• 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:
your silly lies get tiring. I have consistently said that since I have NO IDEA what at the next criminal attack may bring I don't want to be limited to 7 rounds.
Click to expand...

Just show one real event where more was needed. Just one.
 
Boo Radley said:
I believe I answered that.
Click to expand...

you have yet to answer any of the relevant points. For you to have any chance of making sense you would have to prove that there is no possibility that a homeowner or citizens on the street would ever face a situation where the citizen would need more than 7 rounds. Since you cannot do that, you lose. Your argument is worthless and defies common sense. and since you have completely failed to establish there is any countervailing down side to people having more rounds, your massive numbers of posts on this issue is again-mental masturbation.

Here is some more

the cops almost never say how many rounds were expended by the lawful shooter.

Gun Battle Ensues As Man Fights Off Home Invaders, Kills 1 « CBS Sacramento

Armed homeowner shoots burglar in self defense - National self-defense | Examiner.com

s I’ve noted before, criminals often work in groups, using superior numbers to overwhelm their victims. When that happens, even the strongest unarmed victims can be overpowered by the numerically superior criminals.

When a crime victim is armed for self defense, things can be quite different. Every day, firearms allow a single crime victim to successfully defend themselves against multiple attackers. Here, this homeowner used his handgun to fend off 2 attackers. Similarly, this man used his handgun to defend himself against 3 violent men who broke into his apartment. This business owner used his shotgun to stop 4 armed robbers who where pistol whipping an employee and threatening the lives of everyone present. This mother used her handgun to defend herself and her young children from a pair of home invading prison escapees. This woman used her gun to fend off 4 home invaders. This man used his gun to save himself and his wife from 4 armed robbers
 
TurtleDude said:
you have yet to answer any of the relevant points. For you to have any chance of making sense you would have to prove that there is no possibility that a homeowner or citizens on the street would ever face a situation where the citizen would need more than 7 rounds. Since you cannot do that, you lose. Your argument is worthless and defies common sense. and since you have completely failed to establish there is any countervailing down side to people having more rounds, your massive numbers of posts on this issue is again-mental masturbation.

Here is some more

the cops almost never say how many rounds were expended by the lawful shooter.

Gun Battle Ensues As Man Fights Off Home Invaders, Kills 1 « CBS Sacramento


Armed homeowner shoots burglar in self defense - National self-defense | Examiner.com

s I’ve noted before, criminals often work in groups, using superior numbers to overwhelm their victims. When that happens, even the strongest unarmed victims can be overpowered by the numerically superior criminals.

When a crime victim is armed for self defense, things can be quite different. Every day, firearms allow a single crime victim to successfully defend themselves against multiple attackers. Here, this homeowner used his handgun to fend off 2 attackers. Similarly, this man used his handgun to defend himself against 3 violent men who broke into his apartment. This business owner used his shotgun to stop 4 armed robbers who where pistol whipping an employee and threatening the lives of everyone present. This mother used her handgun to defend herself and her young children from a pair of home invading prison escapees. This woman used her gun to fend off 4 home invaders. This man used his gun to save himself and his wife from 4 armed robbers
Click to expand...

None say they used or needed more than seven rounds. Nothing you show here do I deny. One use a shot gun. How many rounds in a shot gun?
 
Boo Radley said:
None say they used or needed more than seven rounds. Nothing you show here do I deny. One use a shot gun. How many rounds in a shot gun?
Click to expand...

someone who actually is interested in learning or like me-is well educated in this subject-understands that if there are four people shooting at you and you kill one and wound two-or in the other case, kill two, the round count is going to be rather high. Since you admittedly are completely ignorant of such scenarios, it is understandable you don't get that point.
 
TurtleDude said:
someone who actually is interested in learning or like me-is well educated in this subject-understands that if there are four people shooting at you and you kill one and wound two-or in the other case, kill two, the round count is going to be rather high. Since you admittedly are completely ignorant of such scenarios, it is understandable you don't get that point.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it likely happened quickly, there was neither many rounds spent nor needed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps. But it likely happened quickly, there was neither many rounds spent nor needed.
Click to expand...

you are getting deeper and deeper. you have to prove that when someone is confronted with FOUR ARMED CRIMINALS trying to KILL YOU-a lone citizen, you will never need more than 7 rounds to neutralize all four

how many people have you ever shot Boo up close and personal with a handgun? did you know that the one shot stopping rate of most handguns with a SOLID CHEST HIT is less than 65% That is a center of mass hit.

Your posts have demonstrated a frightening lack of mathematical reasoning.

If hit ratios with handguns are less than 50% and even with solid hits, the stopping ratio is less than 65% and there are FOUR ARMED ATTACKERS TRYING TO KILL YOU what does our FRIEND MATHEMATICS teach us

4 attackers with 50% hit ratios means EIGHT ROUNDS to effectively put ONE BULLET ON EACH ATTACKER

now if stopping ratios are at best 2/3s that means what

MORE THAN 8 rounds!! more like three or so more

we are up to 11 rounds

Damn Boo, your silly argument fails math
 
Boo Radley: 304
Turtle Dude: 239

You guys are hoots!! ;)
 
TurtleDude said:
you are getting deeper and deeper. you have to prove that when someone is confronted with FOUR ARMED CRIMINALS trying to KILL YOU-a lone citizen, you will never need more than 7 rounds to neutralize all four

how many people have you ever shot Boo up close and personal with a handgun? did you know that the one shot stopping rate of most handguns with a SOLID CHEST HIT is less than 65% That is a center of mass hit.

Your posts have demonstrated a frightening lack of mathematical reasoning.

If hit ratios with handguns are less than 50% and even with solid hits, the stopping ratio is less than 65% and there are FOUR ARMED ATTACKERS TRYING TO KILL YOU what does our FRIEND MATHEMATICS teach us

4 attackers with 50% hit ratios means EIGHT ROUNDS to effectively put ONE BULLET ON EACH ATTACKER

now if stopping ratios are at best 2/3s that means what

MORE THAN 8 rounds!! more like three or so more

we are up to 11 rounds

Damn Boo, your silly argument fails math
Click to expand...

You're still trying to shift the burden. Your statement was an exaggeration. You could have admitted it then, but choose not to. It would have been so much simpler.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're still trying to shift the burden. Your statement was an exaggeration. You could have admitted it then, but choose not to. It would have been so much simpler.
Click to expand...

more oozing stupidity.

for your silly argument to hold water you must prove that there is NO POSSIBILITY that ANY Citizen would ever face an attack where 7 or less rounds would be insufficient

you cannot so you lose.

tell us BOO-what is the purpose for this multiple day episode of mental masturbation? what exactly are you trying to prove (and failing to do BTW)
 
TurtleDude said:
more oozing stupidity.

for your silly argument to hold water you must prove that there is NO POSSIBILITY that ANY Citizen would ever face an attack where 7 or less rounds would be insufficient

you cannot so you lose.

tell us BOO-what is the purpose for this multiple day episode of mental masturbation? what exactly are you trying to prove (and failing to do BTW)
Click to expand...

You. You made a dumb ass statement. I knew you never admit it.
 
Boo Radley said:
You. You made a dumb ass statement. I knew you never admit it.
Click to expand...

Oh you felt a need to respond to me and at the same time completely make a fool of yourself by claiming no one needs more than 7 rounds. Indeed you made dozens of dumb ass statements

over and over and over

you denied reality, common sense and rejected the entire premise of a free society

Got it

thanks for conceding defeat.
 
TurtleDude said:
Oh you felt a need to respond to me and at the same time completely make a fool of yourself by claiming no one needs more than 7 rounds. Indeed you made dozens of dumb ass statements

over and over and over

you denied reality, common sense and rejected the entire premise of a free society

Got it

thanks for conceding defeat.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, but you didn't admit your stupidity.

