• 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 . . .

CRUE CAB said:
What would you call significant? A total gun ban?
Click to expand...

That would be significant, yes. But anything that prevented hunting or self defense would be significant. Having to stop to reload sooner, nit so much.
 
Boo Radley said:
Then you have issue we can likely fix here.
Click to expand...
Yea, really. Try it. You want to turn me in? Call the Melbourne PD and tell them CRUE CAB blacked out his Jimmy's windows and gutted the cat. Its in the driveway right now. I am sure they will drop everything to rush right over.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm offended I can't have a SAM battery on my roof. You never know when the government might send a Blackhawk to my house,

Outraged! Freedoms!
Click to expand...

and these posters wonder why we dismiss their anti gun rants as being stupid and comical?
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be significant, yes. But anything that prevented hunting or self defense would be significant. Having to stop to reload sooner, nit so much.
Click to expand...

If someone dies because they are limited to the rounds you find proper, should their loved ones come hunting for you?
 
Boo Radley said:
That would be significant, yes. But anything that prevented hunting or self defense would be significant. Having to stop to reload sooner, nit so much.
Click to expand...

Hunting is not needed. Ever. Fun, good for thinning herds. Not needed for mankind to exist in 2013. Defending my home and family, not for you to decide how and by what means.
 
TurtleDude said:
rejected as stupid. You can spew that lie all you want. You don't know anything about guns and you certainly know nothing about how many competitive shooting events cannot be practiced in places like NY due to those "insignificant" restrictions

why do you think your definition of "significant" matters to someone like me who has constantly demonstrated far far more understanding of firearm use than you have

you completely failed to address the fact that those who don't care much about a right or exercise it much, will find infringements upon that right to be far less an issue than those who exercise it

it would be like straights saying bans on gay marriage really aren't a significant infringement on a right

or whites claiming jim crow laws were minor
Click to expand...

Don't get emotional. You tend to get hyperbolic when you do. Stop talking about me, and make a point as to why it us such a burden.
 
Boo Radley said:
This may shock you, but some thought those restrictions were about safety.
Click to expand...

wrong-the only safety improved by democratic gun schemes are for criminals and others who worry about being shot by honest people

no study you can find supports that nonsense you think are "insignificant"
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm offended I can't have a SAM battery on my roof. You never know when the government might send a Blackhawk to my house,

Outraged! Freedoms!
Click to expand...

Ah, the old worn out extreme passive aggressive argument. Iam surprised you dont say you want a nuke or an M1A1.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't get emotional. You tend to get hyperbolic when you do. Stop talking about me, and make a point as to why it us such a burden.
Click to expand...

Your sanctimonious and patronizing comments only prove further that you are hostile to gun rights.

You don't understand gun use because if you did you would not claim that bans on more than 7 rounds in a gun are insignificant. that prevents anyone from NYS state being competitive in USPSA competitions or other similar events such as the GSSF or "Steel Challenge" style shoots
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't get emotional. You tend to get hyperbolic when you do. Stop talking about me, and make a point as to why it us such a burden.
Click to expand...

Backing away are we? Little too much heat? You wish to tell others what they can do with in our rights. You are picking the wrong battle.
 
TurtleDude said:
Rejected as dishonest again

ANti gun advocates are in no position to define what is a minor infringement.

If you were a GM USPSA competitor you wouldn't be saying such stupid things.

And tell us, if NYS has determined that 17 round GLOCK handguns are the best protection against violent criminals for their officers to use, why should the rest of us be handicapped with 7 round limits?
Click to expand...

One, your not police. You day likely has less potentially dangerous moments. Second, four what you would likely run into, if you can't handle it with seven rounds, you are likely either not proficient, or you really messed up and found yourself in a war zone.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't get emotional. You tend to get hyperbolic when you do. Stop talking about me, and make a point as to why it us such a burden.
Click to expand...

Dont lie like claim that magazine bans are not significant. You tend to lose credibility when you make such claims.

tell us what laws would have stopped this shooting today?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure. It's deeply embedded. But we need to start by calling it what is to start with, a tool. Not savior. Not ones manhood. Not the giver of safety, but a tool that can help in the right hands for the right reasons.

We also need to keep educating that violence is not the answer in most cases. That reason should be the first and persistent choice for dealing with problem.

Also, while I don't blame violent content in video games, we need kids out of the technology and interacting with real actual people. The graphics are better, and the lesson important. We're still human beings and this is largely important that we learn to deal with each other.
Click to expand...

Really good points.

You are right it is deeply embedded and it's tentacles reach in many different directions. For one thing we glorify violence and tie being able to kick ass to manhood which in reality, has nothing to do with being a man. I think arming our boys with a healthier understanding of what being a man really means would be a great start. Not sure how we would do that. We can say it's the parents job, but if the parent didn't learn it themselves chances are they aren't going to be teaching it.
 
