• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

That is wrong in so many ways. You completely ignored my scenarios. No, 7 rounds is not always going to be enough, regardless of your opinion. It's quite obvious that you have become "comfortable" and you have never experienced anything really bad happening to you or your loved ones.

Avoiding & Surviving a Home Invasion «

Each year, hundreds of Americans are kidnapped, injured, or killed during home invasions. Many people live in a fantasyland, believing that the police will magically appear in their time of need. After all, police have to protect us, right? WRONG! Did you know that the US Court of Appeals has ruled that police have no legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals? In other words, police and cities have been absolved of any liability. The ruling stated, “Local government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen” (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1). That’s right!, The police are under no obligation to risk their lives to save yours. If you think that calling 911 will instantly remove all evildoers, think again. If you’re not prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones then there is no guarantee that you will receive any protection at all.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
That is wrong in so many ways. You completely ignored my scenarios. No, 7 rounds is not always going to be enough, regardless of your opinion. It's quite obvious that you have become "comfortable" and you have never experienced anything really bad happening to you or your loved ones.

Avoiding & Surviving a Home Invasion «
Click to expand...

Again from someone who wants your money.

And you would be wrong concerning loved ones yet again.

But the question isn't about having no guns, or no protection (dogs are great), but about how large an arsenal you need to protect yourself.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again from someone who wants your money.

And you would be wrong concerning loved ones yet again.

But the question isn't about having no guns, or no protection (dogs are great), but about how large an arsenal you need to protect yourself.
Click to expand...

You should be able to have as large an arsenal that you feel is necessary to protect yourself if you are a law-abiding citizen. There is no need to limit a law-abiding citizens right to self defense because you feel it's "good enough." Nobody should be able to make such decisions for other people, especially when it comes to protecting yourself, your family and your property.
 
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...

well as a competitive shooter I sure like being able to shoot in a pistol league every week. something you subjects cannot do because you all had a collective panty wetting over one nutcase in Dunblane about 16 years ago Great idea-punish a bunch of people because of one asshole
 
MaggieD said:
The odds are overwhelming you'd never suffer from the lack.
Click to expand...

so the feminist claims that one out of every four women suffer a rape are just BS

I have been mugged once (shot the guy). assaulted with a knife (broke the guy's jaw and collarbone with a stick), had someone try to break into my apartment and then threaten me with the screwdriver he was using (stuck a walther PPK in his mouth and held him till the Police arrived), had some thugs try to steal my car in Detroit (pointed a 45 at the leader-they left). Other than Detroit, those incidents took place in "Safe" areas
 
TurtleDude said:
so the feminist claims that one out of every four women suffer a rape are just BS

I have been mugged once (shot the guy). assaulted with a knife (broke the guy's jaw and collarbone with a stick), had someone try to break into my apartment and then threaten me with the screwdriver he was using (stuck a walther PPK in his mouth and held him till the Police arrived), had some thugs try to steal my car in Detroit (pointed a 45 at the leader-they left). Other than Detroit, those incidents took place in "Safe" areas
Click to expand...

You might on how those rapes happen. It would show you there us some difficulty in your thinking.
 
TurtleDude said:
so the feminist claims that one out of every four women suffer a rape are just BS

I have been mugged once (shot the guy). assaulted with a knife (broke the guy's jaw and collarbone with a stick), had someone try to break into my apartment and then threaten me with the screwdriver he was using (stuck a walther PPK in his mouth and held him till the Police arrived), had some thugs try to steal my car in Detroit (pointed a 45 at the leader-they left). Other than Detroit, those incidents took place in "Safe" areas
Click to expand...

Re the rape statistic you mention, I don't believe it; so, yes, I'll call BS. I know plenty of women, dozens between friends and family, well enough that I would know if they'd been raped. I know no one who has been. So, yeah, I don't believe it.

As to your brushes with violence, I don't know what to say. I also know dozens of men well enough to know if they've been victims of violent crime. None of them have. What's the deal with Turtle?
 
MaggieD said:
Re the rape statistic you mention, I don't believe it; so, yes, I'll call BS. I know plenty of women, dozens between friends and family, well enough that I would know if they'd been raped. I know no one who has been. So, yeah, I don't believe it.

As to your brushes with violence, I don't know what to say. I also know dozens of men well enough to know if they've been victims of violent crime. None of them have. What's the deal with Turtle?
Click to expand...

who knows. I used to walk through Central Park and never got hassled--at night Of course I was 25 at the time, in real good shape and I had a gun. I think scumbags can sense who will F them up and who is a good victim.
 
Boo Radley said:
You might on how those rapes happen. It would show you there us some difficulty in your thinking.
Click to expand...

the difficulty in thinking appears to be coming from the perspective that no one needs more than 7 rounds for self defense.
 
TurtleDude said:
the difficulty in thinking appears to be coming from the perspective that no one needs more than 7 rounds for self defense.
Click to expand...

You're the one with the difficult. Now, do you know how most those rapes occur? Or not?
 
Boo Radley said:
You're the one with the difficult. Now, do you know how most those rapes occur? Or not?
Click to expand...

Of course I do-they are date rapes. your grammar makes no sense there dude

but that still leaves lots of forcible rapes. I personally know 6 women who have been raped violently. well in two cases they had knives and cut the living snot out of the would be rapist. so while they were assaulted they were not penetrated. just hit a few times
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course I do-they are date rapes. your grammar makes no sense there dude

but that still leaves lots of forcible rapes. I personally know 6 women who have been raped violently. well in two cases they had knives and cut the living snot out of the would be rapist. so while they were assaulted they were not penetrated. just hit a few times
Click to expand...

Poor typist with large hands not used to auto correct.

Anyway, yes date rape and by people they know (too often with chemical assistance). A gun less likely to be of aid in these situations.

And while I'm sure you never, ever exaggerate, six women are not enough to constitute a large enough sample.

Rape is terrible. And I have no problem with women being armed. But it's not a panacea. It will help some and others, and hurt still others.
 
Boo Radley said:
Poor typist with large hands not used to auto correct.

Anyway, yes date rape and by people they know (too often with chemical assistance). A gun less likely to be of aid in these situations.

And while I'm sure you never, ever exaggerate, six women are not enough to constitute a large enough sample.

Rape is terrible. And I have no problem with women being armed. But it's not a panacea. It will help some and others, and hurt still others.
Click to expand...

true, that is why in a free society we allow people to choose if they want to go armed or not

and we let people decide how many rounds they want in their carry pieces since there is no evidence whatsoever that law abiding people are more likely to go berserk when they have a higher capacity pistol.

I find it amusing you spend so much time trying to tell people who know far more about this subject and FAR MORE ABOUT THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES what THEY NEED.

tell us Boo, what benefit do you derive trying to tell people far more experienced than you are how many rounds we need. what benefit does society gain if everyone were to follow your poorly reasoned advice?
 
TurtleDude said:
true, that is why in a free society we allow people to choose if they want to go armed or not

and we let people decide how many rounds they want in their carry pieces since there is no evidence whatsoever that law abiding people are more likely to go berserk when they have a higher capacity pistol.

I find it amusing you spend so much time trying to tell people who know far more about this subject and FAR MORE ABOUT THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES what THEY NEED.

tell us Boo, what benefit do you derive trying to tell people far more experienced than you are how many rounds we need. what benefit does society gain if everyone were to follow your poorly reasoned advice?
Click to expand...

I haven't tried to tell anyone anything. I really have no dog in the fight. If you actually read what I say you'd know this. However, you made the claim you need more than seven rounds for self defense. I simply don't buy that. And told you so.

And yes, I know you don't live in a war zone. And what little information you try to give is often wrong, and I do point that out. But really, you rant and attack more than anything else. You're quite emotional. Even here you did not respond to what I actually said.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't tried to tell anyone anything. I really have no dog in the fight. If you actually read what I say you'd know this. However, you made the claim you need more than seven rounds for self defense. I simply don't buy that. And told you so.

And yes, I know you don't live in a war zone. And what little information you try to give is often wrong, and I do point that out. But really, you rant and attack more than anything else. You're quite emotional. Even here you did not respond to what I actually said.
Click to expand...

what information have I given that is wrong and how can you possibly know given your claims about what people need are so completely idiotic that no one who understands self defense can do anything but laugh about the comments you make

You need to stow the crap about being emotional. It is sanctimonious patronizing arrogance that appears to be a substitute for knowledge on this subject
 
TurtleDude said:
what information have I given that is wrong and how can you possibly know given your claims about what people need are so completely idiotic that no one who understands self defense can do anything but laugh about the comments you make

You need to stow the crap about being emotional. It is sanctimonious patronizing arrogance that appears to be a substitute for knowledge on this subject
Click to expand...

I notice you haven't supported that you need more than 7 rounds. I supported my claims, but merely diverted. Odd that. :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
I notice you haven't supported that you need more than 7 rounds. I supported my claims, but merely diverted. Odd that. :lamo
Click to expand...

I don't need to support anything. its your freedom limiters who have to support limiting my freedom

and you have completely ignored the obvious

about 30 years ago most LE agencies issued 6 shot revolvers. Many studies were done by "experts" and they concluded that even desk bound cops needed 15-17 shot pistols because those weapons were the most suitable self defensive tools to use against modern day criminals.

that alone proves that such weapons are equally suitable for other civilians who may have to defend themselves against the same criminals the cops deal with.

So you are wrong again. the best you can do is to pretend that cops face more dangers than any other civilians which of course is not true

and you pretend that cops are likely to face more criminals than other civilians at once. That is something you just pulled out of your six



Implied in all your blathering is an insinuation that you are uncomfortable with trusting honest citizens with the same weaponry as police. what harm occurs when people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons can carry 18 round pistols?

and what harm is it for a homeowner to have a 30 shot rifle to protect his home with
 
Boo Radley said:
I notice you haven't supported that you need more than 7 rounds. I supported my claims, but merely diverted. Odd that. :lamo
Click to expand...

Why do you want to put limitations on rounds? Please explain.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't need to support anything. its your freedom limiters who have to support limiting my freedom

and you have completely ignored the obvious

about 30 years ago most LE agencies issued 6 shot revolvers. Many studies were done by "experts" and they concluded that even desk bound cops needed 15-17 shot pistols because those weapons were the most suitable self defensive tools to use against modern day criminals.

that alone proves that such weapons are equally suitable for other civilians who may have to defend themselves against the same criminals the cops deal with.

So you are wrong again. the best you can do is to pretend that cops face more dangers than any other civilians which of course is not true

and you pretend that cops are likely to face more criminals than other civilians at once. That is something you just pulled out of your six



Implied in all your blathering is an insinuation that you are uncomfortable with trusting honest citizens with the same weaponry as police. what harm occurs when people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons can carry 18 round pistols?

and what harm is it for a homeowner to have a 30 shot rifle to protect his home with
Click to expand...

Divert, move the goal posts, and dance all you want. You made a claim you haven't supported. I can only conclude you know you were wrong.
 
ChrisL said:
Why do you want to put limitations on rounds? Please explain.
Click to expand...

I don't. As I said, I have no dig in the fight. I merely take accept ion to TD's claim of needing more than seven rounds to defend himself or that it is a hardship. Whether rounds are limited or not, TD is simply wrong and exaggerating.
 
Boo Radley said:
Divert, move the goal posts, and dance all you want. You made a claim you haven't supported. I can only conclude you know you were wrong.
Click to expand...

More lies. You haven't come close to supporting your OPINION that no one needs more than 7 rounds for self defense. I note no one who has any training in this area has backed you up either

tell us what harm comes from a citizen having more than 7 rounds
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't. As I said, I have no dig in the fight. I merely take accept ion to TD's claim of needing more than seven rounds to defend himself or that it is a hardship. Whether rounds are limited or not, TD is simply wrong and exaggerating.
Click to expand...

I am saying that honest people don't pick when or by whom they are attacked. and its always better to have more rounds than less given the uncertainty. And your idiotic argument was you never will need more than 7 rounds

You are simply ignorant about this area
 
TurtleDude said:
More lies. You haven't come close to supporting your OPINION that no one needs more than 7 rounds for self defense. I note no one who has any training in this area has backed you up either

tell us what harm comes from a citizen having more than 7 rounds
Click to expand...

You're dancing. The positive claim is yours. You have the burden. You just know you can't, so you dance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom