• 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!

pharmacist shoots and kills potential assasin and robber

So your experience is in high school fights and you wish to apply that 'experience' to the use of deadly force?

lets think on the less rounds in the weapon thing for justa moment.

How many rounds in most concealed carry pistols-
remember they are subcompacts so they can be concealed.

If you think you need a whole bunch of rounds to defend yourself you are going to lose. Blasting away isn't going to get them all before one of them gets you. If you think you can out gun three well armed and shooting bad guys without taking a hit yourself you are in for a very sad awakening.

You can try and dream up scenarios and try to make it out to show a single man against three well armed and already shooting badguys will prevail if only he had a high cap mag...

But you would be incorrect. :peace

Again, we don't get to choose what our scenarios might be. This is not a video game where you can choose which level you want to play. If you are in your house and have a break in you do not get the choice of how many or how well armed your opponents are. You have whatever you have and your level of expertise. It's one of the reasons I enjoy long distance hiking. I'm a good problem solver and enjoy a challenge. Miles away from roads or other people you have what you thought to bring and your own abilities and that's it. Many people have died out there with everything they would have needed to survive if they had know how to use it just as many have died who have plenty of knowledge but don't have the right equipment.

So if you have a break in and you are out gunned you are at a disadvantage and may likely die trying to defend your family while waiting for the police to show up. The expression is "When seconds count the police are only minutes away". No, I'd rather have weapons that may seem excessive to you, warm and comfy in your parent's basement. I'm not taking that chance. If you want to go ahead, but I will not allow you or someone else to make that decision for me. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and Feinstein don't need weapons at all. They have security details to protect them with weapons we are not allowed to own to begin with. It's easy for them to tell us what WE don't need with a well armed securty detail to take care of them.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I remember the blind faith then too. "You will be able to keep your doctor". Not so much. "premiums will drop". Didn't happen. In fact they have already increased by 30% on average and will be going up more. So coverage costs more and doctors are making less, where do they suppose the money is going?

Then there was the new tax law. "Only the top 2% will pay more". Remember that? Anybody looked at their paycheck yet this year? My suggestion is to not pick up the soap in the shower with a trusted politician.
All part of the point, modern "jounalists" don't do their own research, they find talking points they like and run with them, for some damn reason there is a segment of the population that takes their writings as the absolute last word.
 
So, let's pass a law against idiots.

If should be about as easy to enforce as a law against guns.

But, aren't full auto rifles already illegal? Why do we need another law?
Full autos aren't completely illegal but might as well be due to the regulatory inflation. You have to have a tax stamp per gun, cannot transfer unless someone is licensed to carry and not in all states. As well the license doesn't cover machine guns made after the 1986 Hughes amendment which are not transferable. A typical transferrable full auto can be anywhere from 15 to 30 thousand dollars.

EDIT - There are only two known murders committed with legally owned full autos. Of the two, one was a cop. They aren't exactly prime for committing premeditated murder due to rideup and that pesky running out of shots things because they fire so fast.
 
Last edited:
Why does the government NOT allow a civilian to have a armed, fully functional tank? :roll:

I know the answer to this one.


Because it will damage the badly made streets?

Did I win the prize?
 
It says uninfringed HOWEVER it has been and will continue to be restricted and it is all legal.
Nope, not legal. That the clowns who dared didn't get charged with perjury is irrelevant, they CAN BE.
You illinformed 2nd A ranters make me sick- see what I did there?
Read the founders' writings, like Madison, the guy who wrote the constitution, the pro second side says WHAT he did. You're wrong.
 
Again, we don't get to choose what our scenarios might be. This is not a video game where you can choose which level you want to play. If you are in your house and have a break in you do not get the choice of how many or how well armed your opponents are. You have whatever you have and your level of expertise. It's one of the reasons I enjoy long distance hiking. I'm a good problem solver and enjoy a challenge. Miles away from roads or other people you have what you thought to bring and your own abilities and that's it. Many people have died out there with everything they would have needed to survive if they had know how to use it just as many have died who have plenty of knowledge but don't have the right equipment.

So if you have a break in and you are out gunned you are at a disadvantage and may likely die trying to defend your family while waiting for the police to show up. The expression is "When seconds count the police are only minutes away". No, I'd rather have weapons that may seem excessive to you, warm and comfy in your parent's basement. I'm not taking that chance. If you want to go ahead, but I will not allow you or someone else to make that decision for me. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and Feinstein don't need weapons at all. They have security details to protect them with weapons we are not allowed to own to begin with. It's easy for them to tell us what WE don't need with a well armed securty detail to take care of them.

Video game? You are the one trying to use high school fights as an example of deadly force encounters, get real.

Again, if there are three badguys armed and dangerous with E-Vile intent for you and yours how many rounds in the mag isn't the 'savior'. You ignore reality to try and paint a scenario that doesn't work if you take just a minute to reflect on your opinion. In your scenario a shotgun works sooo much better than any pistol- the armed men attacking all at once in your home. You don't have to aim near as well and as fast as you can work the weapon means far more than with a pistol.

Just how 'limited' a mag cap are you trying to claim will be the limit, last time it was 10 for a pistol. My home defense pistol holds 13. If I can't take care of business in 10 and need the last 3 I have done soooo many things wrong. Spraying rounds doesn't work near as well as aiming your shots. I have demonstrated that time and time again on the defensive pistol range where I run side by side with a 'cant miss fast enough' student.

If you think a big mag makes you safer you should take your own advice and hide in your parents basement- I have long passed the age and been too many places hunting people pretty damn good at hunting back to hide in anyone's basement. :roll:

Now unless you are a drug stash house the odds of three armed and deadly men kicking in your door in a Blitz attack are piss poor. The odds of some kook with a weapon coming after you is far lower than most politicians, period, so stifle the whine about them having armed protection. Gabby Gifford offended no one, was a threat to no one, she was a politician and that made her 1,235.48% more of a target than you or I, so can the I want what they have crap.

Join the Infantry, they carry REALLY cool weapons... :peace
 
The argument about clips is for morons. aka liberals. All are stupid dumbass idiots, as is displayed over and over here. The pharmacist was fortunately able to get the job done with a limited number of rounds. Should he have had a limit, like at a carnival or some such liberal bull**** ? Is this "if you can't kill him in 8 shots", then you lose ?

Lemme guess Sherlock. If you are a pharamicist, with a shop you built for 20 years, and some hoodie comes in to rob you, you need to be limited in your ability to defend, by either some absurdly governed clip, of as you say "your ability to carry lots of clips" ? Do you realize how liberally retarded, aka ignorant, your point was ?

Such as you make me sick for the Republic.

They always like to give armed robbers, and terrorists, a fighting chance. Limiting the ability for innocent people to respond makes it all seem fair to them.
 
I am not Sherlock. This is Sherlock: BBC One - Sherlock
It was created by the executive producer of Doctor Who :)

Anyhow... please see my previous message.
Bottom line is Im right and you are not.



Hey Noodle... how many times you been on the wrong end of a gun in the hands of someone with ill intentions?

Since apparently you're the expert on what people need and don't need, I figure it must be a large number...
 
Back
Top Bottom