Boo Radley said:
One, your not police. You day likely has less potentially dangerous moments. Second, four what you would likely run into, if you can't handle it with seven rounds, you are likely either not proficient, or you really messed up and found yourself in a forgiven war zone.
Click to expand...

that again is moronic. Police usually determine when and where they confront armed criminals. They have backup, vests and radio communications. The rest of us never choose when someone attacks us and where. we usually don't have backup.

so your moronic claim that I only need 7 is just more illustration you have no clue about this issue

why 7 why not 5 or 3? when NYS limited people to 10 rounds I made the same argument and people like you said the same thing about ten rounds

tell us what expertise you have in civilian self defense issues that allows you to determine what is a proper number of rounds GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS DETERMINED IT IS 15 to 17
 
Boo Radley said:
That's interesting. Tomorrow I will look into that. Not one you say?
Click to expand...

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister
From Leigh Remizowski, CNN
updated 12:03 PM EDT, Thu May 2, 2013

A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot and kill his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.....

....Caroline Sparks' death comes after two other incidents in recent months involving young children shooting others. In early April, a 4-year-old boy in Tennessee shot and killed a 48-year-old woman, and just days later, 6-year-old Brandon Holt was killed in New Jersey after being shot in the head by his 4-year-old playmate.

Read more here:
5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - CNN.com
Click to expand...



There was a thread on DP related to that tragedy:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...nd-gun-regulation-w-175-a.html#post1061758937

Part of todays story:

....The shooter took a handgun from his parents, a federal law enforcement source who was briefed on the situation told CNN's Evan Perez.

The gunman eventually shot and killed himself....

Read more: Sparks Middle School shooting: 2 dead, 2 hurt in Nevada shooting, police say
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CRUE CAB said:
Still waiting for your gun law ideas.
See here is the break down.
Pro gun rights people. We believe in personal responsibility, punishing the criminal, raising children to not be weak minded, we believe in the US Constitution, we hold all our rights dear and know when one falls they all will fall.
Pro gun control people. They dont believe in personal responsibility, coddle the criminal, raise children to be weak and fearful, and would love a total revamp of the constitution to eliminate gun rights, and they dont care if it falters and goes away as long as the G is there to protect and provide for them.
Click to expand...

Personally, I worry more about stupid people. They are more dangerous than criminals. After years if working emergency medicine, I saw more deaths due to stupid people with guns that any other gun deaths, hands down.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Being told how many rounds I can have to defend my home and protect my family is not minor. That is a slap in the face.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can't reload? What are you realistically expecting? I don't see your concern.
 
TurtleDude said:
more moronic evasion. "Professional" cops are issued 17 round magazines even though COPS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT THE WRONG PERSON than other armed civilians

IF PROFESSIONAL COPS need 17 rounds so do the rest of us

lacking in your braying about minor restrictions is a complete failure to explain why those restrictions are NEEDED.

there are two parts to the debate

1) are the infringements improper when applied to honest people-you claim they are not improper, I claim they are

2) do the infringement clearly advance a proper good-you cannot even come close to making that argument with evidence
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention. They have cause. You really don't.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Yea, really. Try it. You want to turn me in? Call the Melbourne PD and tell them CRUE CAB blacked out his Jimmy's windows and gutted the cat. Its in the driveway right now. I am sure they will drop everything to rush right over.
Click to expand...

Relax. Don't care.
 
Boo Radley said:
One, your not police. You day likely has less potentially dangerous moments. Second, four what you would likely run into, if you can't handle it with seven rounds, you are likely either not proficient, or you really messed up and found yourself in a war zone.
Click to expand...
Oh, the old. You cant shoot well argument. Man you are trotting all the excuses out tonight. Who are YOU to decide by what means I defend my home.
 
TurtleDude said:
If someone dies because they are limited to the rounds you find proper, should their loved ones come hunting for you?
Click to expand...

Ifs are not a logical argument. Calm down. Rein in your emotions.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Hunting is not needed. Ever. Fun, good for thinning herds. Not needed for mankind to exist in 2013. Defending my home and family, not for you to decide how and by what means.
Click to expand...

It's not me p. its society, and they always decide. Sorry.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yeah, you can't reload? What are you realistically expecting? I don't see your concern.
Click to expand...

why should a citizen be handicapped. if someone is legally allowed to own a gun why should he be restricted to having less rounds than cops and Robbers

I understand you are not a master class pistol shot as I am. I realize you don't engage in competitions where 2 seconds is the difference between winning and finishing 8th. But I can tell you where speed events-shooting fast under extreme time pressures-are almost always LOST ON THE RELOADS. people who practice constantly to win a little trophy or a couple hundred dollars bobble reloads. And that is in conditions where it is well lit, they have speed magazine pouches with big basebplates covered with skateboard tape (non slip) and using guns with huge magazine funnels. AND THEY SCREW UP

try reloading a gun at night with someone shooting at you

and then tell me you don't need more ammo or you ought to reload

I have been in such a situation. I have INTERVIEWED HUNDREDS OF POLICE and Other CIVILIANS who have been in such situations. AND NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THEY wished they had LESS AMMO in their gun

get back to me when you can actually address that fact and when you can draw and fire 12 rounds at 6 targets including a reload in under five seconds like I can. Then you will be able to debate RELOADING A WEAPON UNDER STRESS
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-the only safety improved by democratic gun schemes are for criminals and others who worry about being shot by honest people

no study you can find supports that nonsense you think are "insignificant"
Click to expand...

Debatable. But my point was some believe differently than you. Focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom