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

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?

Nothing would satisfy your criteria for this, as well, I'm sure.

Says you.

You're confused as well.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ambiguous use of the word "double"

The authority you appeal to is your own mental/emotional deficiency.

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.

You're severely deluded.

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

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

Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

See here, again.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

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

No I'm not.

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

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.

That's not my argument.

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.

No one has explained or validated how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous to your satisfaction

I'm clear enough on what makes a claim legitimate, thank you

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 the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?

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 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.