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

You're redundantly wrong.

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.

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.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're redundantly wrong.

No I'm not. Human-hunting rifles always have a selective fire switch. Rifles without a selective fire switch are just ordinary hunting rifles.

That's right. However, the mere fact that they're military weapons sans the selective fire does increase their danger factor.

Nuh-uh.

You're confused as to what my ideas are concerning flash suppressors.

It's a hunch.

It's a hunch.

Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

That's not my argument.

In the case of an AR-15, for example, they ramp up the danger factor

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.

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.

It's not about deadly rifle features. It's about especially dangerous weapons.

You're confused as to what my ideas are concerning flash suppressors.

Still with the games.

. . . the mere fact that they're military weapons sans the selective fire does increase their danger factor.

Do you accept that fact that your claims have no credibility when you have no evidence to back them up?

InfraBlue wrote:

That's right. However, the mere fact that they're military weapons sans the selective fire does increase their danger factor.

You contradict yourself. The fact that "being used by the military does not make a gun any more dangerous" means that "being a military weapon" does not result in any increase of any danger factor.

@oralloy,
Uh-huh.

@oralloy,
@oralloy,
Nuh-uh.

Quote:

That's not my argument.

Well if it's not the flash suppressor that makes a rifle especially dangerous and in need of being banned, then what it? Is it the pistol-grip? No need to ask you that, we already know that you've made the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous though you have absolutely nothing to prove it. Or, is it the barrel shroud? Or, is it the bayonet-mount? Which one is it?

Or, is it a combination of two or all of the above? And if so, explain your reasoning behind each one, or each one in combination with another. If you fail to offer some kind of reasoning behind your claims, then we're going to have to assume that it's all in your mind.

Quote:

In the case of an AR-15, for example, they ramp up the danger factor

This, too, requires you to offer something to validate your claim. Otherwise, we will have to conclude that support for such a statement does not exist outside of your mind.

Quote:

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

NO ONE has explained how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous. If someone has explained it to your satisfaction, then please share. Otherwise, we're left with no choice but to conclude that that source does not exist outside of your mind.

Quote:

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

That, too, is all in your mind since it has been shown in no uncertain terms that you are incapable of backing up any of your claims.

Quote:

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.

Actually, my appeal is to reason and logic. Here you are again appealing to an authority whose explanation of their reasoning is totally absent. You're still being asked how a pistol-grip, flash suppressor, barrel-shroud, and bayonet-mount make a rifle especially dangerous. I know that in your mind, you think that appealing to a source who shares you conspicuous lack of explanation is a winning argument, but really, it's just a conspicuous lack of explanation for your reasoning.

Quote:

It's not about deadly rifle features. It's about especially dangerous weapons.

Hmm. No, I'm pretty sure that you sort of kind of implied that it's the pistol-grip that makes a rifle especially dangerous; in fact you did say exactly that. So did you recently change your mind about that?