Don't worry. You'll say something dumb again, and take no accountability for it. :2wave:
 
Boo Radley said:
Whatever you say, but you didn't admit your stupidity.

Don't worry. You'll say something dumb again, and take no accountability for it. :2wave:
Click to expand...

the only person noted as making dumb statements here by others is YOU

why don't you cut and paste the comment you claim I made that was dumb. Given your well known propensity to misquote, misunderstand, misconstrue or downright mistake what others said, I want to see my own words that you claim caused this orgasm of silliness from you
 
TurtleDude said:
the only person noted as making dumb statements here by others is YOU

why don't you cut and paste the comment you claim I made that was dumb. Given your well known propensity to misquote, misunderstand, misconstrue or downright mistake what others said, I want to see my own words that you claim caused this orgasm of silliness from you
Click to expand...

I know you think a small group is everyone, but it isn't. Anyway, I a bit tired tonight. I'll catch your next exaggeration.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know you think a small group is everyone, but it isn't. Anyway, I a bit tired tonight. I'll catch your next exaggeration.
Click to expand...

when a fact reared its fearsome head
Sir Boo tucked his tail and fled
 
CRUE CAB said:
Then leave your little ones as fish in a barrell for the next crazy person. I wonder how stressed the Newtown kids looking down the barrell of a gun?
Click to expand...

My kids are all adult now, and I am pro NG in schools. Here is the thing though - how many elementary, middle, and high schools are there in USA? To hire and train two Guardsmen per school - what would the tax burden be? What percentage of parents would be willing to shoulder that burden, and what percent would request a less intrusive solution? Infoplease says there are 98,817 public schools in USA (it referenced National Center for Education Statistics). Call it 2 or 3 National Guardsmen per school; so 200K to 300K Guard need to be recruited? Are taxpayers going to be cool with that? Are parents going to be cool with that? And consider the worst attack - Sandy Hook. Let's say we stuff the metal detector right in the front door and it's high quality just like the newer airports. Would this whack job just have taken a rifle and picked off some folks before getting through the door because he knew he couldn't get in? Or maybe go to a public mall instead? I don't see how that is a solution, as much as I think shared mental databases and whatnot to catch these loons before the go off is a solid approach.
 
Boo Radley said:
If if I said home invasions didn't happen this would be a good article. but it gives no insight as to how many rounds would have been needed to stop it. Again, no one has argued you can't defend yourself, except TD who says he can't with 7 rounds.
Click to expand...

Our arguments are fine. You have yet to make any kind of valid argument, except to state your opinions. Obviously there are times when more than 7 rounds would be needed. Seems that everyone is aware of this except you.

If 7 rounds were enough, that is all the police would carry too. You brought up that a home owner isn't defending anyone else, and I showed you how THAT was wrong too. All of your points have been disputed, and you obviously now have nothing left but to repeat your weak opinion which means absolutely nothing.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are getting deeper and deeper. you have to prove that when someone is confronted with FOUR ARMED CRIMINALS trying to KILL YOU-a lone citizen, you will never need more than 7 rounds to neutralize all four

how many people have you ever shot Boo up close and personal with a handgun? did you know that the one shot stopping rate of most handguns with a SOLID CHEST HIT is less than 65% That is a center of mass hit.

Your posts have demonstrated a frightening lack of mathematical reasoning.

If hit ratios with handguns are less than 50% and even with solid hits, the stopping ratio is less than 65% and there are FOUR ARMED ATTACKERS TRYING TO KILL YOU what does our FRIEND MATHEMATICS teach us

4 attackers with 50% hit ratios means EIGHT ROUNDS to effectively put ONE BULLET ON EACH ATTACKER

now if stopping ratios are at best 2/3s that means what

MORE THAN 8 rounds!! more like three or so more

we are up to 11 rounds

Damn Boo, your silly argument fails math
Click to expand...

This is probably before your time but there was this really famous guy named Mas Ayoob that wrote in all the gun mags I used to read before the Internet became viable. He used FBI study data to figure out what it took for a "one shot stop". The theory was that some caliber had to have been better at dropping a bad guy with a single shot than others. What he came up with was that the 10mm was the best at one-shot stops; and the best placement was the pelvic region. But I kind of remember the one-shot stops only being like 25% of the time and these were trained FBI shooters.. So I'm going to say 3 or 4 rounds in an assailant is a better number. IMHO of course. So three or four assailants I would think you want a 1911 and you want to get behind a table that's on it's side, behind a corner doorway, that sort of thing. Pick off a target, reload, reposition, and re-acquire the next target. Closed quarter battles are down to an art for the US Military and for well trained SWAT teams; but I think the average person is going to spray and pray.
 
Snappo said:
My kids are all adult now, and I am pro NG in schools. Here is the thing though - how many elementary, middle, and high schools are there in USA? To hire and train two Guardsmen per school - what would the tax burden be? What percentage of parents would be willing to shoulder that burden, and what percent would request a less intrusive solution? Infoplease says there are 98,817 public schools in USA (it referenced National Center for Education Statistics). Call it 2 or 3 National Guardsmen per school; so 200K to 300K Guard need to be recruited? Are taxpayers going to be cool with that? Are parents going to be cool with that? And consider the worst attack - Sandy Hook. Let's say we stuff the metal detector right in the front door and it's high quality just like the newer airports. Would this whack job just have taken a rifle and picked off some folks before getting through the door because he knew he couldn't get in? Or maybe go to a public mall instead? I don't see how that is a solution, as much as I think shared mental databases and whatnot to catch these loons before the go off is a solid approach.
Click to expand...

my kid goes to an expensive prep school in an area where the average home approaches 800K. But guess what-if it were allowed there would be dozens of fathers (and in my wife's case at least one mother) who are highly trained who would volunteer to do guard duty there. The very well trained elite police department in that village is less than 4 minutes away though. I recall sharing of a Jewish private school in I believe Texas where parents-some who had served in the IDF-take turns guarding their kids,

so that is why I believe qualified teachers ought to be able to carry rather than hiring additional guards. My wife helps out at the school (she went to the nearby public school which is excellent but she wanted to attend the school I (and now my son) attended. She helps with the school shop, helps as a chaperone on field trips, helps with special events. She has a CCW and more than 200 hours of formal training at one of the very very best facilities that teaches cops, entry teams, private security forces and other armed civilians tactical deployment of weapons and strategy someone like her with her 9mm and her deep cover 380 sig is not the person a mope would see as the armed resistance if there was an attack. That is why people like her should be able to be armed at a school
 
ChrisL said:
Our arguments are fine. You have yet to make any kind of valid argument, except to state your opinions. Obviously there are times when more than 7 rounds would be needed. Seems that everyone is aware of this except you.

If 7 rounds were enough, that is all the police would carry too. You brought up that a home owner isn't defending anyone else, and I showed you how THAT was wrong too. All of your points have been disputed, and you obviously now have nothing left but to repeat your weak opinion which means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Chris,

I didn't say something dumb like only having seven rounds prevents me from defending myself. And, no, I only have one point: you can still defend yourself with seven rounds.

This is not brain surgery. He said something stupid and refused to own up.

But like I said, I'm weary tonight. If you insist, I'll dance this with you tomorrow. But really, it's not complicated.
 
Boo Radley said:
Chris,

I didn't say something dumb like only having seven rounds prevents me from defending myself. And, no, I only have one point: you can still defend yourself with seven rounds.

This is not brain surgery. He said something stupid and refused to own up.

But like I said, I'm weary tonight. If you insist, I'll dance this with you tomorrow. But really, it's not complicated.
Click to expand...

You are saying all kinds of dumb things, like 7 rounds is going to be enough in every situation unless one can PROVE otherwise. Your argument is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom