• 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 . . .

Boo Radley said:
I've asked you to show me cases. Give some stats.
Click to expand...

don't need to. as long as their is a possibility that is all that is needed since you can show no harm by people having more. You seem to operate in the statist utopia that free men have a duty to justify what they do rather than you having a duty to explain why you should restrict the choices of others
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets see how honest you are

1) do you admit or deny that a law abiding citizen cannot predict the nature of a future criminal attack against him

2) do you admit or deny that there are some cases of criminal attack that may need an armed homeowner or citizen on the street to need more than 7 rounds in his gun

If you admit yes to #1 and #2 your argument completely loses any semblance of merit you think it might have

if you deny either you are being dishonest
Click to expand...

1) specific attack, no. But we can predict based on statistic and crime reports what is realistic and what isn't.

2) I've never heard of one, ever. I've asked that you show them.

And your assessment at the end stacks the deck so that you will, only accept one answer, and by any means that dishonest.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are lying again. You have been around long enough to have seen my description of when I shot a mugger-one shot ended the problem. I said I cannot predict what criminals decide to do and how many are in a break in or a street mugging or riot

I don't need to show a significant number of times. I cannot recount in the last 50 years when Cincinnati cops had to deal with more than 2 perps at once so using your moronic argument, they shouldn't be carrying anything more than 6 shot revolvers but their "studies" found that 17 round SW semi autos were better

SIGNIFICANT to me means if there is even a remote chance I might need more I should carry them

I see you cannot answer my question. I didn't expect you to

your argument is pathetic and is nothing more than contrarian mental masturbation.

since you cannot establish any reason NOT to have 17 or so rounds in your gun, that destroys your silly bit of baiting
Click to expand...

Showing one shot doesn't show the need for more than seven.
 
TurtleDude said:
don't need to. as long as their is a possibility that is all that is needed since you can show no harm by people having more. You seem to operate in the statist utopia that free men have a duty to justify what they do rather than you having a duty to explain why you should restrict the choices of others
Click to expand...

To be realistically possible, it actually has to have happen.
 
The Mark said:
The true point, which some here are straying away from, is that....

Whether you need them or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I agree with that. TD is the only one who should answer me as it is his wild claim I asked be supported.
 
ChrisL said:
What makes you think you know so much about what a person needs? What if the person lives in a gang-infested neighborhood and has experienced a home invasion. Most home invasions are perpetrated by multiple gang members. They will hit you, rape you, torture you and even kill you. Why do you want to limit the fire power a citizen has to protect him or herself against such animals?

Please explain why you would be against a law-abiding person who has never committed a crime owning weaponry capable of holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition at a time.
Click to expand...

You're looking at it all wrong. I'm skeptical of TD's claim. Once he made it, he has a responsibility to support it. Like I said, it's a curiosity. I'm always fascinated by the need of some to hyperbolic.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're looking at it all wrong. I'm skeptical of TD's claim. Once he made it, he has a responsibility to support it. Like I said, it's a curiosity. I'm always fascinated by the need of some to hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

Why? He feels he may need more than 7 rounds and doesn't feel as if the government has the right to tell him that he cannot. Why do you feel he should be limited to only 7? Just answer the question.
 
Boo Radley said:
1) specific attack, no. But we can predict based on statistic and crime reports what is realistic and what isn't.

2) I've never heard of one, ever. I've asked that you show them.

And your assessment at the end stacks the deck so that you will, only accept one answer, and by any means that dishonest.
Click to expand...

the dishonesty is trying to limit what law abiding people do when you have admitted you cannot provide any reason why such people should be so limited

nothing is hurt by a licensed gun owner or a homeowner in legal possession of a weapon having as many rounds in his weapon as a cop

but if that homeowner is the one case in ten or even a million who needs more than 7 rounds who are you to say he should be handicapped

cut the contrarian idiocy Boo. Your argument is a complete fail. You are just trying to stir up nonsense by insinuating that people are irrational or paranoid to not limit themselves if they are in a gun fight.


and since you claim to be some sort of academic-you ought to be able to google dozens of cases where people had to shoot more than 7 times to end a problem

did you know in Vietnam more than 10K rounds were expended for every casualty inflicted on the enemy?

law enforcement "professionals" have about a 20 percent hit ratio. If there are two attackers that means ten rounds to win the situation

Others claim hit ratios are much higher-62%. But read this article. I know Dave Spaulding I have trained with Dave Spaulding.


How Many Bullets Do You Need in Your Home Defense Handgun? | The Truth About Guns


hmmmm

All the evidence points to the fact that you’ll shoot plenty of bullets in a battle. It follows that more bullets in your home defense handgun is mo’ better. Larger capacity magazines/handguns are more likely to be more effective for home defence than smaller capacity magazines/handguns.
 
ChrisL said:
Why? He feels he may need more than 7 rounds and doesn't feel as if the government has the right to tell him that he cannot. Why do you feel he should be limited to only 7? Just answer the question.
Click to expand...

I don't feel it should be limited. But not because they are needed. I don't believe it interfere with his ability to protect himself at all. So, like the Mark, he should just argue it's his right and not say he can't defend himself. If he says he can't, I just want him to support that. Would you let me make wild claims, like say, no one ever defended themselves with a gun? If you would challenge me, you shouldn't be bother by me challenging him.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't feel it should be limited. But not because they are needed. I don't believe it interfere with his ability to protect himself at all. So, like the Mark, he should just argue it's his right and not say he can't defend himself. If he says he can't, I just want him to support that. Would you let me make wild claims, like say, no one ever defended themselves with a gun? If you would challenge me, you shouldn't be bother by me challenging him.
Click to expand...

But why should what YOU believe take precedence over what HE believes to be right for himself?
 
ChrisL said:
But why should what YOU believe take precedence over what HE believes to be right for himself?
Click to expand...

or why has Boo engaged in so many posts insinuating it is irrational for people to have more than 7 rounds and then engaging in pathetic evasion with the comparison with cop issued weapons (most cops are no more likely to get into a shooting than people engaged in high risk occupations like pharmacists or convenience store operators in the inner cities)

what was the purpose of all this squid ink if Boo doesn't believe in "LIMITING" people?
 
TurtleDude said:
the dishonesty is trying to limit what law abiding people do when you have admitted you cannot provide any reason why such people should be so limited

nothing is hurt by a licensed gun owner or a homeowner in legal possession of a weapon having as many rounds in his weapon as a cop

but if that homeowner is the one case in ten or even a million who needs more than 7 rounds who are you to say he should be handicapped

cut the contrarian idiocy Boo. Your argument is a complete fail. You are just trying to stir up nonsense by insinuating that people are irrational or paranoid to not limit themselves if they are in a gun fight.


and since you claim to be some sort of academic-you ought to be able to google dozens of cases where people had to shoot more than 7 times to end a problem

did you know in Vietnam more than 10K rounds were expended for every casualty inflicted on the enemy?

law enforcement "professionals" have about a 20 percent hit ratio. If there are two attackers that means ten rounds to win the situation

Others claim hit ratios are much higher-62%. But read this article. I know Dave Spaulding I have trained with Dave Spaulding.


How Many Bullets Do You Need in Your Home Defense Handgun? | The Truth About Guns


hmmmm

All the evidence points to the fact that you’ll shoot plenty of bullets in a battle. It follows that more bullets in your home defense handgun is mo’ better. Larger capacity magazines/handguns are more likely to be more effective for home defence than smaller capacity magazines/handguns.
Click to expand...

Actually he doesn't prove much other than you'll shoot what you have. He gave the three- three- three rule, but mostly supported that the job would actually be done with a few. Got anything verifiable?
 
TurtleDude said:
or why has Boo engaged in so many posts insinuating it is irrational for people to have more than 7 rounds and then engaging in pathetic evasion with the comparison with cop issued weapons (most cops are no more likely to get into a shooting than people engaged in high risk occupations like pharmacists or convenience store operators in the inner cities)

what was the purpose of all this squid ink if Boo doesn't believe in "LIMITING" people?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't have any objections to such laws.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually he doesn't prove much other than you'll shoot what you have. He gave the three- three- three rule, but mostly supported that the job would actually be done with a few. Got anything verifiable?
Click to expand...

I don't need any verification. remember its your duty to justify any limitations

you also didn't read very well. he advocated police sized pistols
 
ChrisL said:
But why should what YOU believe take precedence over what HE believes to be right for himself?
Click to expand...

Because I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about support, showing such gun fights happen often enough to make his statement valid.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh, I'm sure he doesn't have any objections to such laws.
Click to expand...

I suspect he will support any gun restrictions his Democratic idols will support. we have hundreds of posts from him engaging in these sort of attacks that ultimately result in him saying he wouldn't push for bans or laws but why does someone spend so much time whining about the posts of those who oppose gun regulations pushed by the democrat scumbags in office?
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't need any verification. remember its your duty to justify any limitations

you also didn't read very well. he advocated police sized pistols
Click to expand...

As I've not called fir limitations it's not. It's your assertion I question. Focus apron what you said, that you cannot defend yourself with less than 17 rounds. You made it, you support it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about support, showing such gun fights happen often enough to make his statement valid.
Click to expand...

wrong parameter. if there is even a remote chance of needing the rounds, that is reason enough to carry them

remember the burden is on you
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong parameter. if there is even a remote chance of needing the rounds, that is reason enough to carry them

remember the burden is on you
Click to expand...

I don't think it's even remote. To be remote, it has to have happen some.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because I'm not talking about belief. I'm talking about support, showing such gun fights happen often enough to make his statement valid.
Click to expand...

Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? If a person who is a law-abiding citizen believes he needs more than 7 rounds, what is your objection?
 
Boo Radley said:
As I've not called fir limitations it's not. It's your assertion I question. Focus apron what you said, that you cannot defend yourself with less than 17 rounds. You made it, you support it.
Click to expand...


yes I am aware of the nature of your postings and how you try to avoid being pinned down but you want to attack and snipe at pro gun posts. We reject that sort of posting dishonesty. and its dishonest for you to make the claims that I said I cannot defend myself since I already admitted I did once with ONE round. I am saying that one or 7 rounds is not ALWAYS the needed amount

nothing more nothing less. and again your posts are mental masturbation attempting to attack by insinuation when you aren't up to posting the beliefs we know you entertain
 
Boo Radley said:
As I've not called fir limitations it's not. It's your assertion I question. Focus apron what you said, that you cannot defend yourself with less than 17 rounds. You made it, you support it.
Click to expand...

Many people have explained multiple scenarios to you in which they would need more than 7 rounds.
 
ChrisL said:
Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? If a person who is a law-abiding citizen believes he needs more than 7 rounds, what is your objection?
Click to expand...

I see more evasions coming:mrgreen:

If he has no objections then why all the squid ink?
 
ChrisL said:
Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? If a person who is a law-abiding citizen believes he needs more than 7 rounds, what is your objection?
Click to expand...

That's what debate and discussion is. Kind of what we do here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom