• 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 . . .

Maybe some people have had bad experiences before. Or maybe it's not really any of your business unless they break laws.

Like I said, just a curiosity. I figure if you put it in an open forum, you'd be willing to talk about it.
 
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.

i didn't pretend, I supported, showing actual evidence.
 
i didn't pretend, I supported, showing actual evidence.

no you didn't. You speculated that cops face more danger than other civilians-so much so that justified them having 17 round pistols.

now I admit there are far more cases of one or two cops shooting 20-30-40 rounds at one bad guy (or in several cases an innocent person like that guy pulling his wallet in NYC a while back that resulted in two NYC cops shooting at him 41 times or the recent shooting where NYC cops hit several bystanders)

but your argument is complete crap.
 
no you didn't. You speculated that cops face more danger than other civilians-so much so that justified them having 17 round pistols.

now I admit there are far more cases of one or two cops shooting 20-30-40 rounds at one bad guy (or in several cases an innocent person like that guy pulling his wallet in NYC a while back that resulted in two NYC cops shooting at him 41 times or the recent shooting where NYC cops hit several bystanders)

but your argument is complete crap.

No, linked statistical and expert information. I told you to read it.
 
Like I said, just a curiosity. I figure if you put it in an open forum, you'd be willing to talk about it.

We are talking about it. :confused:
 
Yes, reasons. Why can't I be given reasons?

It should be obvious, but ok..

Muscle building requires a positive energy balance, meaning you have to take in more calories than you burn to build muscle. At most your body can build a half pound a muscle per week, so a safe bet not doing any more calculation that would call for me to know information such as your age, height, sex, weight and activity level, I would say an extra 500 calories.

Is that reason good enough for you? In short, your body demands extra fuel to build muscle.
 
Last edited:
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

I actually thought that one was quite clear. Thinking you need an arsenal to protect yourself today, pretending that we need multiple high round firing weapons is the same type if fictitious argument that is used to excuse torture, giving a ticking time bomb senario.
Need doesn't matter.

Thus thinking and/or pretending you need it doesn't matter.


Just because you don't need something, doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right to it.
 
I think insisting that you "need" large round capacity, yes. I think that us unreasonable. And yes TD has refused to support people "need" more than seven rounds. Yes.
I'm saying it isn't a matter of need at all.

There is no reason to limit the round capacity, so no limits are necessary.

We don't talk about other rights this way...
There's no "oh, you don't need to have freedom of speech for THAT many topics...seven topics maximum per hour, no more". Just because you don't need that degree of speech freedom, does not mean you are LIMITED to that.


It's back-ass-wards logic.
 
I'm saying it isn't a matter of need at all.

There is no reason to limit the round capacity, so no limits are necessary.

We don't talk about other rights this way...
There's no "oh, you don't need to have freedom of speech for THAT many topics...seven topics maximum per hour, no more". Just because you don't need that degree of speech freedom, does not mean you are LIMITED to that.


It's back-ass-wards logic.

Right on! :thumbs:
 
It should be obvious, but ok..

Muscle building requires a positive energy balance, meaning you have to take in more calories than you burn to build muscle. At most your body can build a half pound a muscle per week, so a safe bet not doing any more calculation that would call for me to know information such as your age, height, sex, weight and activity level, I would say an extra 500 calories.

Is that reason good enough for you? In short, your body demands extra fuel to build muscle.

No, though I like smart ass. Reasons for needing excessive amounts of ammo.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

Need doesn't matter.

Thus thinking and/or pretending you need it doesn't matter.


Just because you don't need something, doesn't mean you shouldn't have a right to it.

And I haven't said otherwise. But the soundness of the reasoning is questionable when you link it to need, as TD did.
 
I'm saying it isn't a matter of need at all.

There is no reason to limit the round capacity, so no limits are necessary.

We don't talk about other rights this way...
There's no "oh, you don't need to have freedom of speech for THAT many topics...seven topics maximum per hour, no more". Just because you don't need that degree of speech freedom, does not mean you are LIMITED to that.


It's back-ass-wards logic.

There are limits in free speech as well. Rightly so too. But, I'm not arguing need in terms of the law. I'm arguing the rationale behind saying you need more. Not the law, but TD's rationale.
 
No, though I like smart ass. Reasons for needing excessive amounts of ammo.

Muscle building is a good enough reason to say there is situations where it is needed to take in more calories than what is needed to be healthy. As for what qualifies as excessive amounts of ammo, that is simply a matter of opinion.
 
There are limits in free speech as well. Rightly so too. But, I'm not arguing need in terms of the law. I'm arguing the rationale behind saying you need more. Not the law, but TD's rationale.
So you're saying you do not think a situation calling for the use of more than 7 rounds of ammunition will ever arise, or at least will arise so rarely that it is not necessary to carry a clip containing more ammunition?
 
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.
Just out of curiosity...how exactly is mag capacity relevant in this story?
 
Just out of curiosity...how exactly is mag capacity relevant in this story?
The discussion has strayed a bit.

Using the term "a bit" loosely.
 
No, linked statistical and expert information. I told you to read it.

It didn't prove any of the stuff you claimed it did. If there is a chance ONE citizen might need more than seven rounds your argument falls apart. And most cops never get involved in a shooting.
 
I'm saying it isn't a matter of need at all.

There is no reason to limit the round capacity, so no limits are necessary.

We don't talk about other rights this way...
There's no "oh, you don't need to have freedom of speech for THAT many topics...seven topics maximum per hour, no more". Just because you don't need that degree of speech freedom, does not mean you are LIMITED to that.


It's back-ass-wards logic.

freedom loving people need to be well armed when the country is full of people who want to determine what they "NEED" when it comes to rights
 
Tragic day. Reporting on these stories will always lead more and more to think to do the same thing, but at the same time, these are the type of things Americans need to know about. Such a tough situation all the way around.
Can't the pro gun crowd show a little respect and at least let the bodies cool before they turn this into a political issue?
Sadly, the same can be said for the anti-gun crowd. Our country has no empathy anymore. It seems like, no matter how heinous, we have become numb to everything.
 
Muscle building is a good enough reason to say there is situations where it is needed to take in more calories than what is needed to be healthy. As for what qualifies as excessive amounts of ammo, that is simply a matter of opinion.

I suggest that it is as measurable as muscle building.
 
So you're saying you do not think a situation calling for the use of more than 7 rounds of ammunition will ever arise, or at least will arise so rarely that it is not necessary to carry a clip containing more ammunition?

Yes, for the average citizen, it is unlikely to ever arise.
 
I suggest that it is as measurable as muscle building.

What? There is formulas to figuring out how many calories one must take in when muscle building. You can say no such thing about what is excessive amounts of ammo. Do not compare things that are scientific to things that are subjective.
 
It didn't prove any of the stuff you claimed it did. If there is a chance ONE citizen might need more than seven rounds your argument falls apart. And most cops never get involved in a shooting.

No, 1 is not enough. You have to show it happens. That there is a statistical possibility, even probability.
 
What? There is formulas to figuring out how many calories one must take in when muscle building. You can say no such thing about what is excessive amounts of ammo. Do not compare things that are scientific to things that are subjective.

We can measure what will do the job, yes. We can Go over the known measurable events requiring a gun, and measure how many need multiple rounds, and assess how many were actually needed. There us a certain amount of subjectivity in muscle building as well. The difference between the is not that great, and both can be approached scientifically.
 
Back
Top Bottom