• 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 . . .

Do you have a spare tire in your car? Probably. Why?
How about fire extingushers in your home?
Many things might happen. Nothing wrong with being prepared for that worse case scenario. I would rather have and never need than need and not have.

Again, doesn't address the issue. He says he can't defend himself with seven rounds. I just need evidence that is true. It's not about him having a spare gun.
 
Again, doesn't address the issue. He says he can't defend himself with seven rounds. I just need evidence that is true. It's not about him having a spare gun.

Not what he said, nor I. We say why should we be limited to. I would rather put down a threat and still have 75% of my mag capacity left over than to stop said threat with the last round out of my gun.
If I come home and more than one person is ransacking my home or attacking my wife? Why should I be limited? You are not making an argument for that.
 
Not what he said, nor I. We say why should we be limited to. I would rather put down a threat and still have 75% of my mag capacity left over than to stop said threat with the last round out of my gun.
If I come home and more than one person is ransacking my home or attacking my wife? Why should I be limited? You are not making an argument for that.

No, it is what he said. He said why did you want to prevent me from protecting myself by limiting me to seven rounds. I'm sorry, but that's what I want answered. Nothing else.

And are you really saying you can't stop him from ransacking with seven shots?
 
No, it is what he said. He said why did you want to prevent me from protecting myself by limiting me to seven rounds. I'm sorry, but that's what I want answered. Nothing else.

And are you really saying you can't stop him from ransacking with seven shots?
Maybe more than one threat. And no one is saying they cant, under the right circumstances, but why should I be limited to. Its my decision.
 
Maybe more than one threat. And no one is saying they cant, under the right circumstances, but why should I be limited to. Its my decision.

Maybe, but even with more, but the odds that they would stay and fight it out is unlikely. But, I said if TD, and now you, could show that such a fire fight happens, I'll consider my question answered.
 
Maybe, but even with more, but the odds that they would stay and fight it out is unlikely. But, I said if TD, and now you, could show that such a fire fight happens, I'll consider my question answered.
Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possiblity, just like me getting a flat tire. I still have a spare in the truck.
I would rather have and never use than need and not have. Pretty simple idea. And you or anyone else has no right telling me otherwise.
 
Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possiblity, just like me getting a flat tire. I still have a spare in the truck.
I would rather have and never use than need and not have. Pretty simple idea. And you or anyone else has no right telling me otherwise.


Pretty close. It's extremely unlike that there would be a large number to begin with and even more unlikely that they would stay and fight. It's possible a plane will fall on me today, but not likely enough that I'd hide in an underground bunker.

I only ask that you show it happens. Not speculate, but show.
 
Pretty close. It's extremely unlike that there would be a large number to begin with and even more unlikely that they would stay and fight. It's possible a plane will fall on me today, but not likely enough that I'd hide in an underground bunker.

I only ask that you show it happens. Not speculate, but show.
Um, no. See thats the beauty of the 2A. I have the right to own what guns I want and whatever ammo capacity I want.
I have agreed with you, its unlikely that anyone is going to need more an a few rounds but the possiblity still exists.
Hell, I keep mostly a j frame .38 next to the bed at night and under my seat in my car.
Mostly because I consider it a get home gun. Worse case senario, its enough to get me to some more powerful guns in the worst case. Or end a fight right then and there. But if five are not enough, I keep reloaders real handy.
But if someone wants more, let them.
 
Pretty close. It's extremely unlike that there would be a large number to begin with and even more unlikely that they would stay and fight. It's possible a plane will fall on me today, but not likely enough that I'd hide in an underground bunker.

I only ask that you show it happens. Not speculate, but show.
You are makiing assumptions.
 
You assume that is the only threat. Again, I linked this and encouraged all to read it.

Are you kidding? :lamo

I don't know what you mean by "that is the only threat."

The cops are armed to the teeth if need be and there is always more than one of them. If there is a call about a person with a gun, almost the whole department would show up.

If all it takes is one guy with 7 rounds, then why would the police send SOOOO many?

You see how you fail here?
 
What is the average for amount of rounds expended by a homeowner during a home invasion? I can't imagine anyone questions that cops need high cap weapons to do their job, but I am not sure we Americans have a valid argument for civilians needing the firepower cops need. And clearly NY, Colorado, and some other States are taking a hard look at bullet capacities and passing laws to restrict them. Other than the cool factor and that I enjoy going to machine gun shoots; I have no valid reason for owning a 1919A4. I cannot hunt with it, competition shoot with it, or even defend my home with it. I just like having a belt fed, crew served machine gun. Would not having this violate my rights as an American?


i-ZrrmMxc-M.jpg

Your image didn't come out, but regardless of that, the police show up to a gun fight with more than one officer, more than one weapon. If it was sufficient, why wouldn't they just send one cop with 7 rounds?
 
