• 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 . . .

you gave no links that supported the idiotic claim that citizens would never need more than 7 rounds. and you never gave any links that justify cops having 17 round weapons and other people not having them

most importantly, you cannot find any argument that justifies why you have spent so much time attacking those of us who believe in free choice when you finally admitted you really have no argument

you tend to avoid taking concrete positions where you will get destroyed due to ignorance of the subject with attacking the process and pretending that matters rather than the substance. Its common with anti gun posters to whine about secondary issues

Saying I don't believe your claiming and asking for support isn't me making a claim. Sorry.
 
Whose claim?

Whoever claimed there was a need for more than 7 rounds is confused themselves as to where the need should be placed.

Not on that side of the argument, I say.

TD made the claim, and I agree he's confused on this.
 
I've seen no evidence it happens that way. My experience tells me they run away. But if it happens as you say, we should have verifiable record of that.

You haven't provided any evidence of that. That is simply your opinion which isn't any more valid than anyone else's. You seem to have an inflated sense of self importance and seem to think that what you believe should be the rule for everyone else. What makes you think that your belief that a person does NOT need more than 7 rounds takes precedence over what an individual believes he/she needs to defend him/herself? You have still YET to explain that adequately.
 
And I answered you.

No you have not. You have answered none of my questions adequately. You do not debate. You demand things from others while refusing to provide your own proof with the excuse that you are just asking questions. It's really quite a pathetic and transparent tactic. What do you take us for anyway?
 
You haven't provided any evidence of that. That is simply your opinion which isn't any more valid than anyone else's. You seem to have an inflated sense of self importance and seem to think that what you believe should be the rule for everyone else. What makes you think that your belief that a person does NOT need more than 7 rounds takes precedence over what an individual believes he/she needs to defend him/herself? You have still YET to explain that adequately.

Mine isn't the positive claim. He claims it's needed, the positive claim. Therefore the burden is his. If I claimed they needed to be limited, then the burden would be mind. But I have not made that claim. He said he could defend himself if they were limited. He has to support that.
 
TD made the claim, and I agree he's confused on this.
So if you agree there is no need for need, why do you keep insisting that you need a proven need?

















:2razz:
 
So if you agree there is no need for need, why do you keep insisting that you need a proven need?









:2razz:

its to harass pro gun posters

note he attempts to hold us to standards he never meets and other anti gun liberals never meet
 
No you have not. You have answered none of my questions adequately. You do not debate. You demand things from others while refusing to provide your own proof with the excuse that you are just asking questions. It's really quite a pathetic and transparent tactic. What do you take us for anyway?

If you did not like my answer, follow up. What about you should be able to show record if it happens is nit adequate?
 
If you did not like my answer, follow up. What about you should be able to show record if it happens is nit adequate?

you have conceded defeat. everyone else sees this

you made a claim. it has no support in either substantive or procedural relevance
 
Oh really? Well please answer me again. I must have missed it.

that's another tactic-claiming they answered a question and demand you go back and find it
 
So if you agree there is no need for need, why do you keep insisting that you need a proven need?

















:2razz:

It's simple enough, I find the claim to be an exaggeration. I think that shows weakness in his argument. But mostly I was curios and wanted to see how he was going to support it. I have given him plenty if opportunity to say he really can't.
 
If you did not like my answer, follow up. What about you should be able to show record if it happens is nit adequate?

You don't give answers. You answer questions with other questions, or you deny, deny, deny.

No I don't have to prove anything to you. You would have to prove that it DOES NOT EVER happen in order to justify your position.
 
It's simple enough, I find the claim to be an exaggeration. I think that shows weakness in his argument. But mostly I was curios and wanted to see how he was going to support it. I have given him plenty if opportunity to say he really can't.
Yet, since there is no need for proof of need, why bother?

Edit: I mean, this **** has been going on for multiple pages, and you're telling me all you've been doing is trolling TD?
 
Oh really? Well please answer me again. I must have missed it.
I don't know why this would not be clear:

I've seen no evidence it happens that way. My experience tells me they run away. But if it happens as you say, we should have verifiable record of that.
 
It's simple enough, I find the claim to be an exaggeration. I think that shows weakness in his argument. But mostly I was curios and wanted to see how he was going to support it. I have given him plenty if opportunity to say he really can't.

I did and everyone else acknowledged it

I said

1) there is a possibility you might need more rounds

2) every major police department determined that 6 shot revolvers were not sufficient

end of story-you lose
 
Yet, since there is no need for proof of need, why bother?

I guess because it takes so long to get an answer and everyone jumps in with no context just throwing support, well, it's kind of funny to watch. He could end it easily by answering, admitting or not replying.
 
I guess because it takes so long to get an answer and everyone jumps in with no context just throwing support, well, it's kind of funny to watch. He could end it easily by answering, admitting or not replying.

Tactic #3-accusing others of the very tactic you have engaged in
 
I did and everyone else acknowledged it

I said

1) there is a possibility you might need more rounds

2) every major police department determined that 6 shot revolvers were not sufficient

end of story-you lose
I answered one by saying if that us true, you can show record of when someone needed them

I answered two by pointing out police have a different job and giving links showing that.
 
I don't know why this would not be clear:

I've seen no evidence it happens that way. My experience tells me they run away. But if it happens as you say, we should have verifiable record of that.

No, I asked you what makes you think that your belief that more than 7 rounds is not needed takes precedence over another person's belief that they DO need more than 7 rounds. The above does not address that question, unless you are basically saying that you believe your OPINION, as stated above, actually DOES take precedence over another free law-abiding citizen's opinion on what they believe they need to defend themselves.
 
I guess because it takes so long to get an answer and everyone jumps in with no context just throwing support, well, it's kind of funny to watch. He could end it easily by answering, admitting or not replying.
Yet he already has, only you didn't accept it because you wanted to troll more.

"I did it because it's funny to watch" is probably somewhere in the definition of trolling...

But I did want to ask...does this mean you agree with him?
 
No, I asked you what makes you think that your belief that more than 7 rounds is not needed takes precedence over another person's belief that they DO need more than 7 rounds. The above does not address that question, unless you are basically saying that you belief your OPINION, as stated above, actually DOES take precedence over another free law-abiding citizen's opinion on what they believe they need to defend themselves.

And I said mine isn't, but it's not about beliefs. That's the answer I gave back when you asked that. I thought you were talking about the other one. Fir this one it isn't about beliefs but support. I can find any event where someone need more than seven rounds, but that's a negative and hard to prove, that's why the burden is usually with the positive claim, that you need them. Therefore, not about either of our beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom