Tactics of desperation

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by drj90210, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    On the contrary, this is exactly what you have done. You have made a presupposition that those who are for stricter gun laws are uniquely and exclusively using false or misleading arguments. Something, by the way, that you have done here yourself.

    Ironic, no?





    You're very welcome. My quote above about "Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda", was taken directly from that site. This should answer for you why willing answers have not been forthcoming to you on this.
     
  2. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Wrong again. The very nature of a loaded question makes it a rhetorical or unanswerable question by definition.

    I WILL however, be a good sport and point out a glaring error in number two of your examples. In it you claim that "semi-automatic assault weapon" is a misnomer used purposefully and deceptively by the Brady Center. This is simply incorrect. The first use of the term "assault weapon" to describe semi-automatic weapons was likely by Gun Digest in 1986 in their book titled "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons". In it, they used the term to describe a variety of firearms including bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and semi-autos. The term has been used since then to describe semi-autos with pistol grips and detachable magazines etc. On the other hand, "assault rifles" is a term to describe fully automatic rifles.

    If you wish to apply your own meanings to words and terms, then be my guest, but when you use this as a basis for your charge of deception, then your argument becomes fairly insignificant and non-compelling.
     
  3. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't say assault weapon, I said assault rifle.
     
  4. Silverhair

    Silverhair New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Typo. The M-14, M16 (Military variants), and M-4 are assault rifles, including the burst-fire models. How many of the full military models have you fired?
     
  5. emptystringer

    emptystringer Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Now your backing down and trying to (*)(*)(*)(*) backwards. It seems your getting schooled from Americans that know what they speak of.
     
  6. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How am I backing down? I clearly said assault rifle.

    Not all assault rifles have a full auto mode.
     
  7. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The M14 is not an assault rifle as it fires a full sized rifle cartridge. Assault rifles fire an intermediate cartridge.

    However, I stand by my claim that a burst only rifle would not be an assault rifle.

    To be an assault rifle it has to be selective fire (full auto does not have to be one of them) and fire an intermediate cartridge. If it fires a full sized rifle cartridge instead it's an automatic rifle, like some variations of the BAR. Some variations of the BAR were light machine guns instead because they lacked the selective fire.
     
  8. Silverhair

    Silverhair New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,109
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are contradicting yourself.

    So how many of the listed fierarms have you fired? Or have you fired anything similar?
     
  9. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no contradiction there.

    I don't have to have fired a bazooka to tell you it's not a pistol. That's a bit of a fallacy you're throwing out there.
     
  10. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You're grasping at straws now, and no matter how much you do so, it will not change the definition of a "loaded question." Your reading comprehension is indeed lacking, and again you attempt to find controversy and error when none exist.
     
  11. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This is not at all what I said. Again, either you fail to comprehend or purposely misinterpret my writings. From my OP, I was purely focusing on anti-gun ORGANIZATIONS, rather than individuals.

    Willing answers are not forthcoming because, simply, you have no valid answers. To be honest, I really didn't expect anti-gun folk to have any explanations for me.

    I did, however, expect at least some of you show some class and actually agree with us pro-gun folk (for once) that using underhanded tactics of desperation are wrong and not appropriate in fair debate.
     
  12. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My questions were neither rhetorical nor unanswerable.

    I appreciate you at least attempting to answer my questions. With that being said, you are incorrect in your attempt. Let me explain why. The full title of that book was "The gun digest book of assault weapons - A detailed analysis of today's assault weapons for the military and law enforcement." Although I did not read this book, it seem clear from the title that it was referring to military and law enforcement weaponry, rather than civilian weaponry. Nowhere in the title did I see the term "semi-automatic assault rifle." I also do not have access to this book. If you have a reference of a page where the term, "semi-automatic assault weapon" was used in the book, then your argument would be much more compelling.

    Also, the Wikipedia site that you post a link too defines "assault weapons" purely in the context of the expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. As I described in prior posts from other threads, this definition was nonsensical, and it was defined this way for the lone reason to enact more federal gun controls.

    Yes. The term "semi-automatic assault rifle" was purposely defined by bureaucrats and anti-gun politicians like Chuck Shumer that way innappropriately in order to mislead the public.

    On the contrary, this is what YOUR side is constantly doing. I am just calling you out on it. To call a semi-automatic rifle/carbine an assault weapon is indeed a mischaracterization. Why not call a repeating-rifle an "assault weapon?" After all, in trained hands, they can be fired just as fast as a semi-automatic rifle.

    It is clear to everyone and their mother that the anti-gun side (including yourself) is wrong in this issue. Deception is never appropriate in fair debte. The fact that you continue to use deception further proves my point regarding how desperate your side truly is.
     
  13. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Ha, good one. The only one "grasping" here is yourself. Even your own buddy sunnyside has shown you your error on this. Look again at my post to you above. It is clear enough for a youngster to comprehend. For you to say that it is an "assumption of guilt" is simply not correct. The loaded question is not limited to only a presumption of "guilt", as you have erroneously stated.
     
  14. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    I don't see a significant difference in the two. Your presupposition is flawed whether it is looking at individuals OR organizations. This should be obvious.



    sigh, ..........For you to repeatedly ignore the nature of your questions only shows your own tactic of desperation, I guess. I have done everything but read the definitions to you out loud for you.

    You'll find that when you parse your questions FAIRLY and logically, that you'll see many willing responses. Unfortunately for you, you have done neither and are thus stuck with the fruits of your labor. You reap what you sow, as the Book says. I only find it ironic that your OP bemoans a lack of fair and honest debate while you feel the need to stack the deck unfairly and possibly dishonestly yourself.
     
  15. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Your assumption is not correct. Keep in mind that this is the 7th Edition and is not the same as the first one, but you should get an idea of the the fact that they DO refer to many guns (not just autos) as assault weapons in the book. Look at some pages here.





    Who said that they did? Didn't I already make that distinction?





    I see. The fact that they were perhaps the first ones (1986) to use this term (assault weapons) in, not only the text, but in the very title of their book is not good enough for you. A predictable response from you.




    Your "conspiracy" is unfounded. The AWB was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Democrats AND Republicans. I believe that something like only four Senators actually voted against it at the time. It's nonsensical for you to imply that the majority of congress were trying to do something nefarious.





    You charge of conspiracy would have more weight if you were able to identify the source of your quote. Of course this wasn't the crux of your original argument as to this, in fact nowhere in your OP did you even mention "assault rifle". Apparently, you're trying to move the goalposts in an attempt to hide the fact that your argument is without merit on this. The term "assault weapon" was NOT concocted by gun control advocates as you suggested. You have manufactured this conspiracy out of whole cloth.

    Do you consider this a honest way to start a debate on this topic? Oh, the irony.





    Errrr...... Erroneously, you have. Refer above.







    Then take it up with "Gun Digest". You are only objecting to a commonly used term to describe a type of gun. This would be OK and not seem as petty if you did not also make conspiratorial accusations associated with this. Your whole argument on this is baseless and the fact that you have not attempted to support it only confirms this.








    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.


    Do you really think that making baseless accusations of "deception" is any replacement for actual proof of this? I suggest that you try to support your charges instead of making shrill and hysterical charges that you can't support. I have found that the ones who make the loudest and most frequent cries about deception and dishonesty are often the most frequent users of the very same thing that they rail against.


    Leave the emotional and irrational arguments alone and try to formulate a well-thought and cogent argument. THAT would be my advice to you.
     
  16. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And I thoroughly explained his mistake and your error. I also defended my argument logically and clearly.

    I used the dictionary defintion of the term. Perhaps your disagreement lies with those at dictionary.com, rather than with me? Your attempts to redefine the term "loaded question" to suit your own needs is, in fact, another act of desperation :)
     
  17. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Are you serious? You don't see the difference between anti-gun ORGANIZATIONS and anti-gun INDIVIDUALS? If you are stuck at this level of absurdity regarding complete lack of ability to interpret logical statements, then I believe there is absolutely no hope for you. I certainly won't waste my time helping you.

    I have not resorted to any tactics besides logical reasoning and common sense. For you to suggest otherwise merely illustrates your utter lack of comprehension ablilities.

    Questions where phrased fairly and logically. The lack of "willing responses" was not a surprise to me (I really didn't expect any), since the tactics of deperation used by the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March are totally indefensible.

    LOL! Funny stuff that only further conveys your lack of comprehension abilities. Just keep digging yourself into that hole :)
     
  18. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You are sidestepping the issue. The question still remains: "Where does this book use the term "semi-automatic assault rifle"?" Give me a page number and paragraph location, and then we can talk.

    What?!! This is what the whole post was about. Where is the term "semi-automatic assault rifle" used besides in anti-gun literature and rhetoric? You give me some book without any reference point to this term. Show me where this term is used in this book. Otherwise, I fail to see the point in your mentioning of this book at all.

    Are you serious?!! I don't care about the term "assault rifle." This discussion was never about the term "assualt weapon" or "assault rifle" (both are legitimate terms when used in the proper context). For the millionth time, this discussion was about "SEMI-AUTOMATIC assault weapons," which is a misnomer. Jeez, your comprehension is either beyond horrible, or you are adept at using strawmen.

    This is irrelevant to this discussion (as I stated many times before).

    I am implying nothing: Chuck Shumer, a co-author of the bill, stated that his purpose of the 1994 AWB was to use it as a stepping stone to enact further gun control legislation. I even quoted him in a difference post on an earlier thread proving this. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean that is ceases to exist Danct.

    Read my post again Einstein. I mention that this term [semi-automatic assault weapon] was incorrectly used by both the Brady Campaign and by legislators who wrote up the 1994 AWB.

    What are you blabbering about? I don't care about the term "assault rifle." I care about the nonsensical term semi-automatic assault rifle."

    The only one "moving the goalposts" is you. You are changing the argument entirely. I don't even think you fully read my OP, judging by your asinine misinterpretations.


    FOR THE LAST TIME, I could care less about the term "assault weapon." If you have reading abilities of a 7-year-old AND you actually read my post, then you will CLEARLY see that my beef is with the term "semi-automatic assault weapon." THIS, is a nonsensical term.

    Your lack of comprehension, failure to fully read my OP, and propensity to argue for the sake of arguing are resulting in your argument being utterly laughable. Please continue. It's absolutely hilarious, and it make my arguments look that much better :)

    No. You are indeed making LOADS of errors. That's a fact.

    I have no problem with "Gun Digest." To my knowledge, they have never used the term "semi-automatic assault weapon," and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

    I've never done this. Stop making up nonsense.

    You have yet to understand my argument. Thus, you are in no position to call it "baseless." Read it several time over (perhaps with a tutor if necessary) and then get back to me.

    I provide PROOF behind my arguments, and you continue to call them "baseless?" I don't think you know what the word "baseless" means. This is true deperation on your part.

    I'm done responding to your nonsense unless you give me the respect of actually READING my OP before responding with garbage.
     
  19. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    .....and erroneously.

    Revisionism doesn't help your argument at all.




    Your reliance on a web dictionary to somehow make your fallacious argument work is an act of desperation in itself. I have "redefine[d]" NOTHING. I, along with two other members here have attempted to bring you up to speed on this particular deceptive argument that you have used in your OP. You, on the other hand have only offered weak denials. Hardly a way to make a thread that asks for honest arguments. Now THAT'S irony.
     
  20. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Please, save the false indignation for someone who might actually be impressed by it. You had made a false distinction as to "organizations" and "individuals" in your argument which I asked you about. Your presupposition is flawed whether it is looking at individuals OR organizations. I already said this, which you dishonestly decided to ignore in favor of distorting my point.





    Your answer is very telling.

    This is my point exactly. You expected no response because you intentionally framed your questions deceptively so as to only accept a certain response. Thus, a "loaded question". Get it? Thank you for confirming my contention.






    Blind denials again. I'm still hoping that you offer something, ..... anything more substantial. I have pointed out an irony that you chose to ignore. A "loaded question", such as what you have used in your OP is not an honorable tactic. This is ironic, because your OP was attempting to expose others for using unfair and deceptive arguments, when you were doing precisely that very same thing with your loaded questions. I suppose you feel it's OK as long as YOU are the one doing it. Oh, the irony!
     
  21. Whale

    Whale Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because they're left wingers, that's what they'll always do.
    They don't have any standards.
    No, much like the man-made global warming leftists, they're train to speak in 'the sky is falling' extremes.
    No, those are conservatives, the vast majority of which are intellectually honest. To my experience conservatives would be embarrassed with resorting to these type of tactics.
     
  22. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    {After reading your entire post, I am struck by the irony of your argument as to whether I read your OP or not, when in actuality I have quoted from it and based my argument on it specifically. All this while you have completely misunderstood what I myself have written on this. I will thus edit out some of your redundancies and personal attacks because they only confuse the issue.........}



    sigh, ...... For someone who claims to know so much, you appear to be utterly misinformed on the terminologies. I never claimed that the book usd the term "semi-automatic assault rifle". That would have been ridiculous. You keep interchanging the two terms; "assault weapons" and "assault rifles" when they are two entirely different meanings. Instead of repeatedly railing about me not reading your posts, you should have read my first post to you on this issue more carefully. I specifically addressed this which puts an entirely different light on your argument.





    You claimed in your OP that pro-control organizations use the term "semi-automatic assault weapons" (without actually sourcing a quote, by the way), and that they use it deceptively. I have tried to show you a prior use of the term by Gun Digest that makes your argument moot and false. Refer to the First edition from 1986. On the cover, it says;
    "The Gun Digest Book of ASSAULT WEAPONS
    A Detailed Analysis of Assault-Type Weapons.


    * Test Reports- Firing the latest in full and semi-autos, centerfires, ripfires, and shotguns.

    * Design trends- The search for the ultimate.

    * New Philosophies- Current approaches to military, law enforcement and sporting use."

    This was Eight years before the AWB. Any questions?





    No it's not. You specifically said the AWB " was defined this way for the lone reason to enact more federal gun controls. " Therefor my factual assertion that only four senators voted against the legislation can have no other meaning than to dispel your argument on this. To think that the NRA's republican buddies would vote for something for the purpose of enacting "more federal gun controls" doesn't even pass the laugh test.

    Your whole argument in your OP relies on suppositions. Weak really.




    He wasn't a "co-author". He was a co-sponsor, and he is only ONE SENATOR. Legislation is not passed by one senator, friend. A civics lesson can clear that up for you. Why did the other Four hundred some-odd legislators vote for it then? Your argument is nonsensical and frankly borderline paranoid. I can't believe that you are actually saying that all but two Republican senators voted for the legislation in spite of the fact that one senator said that it was a "stepping stone". Are you asking us to believe that they all either decided that his claim was unfounded and chose to ignore it (very likely), or are you asking us to believe that all of those republicans all agreed with his intentions (lunacy)?




    Yes you did. But what you failed to do (and which sunnyside correctly chided you for) was neglecting to source those "quotes" with links.




    Nobody here but YOU has used this term. Wake up and smell the coffee.





    You're eating crow then because I have shown you that Gun Digest did indeed put out a book that looked at semi-auto and auto assault weapons. Your beef is with THEM and not some imaginary conspiracy that you have concocted out of whole cloth.

    Admit it. Your argument on this is simply not valid. I know that you are honorable enough to admit this. Go ahead.
     
  23. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    No "revisionism" here at all (perhaps you should look up the term "revisionism" before using it).

    Using the dictionary to prove a point is "depseration" now?! LOL. I will never understand your lack of common sense and how someone can be so utterly blind with bias to this absurd extent. It's like I'm debating Michael Moore or the staff of MSNBC.

    Yes you have, and I clearly demonstrated this in my previous posts.

    And I proved you all wrong through a rational, logical explanation.

    I think I'm done responding to your nonsense because it is an utter waste of my time. Come back when you have something of value to add to this discussion.
     
  24. Danct

    Danct New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The fact that you "defended" your argument does NOT necessarily mean that it was done "logically" or not. You have used revisionism to self-promote your argument into something it simply is not capable of doing. Namely, to be logical. This has repeatedly been pointed out to you here to your deaf ears. So, yes, you HAVE used revisionism, thank you very much.






    Now you've resorted to mincing words. I didn't say that you used a "dictionary to prove a point is "depseration"", I DID say; "Your reliance on a web dictionary to somehow make your fallacious argument work is an act of desperation in itself". Most "4th graders" (as you are fond of saying) can see the clear difference.

    It's not as if we haven't already covered this point. You had previously misinterpreted the "dictionary" definition to say something it clearly did not do. Remember? You had said that "loaded question" meant; "A "loaded" question, by definition, contains a presumption of guilt". I duly helped you with this saying; "It's not about guilt, per se, but rather a loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda."

    Your revisionism fails to account for these historical realities and for you to now resort to such deceptive tactics is frankly disingenuous.








    I have.

    I've shown your OP to be both ironic and fallacious, while you have attempted to use deception and personal attacks in a weak response. Isn't that what this sub-forum is all about? The OP lays out an argument (hopefully a logical one) and the other members can respectfully agree or question the merits of that argument. This is what I have done, in spite of your own rudeness.

    So, if you wish to now run from your own OP weak arguments, then this can be expected. But, to try to make this about me is simply a desperate diversion. You might even call it "an act of desperation" on you part. Ironic, no?
     
  25. aussiefree2ride

    aussiefree2ride New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The anti gunners are still playing little word games I see. Still unable to answer straight forward questions, so they just call the questions "loaded". Problem solved, or credability shot?
     

Share This Page