• 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:
No where have I said I was opposed to self defense. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure why you argue things not said, but ignore what was said.

Try again.
Click to expand...

If you deny honest people the same tools almost every civilian law enforcement agency has determined are the most suitable for somewhat trained police officers to use in self defense against criminals (who of course don't obey magazine limits-they don't obey other laws) you are against self defense

your silly irrational and moronic assertions that people don't need more than 7 shots based purely on your own need to counter what I have said is evidence you are anti self defense.
 
Liberals just like to control things they don't understand
 
Rocketman said:
Liberals just like to control things they don't understand
Click to expand...

I think some feel a need to respond to uncomfortable factual assertions even if they no clue about the subject

Its like many things liberals do-they feel a NEED TO DO SOMETHING so they can FEEL GOOD about themselves even if what they DO is to MAKE THINGS WORSE
 
TurtleDude said:
If you deny honest people the same tools almost every civilian law enforcement agency has determined are the most suitable for somewhat trained police officers to use in self defense against criminals (who of course don't obey magazine limits-they don't obey other laws) you are against self defense

your silly irrational and moronic assertions that people don't need more than 7 shots based purely on your own need to counter what I have said is evidence you are anti self defense.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning here is flawed. Commonly called a strawman. You dint want to argue the issue, you you create the notion if being against self defense. This type of illogical thinking on your part likely betrays the fact that you know your reasoning us weak and seek to hide behind the strawman effort.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your reasoning here is flawed. Commonly called a strawman. You dint want to argue the issue, you you create the notion if being against self defense. This type of illogical thinking on your part likely betrays the fact that you know your reasoning us weak and seek to hide behind the strawman effort.
Click to expand...

You can keep making those silly claims and pretend all you want that you have countered my argument and anyone who sees this exchange sees you are without any ammunition.

You spewed what is a reasonable limit on magazine capacity based on WHAT


You have been impotent to tell us why honest people-ones you pretend you agree should be allowed to own guns-should be so limited

I am waiting for you to tell us where you found 7 to be a magical number

1) was it based on your extensive study of gun fights

2) training with experts in the field

3) your thirty years as a world class competitive shooter in disciplines that require uber-fast reloads of semi automatic pistols

or was it something you just picked because some turd in NYS decided he'd restrict honest people a bit more than his prior office holders had done

come on Boo-with all that arrogance you spew towards us pro gun posters and your dismissive sanctimonious comments towards us, we want to see where you pulled that number from and why it is logical
 
12 Year old student brought a Ruger semi-auto 9 mm to school at 7:46 a.m., gun apparently belonged to his father, never entered the school building, encountered 46 yr. old math teacher, ex-Marine, present member of Nevada Air Guard, father of two, shot him dead, shot two other 12 yr olds, one in the shoulder, one in abdomen, both will survive, shooter then committed suicide with his gun. Police never fired a shot.

Except for the deceased teacher, no names, pictures or possible motive released. Police are investigating father's acquisition of gun and how the 12 yr. old shooter got his hands on it.
 
Last edited:
For those that say that 7 rounds is more than enough to defend yourself in any situation you are likely to face consider this. Being a member of the special operations community I have been to multiple shooting courses both within and out side of DOD and one thing that is always constant within those courses is that when you are engaging some one with your weapon ( your rifle or even more so if it is your pistol) is that you never fire a single round. Before 9\11 the big thing was controlled pairs (2 rounds ). After finding that that is just not that effective everyone who knows what they are doing teaches multiple round engagements. Usually when we are on the flat range or in the shoothouse the bare minimum that you fire is 3 rounds with much more often it being 4 to 6 rounds. After ten plus years of war that is just what it has been found to be needed to reliably put someone down immediately. Anything less and you are just giving the other person a better chance to kill you.
And to those who say just reload they obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Two people break into your house in the middle of the night. You go downstairs with your gun and your 7 round magazine. The intruders decide they would rather kill you than leave and shoot at you. You return fire using 5 rounds to eliminate on that but now only have 2 rounds left which anyone with any real world experience will tell you it is time to do a emergency reload but where do I get that other magazine from. Did I hold it in my other hand making me much less effective with my weapon or maybe I just tucked it into the waistband of my underware ( most people don't sleep with there kit on ) and just pray it didn't fall out while I was moving around. And even if it is still there you now have to hope that the intruder won't shoot you while you are reloading. Not like you can get behind cover because unlike what Hollywood shows almost nothing in your house will stop a bullet.
Just to me it seems like limiting yourself in such a way greatly decreases your chances of survival for something that as far as I know has never been proven to prevent or lessen any crime.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
gun proliferation-the Democratic Party's term for law abiding citizens being able to exercise their rights without being hassled by the scummy Dem party jerkoffs in Congress?
Click to expand...
Actually its a term for the expansion of guns in society.
 
MACS-24 said:
So, what is the purpose of gun free zones then, seeing this is almost the only place this stuff happens.

No pro gun person on here has been lobbying for "gun proliferation" Only to be left alone for the guns they, themselves, do have and may want in the future. So, that is a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

Baloney. I provided you with amply evidence of the desire to have more and more and more and more guns in society and daily life to the point where some towns want to MANDATE gun ownership.
 
SMTA said:
And the dance of discounting personal accountability continues......
Click to expand...

One could not help but notice that you opted for a fast drive by attack rather than any evidence to support the claims and allegations made.
 
haymarket said:
Baloney. I provided you with amply evidence of the desire to have more and more and more and more guns in society and daily life to the point where some towns want to MANDATE gun ownership.
Click to expand...

So what's your point? Who are you to dictate how much of anything I own?
 
haymarket said:
One could not help but notice that you opted for a fast drive by attack rather than any evidence to support the claims and allegations made.
Click to expand...

....says the pot to the kettle
 
haymarket said:
Actually its a term for the expansion of guns in society.
Click to expand...

well to most objective people who actually understand the facts, more guns in the hands of honest citizens is a good thing. More guns in the hands of scumbags is bad. Sadly, the solution of the anti gun left is to pass laws that mainly prevent or obstruct good people getting guns leaving us like what was seen in DC and Chicago where only the scumbags were armed in confrontations between good people and criminals. Proliferation is a loaded term used by the anti gun left to worry and accentuate the emotional response by low information voters.
 
braindrain said:
For those that say that 7 rounds is more than enough to defend yourself in any situation you are likely to face consider this. Being a member of the special operations community I have been to multiple shooting courses both within and out side of DOD and one thing that is always constant within those courses is that when you are engaging some one with your weapon ( your rifle or even more so if it is your pistol) is that you never fire a single round. Before 9\11 the big thing was controlled pairs (2 rounds ). After finding that that is just not that effective everyone who knows what they are doing teaches multiple round engagements. Usually when we are on the flat range or in the shoothouse the bare minimum that you fire is 3 rounds with much more often it being 4 to 6 rounds. After ten plus years of war that is just what it has been found to be needed to reliably put someone down immediately. Anything less and you are just giving the other person a better chance to kill you.
And to those who say just reload they obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Two people break into your house in the middle of the night. You go downstairs with your gun and your 7 round magazine. The intruders decide they would rather kill you than leave and shoot at you. You return fire using 5 rounds to eliminate on that but now only have 2 rounds left which anyone with any real world experience will tell you it is time to do a emergency reload but where do I get that other magazine from. Did I hold it in my other hand making me much less effective with my weapon or maybe I just tucked it into the waistband of my underware ( most people don't sleep with there kit on ) and just pray it didn't fall out while I was moving around. And even if it is still there you now have to hope that the intruder won't shoot you while you are reloading. Not like you can get behind cover because unlike what Hollywood shows almost nothing in your house will stop a bullet.
Just to me it seems like limiting yourself in such a way greatly decreases your chances of survival for something that as far as I know has never been proven to prevent or lessen any crime.
Click to expand...

having been trained the same way I know you are right but anti gun parrots will just pretend that they know what is best despite having no training. The won't ever tell us where the line should be drawn and why -if a citizen cannot legally own a gun, he cannot be trusted with the same number of rounds as often less well trained cops and of course, criminals. Rather than making a rational argument (none exists of course) for such limits, these anti gun extremists merely parrot what some politician has said or worse yet, just pull a figure out of their shorts and pronounce it is proper.
 
TurtleDude said:
You can keep making those silly claims and pretend all you want that you have countered my argument and anyone who sees this exchange sees you are without any ammunition.

You spewed what is a reasonable limit on magazine capacity based on WHAT


You have been impotent to tell us why honest people-ones you pretend you agree should be allowed to own guns-should be so limited

I am waiting for you to tell us where you found 7 to be a magical number

1) was it based on your extensive study of gun fights

2) training with experts in the field

3) your thirty years as a world class competitive shooter in disciplines that require uber-fast reloads of semi automatic pistols

or was it something you just picked because some turd in NYS decided he'd restrict honest people a bit more than his prior office holders had done

come on Boo-with all that arrogance you spew towards us pro gun posters and your dismissive sanctimonious comments towards us, we want to see where you pulled that number from and why it is logical
Click to expand...

You're still fighting things I never said. No where did I say any number was magic. I said it wasn't a hardship or significant. So, once again, do try to address what has actually been said.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're still fighting things I never said. No where did I say any number was magic. I said it wasn't a hardship or significant. So, once again, do try to address what has actually been said.
Click to expand...

we have seen a rather large amount of anti gun posts that are dishonest or evasive and when called on it, the poster using the evasive nature of his comments that clearly implied a position to argue that it was not really their position. You clearly said that it was ok for citizens to be limited to 7 shots. Your posts were devoid of factual support and your defense is dishonest.
 
You really should keep discussions relating to Australias gun Laws out of your arguments.

You have a different culture and different laws there than we have here in Australia. Australians have never had a constitutional right to own firearms. I don't own a gun nor do i know anyone that does (other than law enforcement personel). The average Australian has never owned a firearm. You simply cannot compare the two Countries and it constantly amazes me when I see posters here that do.

Most of us are reasonable people and understand that America has a great history of an armed populace with the majority of gun owners being responsible law abiding citizens.

Carry on and thanks for listening.

:peace
 
Having armed teachers or having ultra strict gun laws will not make us 100% safe.

This kid knew he would be killed by police or his own gun so an armed librarian would not be a deterrent. If legally buying a gun would have been out of his reach he could simply take one from his home or relative.

Really the gun has nothing to do with this.
 
TurtleDude said:
we have seen a rather large amount of anti gun posts that are dishonest or evasive and when called on it, the poster using the evasive nature of his comments that clearly implied a position to argue that it was not really their position. You clearly said that it was ok for citizens to be limited to 7 shots. Your posts were devoid of factual support and your defense is dishonest.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. Your poor reasoning skills and over emotional reaction make it seem that way to you. But an honest person, if you are one, would address what is said. Can you do that?
 
Ray410 said:
12 Year old student brought a Ruger semi-auto 9 mm to school at 7:46 a.m., gun apparently belonged to his father, never entered the school building, encountered 46 yr. old math teacher, ex-Marine, present member of Nevada Air Guard, father of two, shot him dead, shot two other 12 yr olds, one in the shoulder, one in abdomen, both will survive, shooter then committed suicide with his gun. Police never fired a shot.

Except for the deceased teacher, no names, pictures or possible motive released. Police are investigating father's acquisition of gun and how the 12 yr. old shooter got his hands on it.
Click to expand...
Does it not seem at least a little bit hinky that NO ONE is talking about who the school shooter was?
 
MACS-24 said:
So what's your point? Who are you to dictate how much of anything I own?
Click to expand...

The point was clear: you challenged me to support my previous statement with evidence and I have done just that.
 
MACS-24 said:
....says the pot to the kettle
Click to expand...

You were the one who challenged me for evidence and I provided a raft of it for you. So your metaphor is dead on arrival and not at all applicable to my posts.
 
TurtleDude said:
well to most objective people who actually understand the facts, more guns in the hands of honest citizens is a good thing. More guns in the hands of scumbags is bad. Sadly, the solution of the anti gun left is to pass laws that mainly prevent or obstruct good people getting guns leaving us like what was seen in DC and Chicago where only the scumbags were armed in confrontations between good people and criminals. Proliferation is a loaded term used by the anti gun left to worry and accentuate the emotional response by low information voters.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the first thing you and the gun lobby need to then do is to classify all Americans into those two categories so we know which ones are deserving' of their Constitutional rights and which ones are not at all 'deserving' of their Constitutional rights.

Then after you accomplish that task, you will need to offer an amendment to the Constitution to act upon that distinction.

btw- PROLIFERATION is a perfectly good English language word with a very specific meaning which describes perfectly the significant of the numbers of guns in America over the last two decades.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom