would be silly to believe you.

You're thought processes continue to be muddled. It's not about deadly rifle features. It's about especially dangerous weapons.

Glennn wrote:

Oh hey, have you come up with any ideas as to what might be the cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers? Anything at all?

Sure. What are yours? Or is it going to be like pulling teeth with you?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:37 pm
@oralloy,
You're redundantly wrong.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:39 pm
@oralloy,
Nuh-uh.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:44 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
In the case of an AR-15, for example, they ramp up the danger factor because the only difference between it and its military issue counterpart is selective fire.

You have not provided any evidence of any increase in danger factor.

And it's pretty clear that the reason why you do not provide any such evidence is because there is no increase in danger factor.

The mere fact that they're military weapons sans the selective fire increases their danger factor.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 05:47 pm
@InfraBlue,
That is incorrect. Merely being used by the military does not make a gun any more dangerous than a gun that is not used by the military.
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
Harrisburg Pa. Outdoor Show "Postponed" - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:51:48