• 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:
Okay, then explain to me exactly your position and exactly what it is you are arguing about so that I can get it right. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...

It's really easy, TD said that limiting to seven rounds meant he could not defend himself and burden if being defenses was to high. I said u didn't buy he was defenseless and burdened it that way. I asked hi to prove that point. He went off on strawman. That's all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Everyone? No, I think only five who seemed to have missed it.
Click to expand...

LOL "missed it" means the people who see through the evasion and the attempts to bash gun owners while pretending you are not.

I note that no one has agreed with your claims that 7 rounds is enough
 
Boo Radley said:
It's really easy, TD said that limiting to seven rounds meant he could not defend himself and burden if being defenses was to high. I said u didn't buy he was defenseless and burdened it that way. I asked hi to prove that point. He went off on strawman. That's all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he said. I think he said it wouldn't be sufficient in all circumstances and that there is no need to limit a law-abiding citizen. It is a useless law.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's really easy, TD said that limiting to seven rounds meant he could not defend himself and burden if being defenses was to high. I said u didn't buy he was defenseless and burdened it that way. I asked hi to prove that point. He went off on strawman. That's all.
Click to expand...

I said that crime victims cannot tell or predict how many criminals they might face and limiting an honest citizen to seven rounds is idiotic. You denied that. I don't have any burden. You do
 
Boo Radley said:
Missed the auto correct again. I made no call for any law.
Click to expand...

Okay, so I'm arguing that 7 rounds is not always going to be enough. Unless you can predict future events, then you have no argument.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL "missed it" means the people who see through the evasion and the attempts to bash gun owners while pretending you are not.

I note that no one has agreed with your claims that 7 rounds is enough
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. No one has supported it either.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think that's what he said. I think he said it wouldn't be sufficient in all circumstances and that there is no need to limit a law-abiding citizen. It is a useless law.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Boo claimed it is unreasonable for someone to argue that they might need more than 7 rounds. he also claimed that banning more than 7 rounds was a minor infringement.
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter. No one has supported it either.
Click to expand...


every major police department, security firm and self defense training facility has supported my argument

in fact no experts on the subject support your claims. you just make stuff up and apparently you believe that Andrew Cuomo is an expert on this issue
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think that's what he said. I think he said it wouldn't be sufficient in all circumstances and that there is no need to limit a law-abiding citizen. It is a useless law.
Click to expand...

He said that eventually, but without the support I asked for. Mostly he attacked me, changed the topic, and leap around arguing what I never argued.
 
TurtleDude said:
Exactly, Boo claimed it is unreasonable for someone to argue that they might need more than 7 rounds. he also claimed that banning more than 7 rounds was a minor infringement.
Click to expand...

Basically, similar to the same anti-gun rights arguments he usually makes. As if we're new here or something. :lol:
 
TurtleDude said:
I said that crime victims cannot tell or predict how many criminals they might face and limiting an honest citizen to seven rounds is idiotic. You denied that. I don't have any burden. You do
Click to expand...

And I said that's not entirely true. We can predict future actions based on past actions. You have to show such situations exist. Only Christy has tried to that.
 
Boo Radley said:
He said that eventually, but without the support I asked for. Mostly he attacked me, changed the topic, and leap around arguing what I never argued.
Click to expand...

again, it is your SOP to use evasive arguments that are ambiguous and then complain when the ambiguity is interpreted in a manner consistent with your normal positions.

its a common habit of several liberal gun haters.
 
Boo Radley said:
He said that eventually, but without the support I asked for. Mostly he attacked me, changed the topic, and leap around arguing what I never argued.
Click to expand...

He "attacked" you? :rofl Anyway, your argument is nonsense.
 
Boo Radley said:
And I said that's not entirely true. We can predict future actions based on past actions. You have to show such situations exist. Only Christy has tried to that.
Click to expand...

I guess you just couldn't fathom the fact that police departments and security firms all determined that 6-8 shots was not sufficient given the nature of criminal attacks over the last 30 years

these groups supposedly are expert about dealing with criminals. they determined that 15-17 round handguns were the most suitable self defense weapons for everyday carry by everyone from street cops in bad areas to desk bound administrators, security guards etc.

in other words civlians dealing with civilian environment criminals. Like us other civilians
 
ChrisL said:
Basically, similar to the same anti-gun rights arguments he usually makes. As if we're new here or something. :lol:
Click to expand...

I do think some have an exaggerated sense of what they need. This is not the bases if law, but it dies interest me why they feel the need. It's a curiosity. And I see no reason to feel the need to avoid answering my questions.
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you just couldn't fathom the fact that police departments and security firms all determined that 6-8 shots was not sufficient given the nature of criminal attacks over the last 30 years

these groups supposedly are expert about dealing with criminals. they determined that 15-17 round handguns were the most suitable self defense weapons for everyday carry by everyone from street cops in bad areas to desk bound administrators, security guards etc.

in other words civlians dealing with civilian environment criminals. Like us other civilians
Click to expand...

Again, I showed their job was different.
 
Boo Radley said:
Make a distinction, and it's not a hard one. I think one large pizza is enough for anyone, but I don't support a law stopping you from eating two. Same here. I think seven rounds is more than enough. But I make in call for any law. Can you see the difference yet?
Click to expand...

That argument is just as stupid as your other one. You completely ignore that there is reasons to take in more calories and nutrients than what is needed to be healthy.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
He "attacked" you? :rofl Anyway, your argument is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I love the feigned indignation. He wants to limit our rights and gets upset when his specious arguments in favor (or at least excusing) limits upon our freedom are deemed to be BS
 
Boo Radley said:
I do think some have an exaggerated sense of what they need. This is not the bases if law, but it dies interest me why they feel the need. It's a curiosity. And I see no reason to feel the need to avoid answering my questions.
Click to expand...

Maybe some people have had bad experiences before. Or maybe it's not really any of your business unless they break laws.
 
Henrin said:
That argument is just as stupid as this one. You completely ignore that their is reasons to take in more calories and nutrients than what is needed to be healthy.
Click to expand...

Boo's history is not to directly claim that guns should be banned or that no one should be able to own a certain weapon. Rather he claims he sees no NEED to own a gun or have a certain weapon and then makes arguments insinuating that anyone who feels differently than he does is emotional, irrational, paranoid or hysterical. It is a common tactic of this group-they demand to define the terms in terms of what is rational or reasonable and damn those who don't agree as being unreasonable or irrational.

and they get upset when people like me refuse to let them dictate the parameters of what is reasonable
because they are unlearned about this issue and their arguments are based on a political agenda that really has little to do with guns or school shootings etc
 
ChrisL said:
Maybe some people have had bad experiences before. Or maybe it's not really any of your business unless they break laws.
Click to expand...

you really have to wonder about the agenda of someone who is so adamant about what others NEED or want.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, I showed their job was different.
Click to expand...

yeah and that was stupid because you pretend they normally face a different type of criminal than the rest of us

i have proven that citizens who are not cops almost NEVER instigate the time place or number of attacks and attackers. Police sometimes do. if you knew anything about the issue you would understand that cops have far more advantages in confrontations with criminals than other civilians who always are in a REACTIVE mode.
 
Henrin said:
That argument is just as stupid as your other one. You completely ignore that there is reasons to take in more calories and nutrients than what is needed to be healthy.
Click to expand...

Yes, reasons. Why can't I be given reasons?
 
The bottom line is that big government statists think police officers are more trustworthy and their lives more valuable than those of us whose tax dollars pay for those policemen's weapons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom