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

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I agree with those authorities in regard to the reasoning and logic behind the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

What reasoning or logic? There was no reasoning or logic behind that law. Their only motive was to violate people's civil liberties for their own sadistic pleasure.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes, a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous.

No it doesn't.

InfraBlue wrote:

my argument for the banning of weapons whose only difference between them and military issue ones is selective fire.

You have no argument. Merely having been issued by the military is not justification for outlawing a weapon.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I most certainly will tell, thank you. They help reduce the flash created by carbine length rifle barrels, thereby reducing the occurance of flash blindness as well as helping conceal the direction of the fired rounds.

Why does that matter? A longer barrel will achieve the same thing.

InfraBlue wrote:

Carbines are weapons developed and used for military purposes, especially for special-operations and paratroopers.

Rifles are also developed and used for military purposes. Handguns are also developed and used for military purposes. The English longbow was developed and used for military purposes.

Merely having been developed and used for military purposes does not justify outlawing a weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

AR-15's are generally carbine rifles,

Except for the ones that aren't.

InfraBlue wrote:

equivallent to their military issue counterparts save for selective fire.

Merely having been developed and used for military purposes does not justify outlawing a weapon.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The military does use semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic mode is one of the selective fire options. The military uses semiautomatic mode for most purposes.

Wrong. A weapon with full-auto capability is not a semi-auto rifle.

Not that military use of semi-automatic rifles would matter. Merely having been developed and used for military purposes does not justify outlawing a weapon.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

We need to ban these kinds of weapons as well as reduce the total number of available guns precisely because of the crazy **** people do with them. That's the reason why you shouldn't have neato evil black death machines to plink around with.

There is no need for you to ban ordinary hunting rifles. You don't need to violate people's civil liberties for fun. You can take up some other hobby.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

That's what oralloy's repetitive replies amount to.

There is nothing "third grade" about me posting facts.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
The competency of the shooter is going to have more bearing on the lethality of a gun more than the gun itself.

I am highly skeptical that this is true.

Competency counts for a LOT. A competent shooter with a small gun is much more effective than an incompetent shooter with a big gun.

maxdancona wrote:

Are you really arguing that given two people with 20 hours or more of experience will be equally deadly if one as a 6 shot revolver and the other has an M4 carbine (the weapon my son trained on in the army)? I suspect there is a steep learning curve, I improve far more in my deadliness in the first 20 hours of training then I would in my second.

This claim that the weapon doesn't matter doesn't make logical sense.

It's not that the weapon doesn't matter. It's that competency matters much more.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

He has expressed disdain for handguns in general. His attitude is that you only take a handgun if you don't expect to need it.

Handguns are much weaker than long guns. That's the right attitude.

But there are plenty of times when people don't expect to need a gun and suddenly find that they do. So "guns for when you don't expect to need a gun" is an important niche.

maxdancona wrote:

I will ask him next time I see him... but from previous conversations I don't if expert soldiers are facing Taliban fighters with AK-47s... an M4 is a lot better than a handgun (and a 6 shot revolver would be ridiculous).

That's not the point. The point was that expertise counts more than the weapon.

An expert soldier with a small gun will likely get the better of an incompetent person with a big gun.

Of course a rifle is better than a handgun if all other factors are equal.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let me ask three questions. My fear is that one or two people with a gun can kill dozens of people in a crowd before they are stopped.

I believe that you are being truthful about your goals. But you should understand that most progressives do not care about saving lives.

Most progressives only care about violating people's civil liberties for fun. Any attempt to come up with measures that save lives will always be undermined by progressives as they relentlessly make everything about violating people's civil liberties for fun.

So unless you can come up with a way to remove progressives from society, efforts to save lives are doomed to failure.

maxdancona wrote:

1) I assume that there are some set of features that make some guns far more deadly than others. Here, deadly refers to the ability of someone to kill a large number of people in a short time. Do you agree that this is true?

Yes. Large detachable rifle magazines can be quite lethal.

maxdancona wrote:

2) If this is true, then we should be able to come up with a reasonable set of laws that would make more deadly guns illegal.

I don't like bans. I'd rather see NFA-style restrictions.

I'd also prefer to try things like background checks and red flag laws first to see if that alone solves the problem before resorting to NFA-style restrictions on large detachable rifle magazines.

And I'm not supporting anything at all until progressives stop violating people's civil liberties and pay compensation to the victims of their past civil liberties violations.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I most certainly will tell, thank you. They help reduce the flash created by carbine length rifle barrels, thereby reducing the occurance of flash blindness as well as helping conceal the direction of the fired rounds.

Now, tell me how many murders there have been in which the police or witnesses reported that the shooter could not be located due to the presence of a flash suppressor. You're making this **** up in your mind. And I will let your failure to provide and answer to the question just put to you as proof that you're reaching for straws that are not even there.

Quote:

AR-15's are generally carbine rifles, equivallent to their military issue counterparts save for selective fire.

". . . save for selective fire" is equivalent to saying that the AR-15 is not a military issue rifle. If you believe that it is, then provide something--ANYTHING--to prove that the military uses semiautomatic AR-15s. Short of that, you will have proved only that you are still making **** up.

Quote:

I asked "what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?"

That's what I asked you. You know that if you say that it's the drinker, you'll be forced to admit that the actual cause of innocent people being killed in shootings is the shooter. With that in mind, go ahead and tell me what you believe is the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

The military does use semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic mode is one of the selective fire options.

Now you're being deliberately dishonest. You don't want to admit that the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles, and so you are using the fact that on a select-fire rifle, semiautomatic fire is one mode of fire available to the shooter, and that therefore the military uses semiautomatic rifles. What you're playing dumb about is that burst-fire or automatic fire is not available on the civilian version of the AR-15.

Quote:

That's what oralloy's repetitive replies amount to.

That's kind of funny coming from a guy who keeps repeating nonsense about how a flash suppressor, barrel-shroud, bayonet-mount, and pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous despite having been shown that he has nothing at all to support his claim.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Those are good measures, some of which are already being undertaken, and should be taken concurrently with gun control measures which are severely lacking.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I'm contradicting you.

You also said that my statement was correct, so in contradicting me you are also contradicting yourself.

The only part of your post that was factually correct is the part that said "that's right" in reference to my post.

That's the only part of your post that you were right about, but then went and muddled it with your non sequitur fallacy.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

That's only your opinion,

Yeah, but my opinion is based on the fact that no one, including you, has provided any proof of your claims concerning a flash suppressor or barrel-shroud or bayonet-mount or pistol-grip making a rifle especially dangerous.

Quote:

That's not my claim.

There's not one person reading this thread who does not understand that you have made the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, or that a barrel-shroud in combination with a pistol-grip and bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous. It's way too late for you to back-peddle now. Waaaay too late!

Quote:

More percisely, it's an agreement with the reason and logic of that authority

If only that authority had provided their rationale or reason for their claim, you wouldn't be guilty of a mindless appeal to an authority who has offered no reason for their claim. If you honestly believe that they have provided the reasoning for their claims, then go fetch it and bring it here. But you're not going to do that because their claims are as void of reason as yours are.

Quote:

. . . your ridiculous focus on gun features instead of the assault weapons

But those features are what you claim make the rifle especially dangerous. But here you are now telling me to not focus on those features, but on the rifle. You need to go away and regroup so that you can get your story straight. Otherwise, you're going to continue to come across as an individual who holds conflicting views and doesn't even know it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Everything that I've said is entirely true.

In your alternate reality, perhaps.

oralloy wrote:

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

It doesn't make your reply any less of a non sequitur.

oralloy wrote:

There is no confusion on my end. You were indeed referring to gun laws in the comment that I replied to. And you are indeed calling to outlaw guns that have various harmless features like flash suppressors.

You are not keeping up with your own arguments which is the cause of your further confusion. I was referring to your confusion with prohibition laws and drunk driving laws.

oralloy wrote:

I do doubt your claim that my conclusion was a non sequitur. 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?

That wasn't the point. You tied criminals' ability to buy illegal guns with the effectiveness of murder weapons which has nothing to do with criminals' ability to buy illegal guns. That's a non sequitur.

oralloy wrote:

Your post was in fact incorrect. Gun availability does in fact have little impact on homicide rates.

Says you.

oralloy wrote:

Your claims do have no credibility when you fail to support them.

I provided a link to a link to a study.

oralloy wrote:

And human-hunting rifles always have a selective fire switch. Rifles without a selective fire switch are just ordinary hunting rifles.

Redundantly wrong again and again.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The validation is the reasoning, which takes place in the mind, that figures that the military uses factorially dangerous weapons, of which the AR-15's only difference is the lack of selective fire.

The absence of selective fire means that these guns are no more dangerous than an ordinary hunting rifle.

Says you.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The back up is simple reasoning.

Your fact-free reasoning is leading you to fact-free conclusions.

Ok.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

0 Replies

If I actually wanted all guns to be confiscated, I say just that exactly. I don't understand why some people think that just because I don't own an AK-47......I used to have an M-16 because my first husband liberated it from the Armory when he was in Special Forces reserves. I only had it to keep it out of his hands, long story...I finally turned it over to a local police department. I still have a shotgun....so can escape being called an anti-gunner....or isn't that enough for the gun worshipers?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I most certainly will tell, thank you. They help reduce the flash created by carbine length rifle barrels, thereby reducing the occurance of flash blindness as well as helping conceal the direction of the fired rounds.

Why does that matter? A longer barrel will achieve the same thing.

It matters because assault weapons don't normally have longer barrels.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Carbines are weapons developed and used for military purposes, especially for special-operations and paratroopers.

Rifles are also developed and used for military purposes. Handguns are also developed and used for military purposes. The English longbow was developed and used for military purposes.

Merely having been developed and used for military purposes does not justify outlawing a weapon.

Says you.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
AR-15's are generally carbine rifles,

Except for the ones that aren't.

That's brilliant.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
equivallent to their military issue counterparts save for selective fire.

Merely having been developed and used for military purposes does not justify outlawing a weapon.

You're being repetitively wrong, again.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

See my responses above.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I most certainly will tell, thank you. They help reduce the flash created by carbine length rifle barrels, thereby reducing the occurance of flash blindness as well as helping conceal the direction of the fired rounds.

Now, tell me how many murders there have been in which the police or witnesses reported that the shooter could not be located due to the presence of a flash suppressor. You're making this **** up in your mind. And I will let your failure to provide and answer to the question just put to you as proof that you're reaching for straws that are not even there.

Now, why do you think I'd follow this bulll **** straw man argument of yours if I haven't followed the endless others?

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
AR-15's are generally carbine rifles, equivallent to their military issue counterparts save for selective fire.

". . . save for selective fire" is equivalent to saying that the AR-15 is not a military issue rifle. If you believe that it is, then provide something--ANYTHING--to prove that the military uses semiautomatic AR-15s. Short of that, you will have proved only that you are still making **** up.

I do not believe that it is a military issue rifle.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I asked "what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?"

That's what I asked you. You know that if you say that it's the drinker, you'll be forced to admit that the actual cause of innocent people being killed in shootings is the shooter. With that in mind, go ahead and tell me what you believe is the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers.

To continue with your games, I asked you first.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know