Pretty close. It's extremely unlike that there would be a large number to begin with and even more unlikely that they would stay and fight. It's possible a plane will fall on me today, but not likely enough that I'd hide in an underground bunker.

I only ask that you show it happens. Not speculate, but show.

If you find a database from a credible source that counts shots fired, let us know. Before you limit rights, it's up to YOU to prove it necessary to do so. Or at least that's the mantra of the left when it comes to voter fraud. The push to limit magazine capacity has everything to do with a camel's nose. Mass shooting deaths are an insignificant statistic; kind of like lightening strikes.

2012 -- 88 people murdered in mass shootings. Insignificant. When only one person has a gun, he can reload as often as he'd like.
 
Um, no. See thats the beauty of the 2A. I have the right to own what guns I want and whatever ammo capacity I want.
I have agreed with you, its unlikely that anyone is going to need more an a few rounds but the possiblity still exists.
Hell, I keep mostly a j frame .38 next to the bed at night and under my seat in my car.
Mostly because I consider it a get home gun. Worse case senario, its enough to get me to some more powerful guns in the worst case. Or end a fight right then and there. But if five are not enough, I keep reloaders real handy.
But if someone wants more, let them.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. I'm not disputing the right, only his logic. It was a simple question. he failed to answer. Nothing more.
 
You are makiing assumptions.

Not really. I've looked for one example and can't find one. Absent some proof, it's not an assumption, but something you can't prove happens.
 
Are you kidding? :lamo

I don't know what you mean by "that is the only threat."

The cops are armed to the teeth if need be and there is always more than one of them. If there is a call about a person with a gun, almost the whole department would show up.

If all it takes is one guy with 7 rounds, then why would the police send SOOOO many?

You see how you fail here?

I thought it was fairly clear. Police deal with more than home invasions, and much more uncertainty as they are asked to go into many different types of situations. As I said, I linked this from people who do know.

And no, I don't see how I fail. Just show it happens. That's all.
 
I thought it was fairly clear. Police deal with more than home invasions, and much more uncertainty as they are asked to go into many different types of situations. As I said, I linked this from people who do know.

And no, I don't see how I fail. Just show it happens. That's all.

Here is another example of just how you fail. Police normally do not show up until AFTER the home invasion has occurred.

However, if they get a call that there is an armed suspect, the whole force shows up to deal with this ONE person.

This destroys your argument that one civilian trying to defend his home and his life with a weapon limited to 7 rounds of ammunition is adequate.
 
If you find a database from a credible source that counts shots fired, let us know. Before you limit rights, it's up to YOU to prove it necessary to do so. Or at least that's the mantra of the left when it comes to voter fraud. The push to limit magazine capacity has everything to do with a camel's nose. Mass shooting deaths are an insignificant statistic; kind of like lightening strikes.

2012 -- 88 people murdered in mass shootings. Insignificant. When only one person has a gun, he can reload as often as he'd like.

Not calling to limit rights. I just don't believe the nonsense that I can't defend myself with seven rounds. It's more of a logic thing.

And how many shots do you think it took to stop those shootings in 2012?
 
Here is another example of just how you fail. Police normally do not show up until AFTER the home invasion has occurred.

However, if they get a call that there is an armed suspect, the whole force shows up to deal with this ONE person.

This destroys your argument that one civilian trying to defend his home and his life with a weapon limited to 7 rounds of ammunition is adequate.

Again you're limiting in correctly. They walk into domestics all the time, very dangerous situations. they never know what they are pulling over, the travel through dangerous parts of town and walk in on a lot unexpected. Again, I linked this.
 
Again you're limiting in correctly. They walk into domestics all the time, very dangerous situations. they never know what they are pulling over, the travel through dangerous parts of town and walk in on a lot unexpected. Again, I linked this.

Oh? And do they send in one officer with only 7 rounds?
 
Oh? And do they send in one officer with only 7 rounds?

Again, they are asked to enter into these dangerous situations. We are not. We have one place, one set of worries. Not our neighbors, not the gang on the other side of town, not entering into the crazy families house down the road. The situations are different.
 
Again, they are asked to enter into these dangerous situations. We are not. We have one place, one set of worries. Not our neighbors, not the gang on the other side of town, not entering into the crazy families house down the road. The situations are different.

You aren't given a choice when a group of people kick in your door. Civilians are ALSO forced into dangerous situations by criminals. Your argument has been destroyed by the simple fact that if 7 rounds were enough, then the police would also only use 7 rounds.
 
Back
Top Bottom