• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School shooting this morning . . .

Boo Radley said:
yes, an apple is different than an orange. Repeating that is not a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

yes you have repeated the idiocy that need matters when applied to constitutional rights

using your stilted logic, anyone with a clean driving record does not NEED insurance or airbags
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't need most things you own

I needed a gun when I was mugged

and civilians who are not law enforcement make up most of the victims of violent crime
Click to expand...

No problem with you having a gun. How many shots did you need? Be honest.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes you have repeated the idiocy that need matters when applied to constitutional rights

using your stilted logic, anyone with a clean driving record does not NEED insurance or airbags
Click to expand...

Still not making appropriate comparisons. Try again. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Still not making appropriate comparisons. Try again. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

no comparison is appropriate to those whose position is a faith based one as yours is

here is the sort of argument that you should make but cannot

1) showing that law abiding citizens who have more than 7 rounds are far more involved in mass murders

2) demonstrations that those who regularly carry more than 7 rounds have never needed them in self defense

3) posting studies that LE agency studies were in error for determining that civilian police officers really did not need to switch from 6 shot revolvers to 15-17 shot Glocks and Smith and Wesson or Beretta semi auto pistols

but guess what-you cannot so instead you-someone who has admittedly never carried a weapon in civilian environments for self defense-just opine about what others need

that fails
 
TurtleDude said:
no comparison is appropriate to those whose position is a faith based one as yours is

here is the sort of argument that you should make but cannot

1) showing that law abiding citizens who have more than 7 rounds are far more involved in mass murders

2) demonstrations that those who regularly carry more than 7 rounds have never needed them in self defense

3) posting studies that LE agency studies were in error for determining that civilian police officers really did not need to switch from 6 shot revolvers to 15-17 shot Glocks and Smith and Wesson or Beretta semi auto pistols

but guess what-you cannot so instead you-someone who has admittedly never carried a weapon in civilian environments for self defense-just opine about what others need

that fails
Click to expand...

It's not faith; it's reasoning. Think it through. If your argument is that you NEED lots, and lots and lots of ammo, show why.

And no, I don't have to prove the negative. You are charged with showing they are needed. You have not done so. So, I remain unconvinced. Instead of providing evidence, you rant. I showed police were different, gave support. You just rant.

So, how many shots did you need with your mugging? I'm waiting.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not faith; it's reasoning. Think it through. If your argument is that you NEED lots, and lots and lots of ammo, show why.

And no, I don't have to prove the negative. You are charged with showing they are needed. You have not done so. So, I remain unconvinced. Instead of providing evidence, you rant. I showed police were different, gave support. You just rant.

So, how many shots did you need with your mugging? I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

Here is the deal

free people should be free to determine what is enough ammo for them to carry

until you can prove that people who are legally allowed to carry defensive weapons cannot be trusted at a certain round count, you have no argument

every law enforcement agency of any standing has already determined that 6-8 shots were not sufficient for even their desk bound or administrative officers because even those people may face the very remote possibility of having to use a firearm to defend themselves. Using that standard, other civilians ought to be able to have the same weapons for self defense against the same criminals

you cannot find any studies that support your opinion that SEVEN ROUNDS IS SUFFICIENT. You cannot possibly argue that non leo civilians will NEVER face multiple attackers while in the same breath claiming that cops often do.

and the best you can do is to worship Andrew Cuomo and his minions who just pulled that number out of their collective asses

for you to continue down your silly road of restrictions you have to be able to prove that the danger of allowing people legally allowed to own guns becomes so great after a certain number of rounds that they have to be restricted and you also have to prove there is less chance that they will need more rounds

you cannot

the bottom line is that you are a gun banner and you incrementally want to ban guns so you support silly incremental steps such as the one Cuomo foisted on the people of NY
 
Ass-backward.


One must prove necessity to restrict a fundamental right, not to exercise it.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Ass-backward.


One must prove necessity to restrict a fundamental right, not to exercise it.
Click to expand...

when the gun banners start blubbering about need, you know they think we have to prove our rights should be protected rather than proving their scumbag politicians have to meet high burdens to justify encroachments.
 
TurtleDude said:
a society that takes more and more freedom from the people is hardly evolving. you are going back to the feudal era where only the ruling class could own crossbows (the one weapon by which an individual commoner could kill a knight in full armor)
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define freedom, personally if I was an American who didn't own a gun I would feel oppressed.
 
Higgins86 said:
Depends on how you define freedom, personally if I was an American who didn't own a gun I would feel oppressed.
Click to expand...

that's just moronic to believe your rights are limited because other people have rights
 
TurtleDude said:
that's just moronic to believe your rights are limited because other people have rights
Click to expand...

well when you have to run emergency drills at schools, sent your kids to a school with armed guards, risk being shot in inner cities etc.... Its hardly "free" when you have to take precautions to protect yourself from other peoples "rights"
 
Goshin said:
Ass-backward.


One must prove necessity to restrict a fundamental right, not to exercise it.
Click to expand...

Not sure the right is that fundamental any more. But He and you can make an argument concerning rights I might agree with. But TD argues the ammo is needed. I don't believe that. Nor do I believe I'm harmed in any way by the limitation.

But, one can only deal with the argument presented, and TD argued he needed the ammo. The burden is his.
 
Higgins86 said:
Its not so much we destroyed them more that we evolved.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
a society that takes more and more freedom from the people is hardly evolving. you are going back to the feudal era where only the ruling class could own crossbows (the one weapon by which an individual commoner could kill a knight in full armor)
Click to expand...

Higgins86 said:
Depends on how you define freedom, personally if I was an American who didn't own a gun I would feel oppressed.
Click to expand...




Higgins, I know you're well aware that the perspective (and history, culture, law, politics) on such things in America differs drastically from the viewpoints of most in Britain, so I'll try not to belabor the obvious. :)


I would point out that Britain still has some serious problems with violent crime, thuggery and public misbehavior, much of it stemming from rugby hooligan clubs and late-night revelry getting out of hand... but no small amount of it from more serious criminal activity as well. The study saying Britain has 4x the US general violent crime rate has been posted many times, along with assertions that different methods of data-collecting and classification may be a factor granted... but still, it is indicative that one could argue whether "evolved" is really quite the right word to use.

No offense intended there, of course... as we've mused on several occasions, Britain has its ways and America its own, and to each his own.

It is simply that our history, culture, demographics, and what you might call "national mythology" revolves heavily around personal independence and self-reliance, as well as what we consider a healthy distrust of government, and of allowing any singular body to have an exclusive right to the means and use of force.
 
Goshin said:
Higgins, I know you're well aware that the perspective (and history, culture, law, politics) on such things in America differs drastically from the viewpoints of most in Britain, so I'll try not to belabor the obvious. :)


I would point out that Britain still has some serious problems with violent crime, thuggery and public misbehavior, much of it stemming from rugby hooligan clubs and late-night revelry getting out of hand... but no small amount of it from more serious criminal activity as well. The study saying Britain has 4x the US general violent crime rate has been posted many times, along with assertions that different methods of data-collecting and classification may be a factor granted... but still, it is indicative that one could argue whether "evolved" is really quite the right word to use.

No offense intended there, of course... as we've mused on several occasions, Britain has its ways and America its own, and to each his own.

It is simply that our history, culture, demographics, and what you might call "national mythology" revolves heavily around personal independence and self-reliance, as well as what we consider a healthy distrust of government, and of allowing any singular body to have an exclusive right to the means and use of force.
Click to expand...


No I agree we are very different however I am merely responding to TD'S claim that we are slipping backwards in time being stripped of our rights. For me and most people in the UK having less guns in the streets makes feels safer and therefore more free so in our eyes our gun laws have most certainly evolved.
 
Higgins86 said:
well when you have to run emergency drills at schools, sent your kids to a school with armed guards, risk being shot in inner cities etc.... Its hardly "free" when you have to take precautions to protect yourself from other peoples "rights"
Click to expand...


Actually a lot of that is a result of media hype. Such incidents are actually rare in most places, but the media furor over them makes them seem more common than they are.

And granted, a lot of us on the pro-gun side may overhype our "need" out of a desire to score political points... in truth, you could live out your life in the average American small town without a firearm and the odds are pretty decent that you'd never suffer greatly from the lack.

But yes, some areas are more violent than others, and a good many of us decline to play the odds and prefer to go armed anyway.
 
Goshin said:
In truth, you could live out your life in the average American small town without a firearm and the odds are pretty decent that you'd never suffer greatly from the lack.
Click to expand...

The odds are overwhelming you'd never suffer from the lack.
 
Higgins86 said:
No I agree we are very different however I am merely responding to TD'S claim that we are slipping backwards in time being stripped of our rights. For me and most people in the UK having less guns in the streets makes feels safer and therefore more free so in our eyes our gun laws have most certainly evolved.
Click to expand...



Something I've mused over on several occasions is that most injustice, oppression and crime is caused by a disparity of power.

When two persons of equal power meet, they tend to be respectful of one another and wary of seeking to oppress, mistreat or victimize the other, because the risk is equal.

It is when two persons meet and one has far more power on hand than the other that crime, oppression and injustice tend to occur.


Britain's answer to that problem is to try to disarm everyone, thus rendering all on an equal footing.

America's classical answer is let everyone who wishes to be armed, be armed... again, rendering all (who care to do so) on a roughly equal footing.


Neither solution works perfectly of course. America suffers from split-personality on the subject by region and state and city, and some of the most high-crime urban areas are also those where local law has all but disarmed the honest citizens... a travesty of injustice in my eyes.
 
MaggieD said:
The odds are overwhelming you'd never suffer from the lack.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't wish to quibble over terms... but I don't know that I'd go quite that far. Your odds of being targeted for a serious crime in any given year are statistically tiny, but over a lifetime add up to a statistically significant chance. Regrettably, this is especially true for women and attempted rape.

Really, a lot of it depends on where you live. Some places are remarkably peaceful and pretty safe; others not so much. I didn't even realize that I lived in a high-crime county until a few years ago. No wonder I started carrying a gun at a rather young age. :)
 
Goshin said:
Something I've mused over on several occasions is that most injustice, oppression and crime is caused by a disparity of power.

When two persons of equal power meet, they tend to be respectful of one another and wary of seeking to oppress, mistreat or victimize the other, because the risk is equal.

It is when two persons meet and one has far more power on hand than the other that crime, oppression and injustice tend to occur.


Britain's answer to that problem is to try to disarm everyone, thus rendering all on an equal footing.

America's classical answer is let everyone who wishes to be armed, be armed... again, rendering all (who care to do so) on a roughly equal footing.


Neither solution works perfectly of course. America suffers from split-personality on the subject by region and state and city, and some of the most high-crime urban areas are also those where local law has all but disarmed the honest citizens... a travesty of injustice in my eyes.
Click to expand...



To expand on that, America wants something roughly like parity between the citizenry and the State; thus the Second.

Also, the beauty of Concealed Carry is that criminals do not know who is or isn't armed... and must be wary that their lack of that information doesn't prove fatal to them when they choose a victim.

Thus CC lends the cachet of equal power even to those who do not exercise it, to some degree.
 
Goshin said:
To expand on that, America wants something roughly like parity between the citizenry and the State; thus the Second.

Also, the beauty of Concealed Carry is that criminals do not know who is or isn't armed... and must be wary that their lack of that information doesn't prove fatal to them when they choose a victim.

Thus CC lends the cachet of equal power even to those who do not exercise it, to some degree.
Click to expand...

Of course if I am a criminal, and I believe what you say, then I plan accordingly. I then become more dangerous and not less.

I let let you know this because both sides tend to be too simplistic about it. Neither eliminating nor arming more makes you safe. Both sides are wrong on this.
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course if I am a criminal, and I believe what you say, then I plan accordingly. I then become more dangerous and not less.

I let let you know this because both sides tend to be too simplistic about it. Neither eliminating nor arming more makes you safe. Both sides are wrong on this.
Click to expand...
So really, the true counter to a statement along the lines of "we should ban guns so we are safer" is something like: "you can never be that safe, given current technology".
 
The Mark said:
So really, the true counter to a statement along the lines of "we should ban guns so we are safer" is something like: "you can never be that safe, given current technology".
Click to expand...

Most of us life quite safely everyday, with very little reason to fear much at all. But, no, nothing removes the possibility that some depraved soul might do you harm.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which is not the point and has never been the point (BTW, so am I. Expert shot in the military and have done enough hunting to be experienced).

And yes, As I have worked on the streets with law enforcement, I do know something about it. The trouble on the internet is that our experiences are not clear to everyone. And frankly, if you've put seven bullets in someone, even someone on PCP, that person's threat level is greatly diminished even if still standing. In the real world, we are just not having the type of situations that require being extensively armed. And even if there was more than one home invader, the second you shoot one the others disperse. You can predict human behavior rather accurately. They don't just keep coming once shooting starts.

I'm not sure where you guys live, but in Atlanta GA, and Jacksonville Fla, I never needed to be armed at all, let alone to the teeth. Are you in a war zone?
Click to expand...

You say "I've never needed to be armed" but there is a first time for everything. Jobs are becoming more and more scarce, we have the MOST people ever collecting social services. People are getting desperate. Desperate people do desperate things. These facts make your comment most naive. I'm surprised that someone of your maturity would have even said such a thing. NEVER say never after all.

It has nothing to do with where you live. A random act of violence can happen to anyone at anytime. Only the naive or very young would think that nothing would happen to them or that they would be able to fight off any intruder with the minimum weaponry.

You obviously don't know anything about people who are on heavy duty drugs. They feel NO pain. Yes, after getting shot 6 or 7 times they can most certainly still charge at you, and that has actually happened on multiple occasions to police.

You assume that if you shoot a warning shot or shoot one that the others will run. That is certainly not always the case, ESPECIALLY if they KNOW that you only have 7 rounds in the chamber.
 
ChrisL said:
You say "I've never needed to be armed" but there is a first time for everything. Jobs are becoming more and more scarce, we have the MOST people ever collecting social services. People are getting desperate. Desperate people do desperate things. These facts make your comment most naive. I'm surprised that someone of your maturity would have even said such a thing. NEVER say never after all.

It has nothing to do with where you live. A random act of violence can happen to anyone at anytime. Only the naive or very young would think that nothing would happen to them or that they would be able to fight off any intruder with the minimum weaponry.

You obviously don't know anything about people who are on heavy duty drugs. They feel NO pain. Yes, after getting shot 6 or 7 times they can most certainly still charge at you, and that has actually happened on multiple occasions to police.

You assume that if you shoot a warning shot or shoot one that the others will run. That is certainly not always the case, ESPECIALLY if they KNOW that you only have 7 rounds in the chamber.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've been about as poor as a person can be. Homeless at16.

And yes, I know much about drugs. More than most, and not just stories told on TV.

And I didn't say a warning shot, though that can be effective. I said shot shoot one of them. The rest will disperse. Only the rare few react calmly.

I guess what I'm saying us that I'm not, wrong about what I say. Experience, statistics, and experts all back me up on that. Seven bullets is more than enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom