• 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 . . .

TurtleDude said:
No you don't. you have to establish there is no chance that a citizen might need more than 7 rounds

you cannot
Click to expand...

No, I don't. You don't prove the negative. You have to prove the positive.
 
TurtleDude said:
No you don't. you have to establish there is no chance that a citizen might need more than 7 rounds

you cannot
Click to expand...

He can't, and that is why he will continue to harass you to prove that you need more than 7 rounds. He must know his argument is pathetic. :roll:
 
ChrisL said:
Now you are saying you would need at least 17 rounds to defend yourself?

Thank your for admitting that you would never say it would NEVER happen. Just as with preventative medical screening, just because the risks are low does NOT mean you shouldn't take precautions.
Click to expand...

Missing the word not. I would not throw that out.

Low, but happen, don't miss the part where a test would not be supported for something that doesn't happen.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't. You don't prove the negative. You have to prove the positive.
Click to expand...

more nonsense-one of the tactics is trying to define the parameters.

free men make choices

you bear the burden of trying limit those choices.

You have to prove there is no chance an honest person might need more than 7 rounds

you have failed
 
Boo Radley said:
Missing the word not. I would not throw that out.

Low, but happen, don't miss the part where a test would not be supported for something that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

You've already admitted that you wouldn't say it NEVER happens. Therefore, you just lost your own argument.
 
ChrisL said:
He can't, and that is why he will continue to harass you to prove that you need more than 7 rounds. He must know his argument is pathetic. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have seen this sort of stuff from him for almost 4 years. I just note that others are seeing it now too
 
ChrisL said:
He can't, and that is why he will continue to harass you to prove that you need more than 7 rounds. He must know his argument is pathetic. :roll:
Click to expand...

Can you prove Santa clause isn't in my basement? The rules are that the positives claim has to be proven. No one had the price Santa isn't in my basement.
 
ChrisL said:
You've already admitted that you wouldn't say it NEVER happens. Therefore, you just lost your own argument.
Click to expand...

Bingo

he cannot figure out that if there is NO harm in a legal pistol packer having a 16 or 18 shot pistol combined with there might be a chance a citizen would need more than 7 rounds, his argument goes down the toilet
 
Boo Radley said:
Can you prove Santa clause isn't in my basement? The rules are that the positives claim has to be proven. No one had the price Santa isn't in my basement.
Click to expand...

the silly evasions continue

Last question of the night

DO YOU DENY that there are ANY circumstances where a citizen has needed more than 7 rounds to save his life from criminal attack?
 
Boo Radley said:
Can you prove Santa clause isn't in my basement? The rules are that the positives claim has to be proven. No one had the price Santa isn't in my basement.
Click to expand...

Not when it comes to defending yourself and your family it does NOT have to be proven. IF a person feels that is what it would take, you have given NO valid reason why they should be denied.
 
ChrisL said:
You've already admitted that you wouldn't say it NEVER happens. Therefore, you just lost your own argument.
Click to expand...

Only because I haven't seen any data. I also have no reason to believe it dies happen. Before I went all survivalist, I'd like to see some evidence.
 
ChrisL said:
Not when it comes to defending yourself and your family it does NOT have to be proven. IF a person feels that is what it would take, you have given NO valid reason why they should be denied.
Click to expand...

Well, thus isn't about that either. It's about a silly claim.
 
TurtleDude said:
the silly evasions continue

Last question of the night

DO YOU DENY that there are ANY circumstances where a citizen has needed more than 7 rounds to save his life from criminal attack?
Click to expand...

I've told you before, I do not know of any. Put them up if you do.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've told you before, I do not know of any. Put them up if you do.
Click to expand...

again that is dishonest

the issue is not whether you KNOW of some circumstances. THE ISSUE is

do you DENY that there are any circumstances where people have needed more than 7 rounds
 
Boo Radley said:
Only because I haven't seen any data. I also have no reason to believe it dies happen. Before I went all survivalist, I'd like to see some evidence.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you'll say you won't say it doesn't happen, but you won't say it does happen. WTH kind of debate tactic is this?
 
TurtleDude said:
again that is dishonest

the issue is not whether you KNOW of some circumstances. THE ISSUE is

do you DENY that there are any circumstances where people have needed more than 7 rounds
Click to expand...

If i do not know, I can neither confirm nor deny. The burden is still yours.
 
ChrisL said:
Give me one good reason why a law-abiding citizen should be limited to 7 rounds then.
Click to expand...

He could not-notice he has gone from saying there is no situations that would justify more than 7 rounds to him claiming he is NOT AWARE of any such cases.

I am UNAWARE of ANY CASES where someone prevented colon cancer due to a colonoscopy

that is far different from me denying that it is possible that colon cancer is prevented or can be prevented through such an exam

using Boo Logic I should claim it is unreasonable to have a colonoscopy unless YOU can PROVE that you are personally aware of someone who was saved from having colon cancer due to such a procedure
 
Boo Radley said:
If i do not know, I can neither confirm nor deny. The burden is still yours.
Click to expand...

More dishonesty. You are now pretending that you cannot conceive of someone facing multiple attackers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom