• 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 . . .

ChrisL said:
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?
Click to expand...

I call it the squid tactic of spewing ink in order to hide from superior attackers.

Good night-have fun with not getting any real argument
 
ChrisL said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's not a tactic. It's simply a lack if knowledge. I didn't make the claim. All he has to do is say he can't show it happens and he can't support his claim. I'll accept that.
 
Boo Radley said:
If i do not know, I can neither confirm nor deny. The burden is still yours.
Click to expand...
If you do not know, you can neither confirm nor deny that more than 7 rounds would be unnecessary.

If you do not know, you can neither confirm nor deny that less than 7 rounds are necessary.

But TD does know, as he has indicated by posting several links to articles wherein more than 7 rounds were necessary (or at least, I think that's what he did).

So TD can confirm that more than 7 rounds may be necessary. He answered your question, so far as I could tell...
 
TurtleDude said:
I call it the squid tactic of spewing ink in order to hide from superior attackers.

Good night-have fun with not getting any real argument
Click to expand...

Lol. Thanks a lot. Night! :2wave:
 
Boo Radley said:
Not really. It's about proving, in a rational way, that more than seven are needed. Not feelings.
Click to expand...

What if they are never needed? What's your objection? What is your problem with a person "feeling" they need more?
 
The Mark said:
If you do not know, you can neither confirm nor deny that more than 7 rounds would be unnecessary.

If you do not know, you can neither confirm nor deny that less than 7 rounds are necessary.

But TD does know, as he has indicated by posting several links to articles wherein more than 7 rounds were necessary (or at least, I think that's what he did).

So TD can confirm that more than 7 rounds may be necessary. He answered your question, so far as I could tell...
Click to expand...

You saw statistical data? Or are just impressed by him saying he needs them?
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe, but that's all you can really do with a silly claim. :lamo
Click to expand...

I don't see the claim as silly at all. There could, in all probability, be a potential for a need for more than 7 rounds in several different scenarios. Just because you refuse to recognize those scenarios as valid, which is nothing but ignorance, does not make it a silly claim.
 
ChrisL said:
What if they are never needed? What's your objection? What is your problem with a person "feeling" they need more?
Click to expand...

No objection. But don't make a claim that you can't defend yourself. Just say you'll feel better, or simply that it's your right regardless. It's not hard.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't see the claim as silly at all. There could, in all probability, be a potential for a need for more than 7 rounds in several different scenarios. Just because you refuse to recognize those scenarios as valid, which is nothing but ignorance, does not make it a silly claim.
Click to expand...

I think if that were true, we should be able to link cases where it has happened, just as we can link cases of breast cancer.
 
Boo Radley said:
No objection. But don't make a claim that you can't defend yourself. Just say you'll feel better, or simply that it's your right regardless. It's not hard.
Click to expand...

That's bogus. If a person believes that is what he needs, then it is what it is.
 
Boo Radley said:
You saw statistical data? Or are just impressed by him saying he needs them?
Click to expand...
he gave examples of situations, by linking articles. While I did not read the articles myself, I highly doubt that TD would present evidence which did not support his case.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think if that were true, we should be able to link cases where it has happened, just as we can link cases of breast cancer.
Click to expand...

Not if statistics don't exist. Just because stats are not kept does not mean it doesn't ever happen. How naive are you anyway?
 
The Mark said:
he gave examples of situations, by linking articles. While I did not read the articles myself, I highly doubt that TD would present evidence which did not support his case.
Click to expand...

well, they actually didn't. Nothing about how many rounds were needed. One just said that the person defending would likely empty the gun no matter how many rounds he or she had or was needed. Not sure that's actually support.
 
ChrisL said:
Not if statistics don't exist. Just because stats are not kept does not mean it doesn't ever happen. How naive are you anyway?
Click to expand...

Oh, I suspect they're kept, but there's nothing to see.
 
Boo Radley said:
Oh, I suspect they're kept, but there's nothing to see.
Click to expand...

Your suspicions mean nothing and prove nothing. You are doing nothing more than TD. You are expressing your opinions which are no more or less valid than his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom