• 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 . . .

I see more evasions coming:mrgreen:

If he has no objections then why all the squid ink?

He fears his fellow law-abiding citizens. He doesn't trust them. Mass shootings are ALSO rare. Perhaps he should explain why such a rare occurrence would be the motivation for laws limiting people's rights. I believe there have been 62 mass shootings from since the early 80s until 2012 (I believe I read that in a link somewhere). THAT would be rare.
 
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

Nothing to pin down, I've stated clear we have enough laws on the books to satisfy me.

But that doesn't excuse your duty to support your claim.
 
Many people have explained multiple scenarios to you in which they would need more than 7 rounds.

I don't think so. I think they've been hooey. Not realistic. So, if they are valid, there should be some record of them.
 
I don't think so. I think they've been hooey. Not realistic. So, if they are valid, there should be some record of them.

You explain why you feel that your belief should take precedence over what a law-abiding citizen believes he should have for an arsenal for self defense.
 
Many people have explained multiple scenarios to you in which they would need more than 7 rounds.

Boo's SOP is demanding citations and proof of the obvious by pro gun posters while accepting faith based idiocy from the anti gun side. Most reports of shootings where the citizen prevailed rarely have a round count. Here is a case of a massive gun fight where the homeowner ultimately killed the two perps

round count-not reported but if the hit ratio was consistent with other studies, (20-25%) you are going to need more than 7 rounds to kill two guys shooting at you.. Here there were four scumbags

Suspects dead after attempted home invasion in Fayetteville | MyFOX8.com
 
Nothing to pin down, I've stated clear we have enough laws on the books to satisfy me.

But that doesn't excuse your duty to support your claim.

I don't have a duty. Free men should do what they want

its you who complain about their choices who has the burden and you again miserably failed to meet it
 
I've asked you to show me cases. Give some stats.
It doesn't matter.

Unless a reason to disallow more than 7 rounds can be shown, there should be no disallowing.

You have the need question on the wrong side of the equation.
 
You explain why you feel that your belief should take precedence over what a law-abiding citizen believes he should have for an arsenal for self defense.

Never claimed it should.

But that doesn't excuse his inability to support his claim. It's a simple thing.
 
Never claimed it should.

But that doesn't excuse his inability to support his claim. It's a simple thing.

He has supported his claim, multiple times. You just refuse to accept his explanation.
 
It doesn't matter.

Unless a reason to disallow more than 7 rounds can be shown, there should be no disallowing.

You have the need question on the wrong side of the equation.

Perhaps not for the law, but to me for understanding his claim, it matters.
 
Never claimed it should.

But that doesn't excuse his inability to support his claim. It's a simple thing.

more lies-all I said is there is always a possibility a person might need more than 7 rounds
that is more than enough support for my claim

it is you who has engaged in evasion, dishonest arguments and pure nonsense.
 
I don't have a duty. Free men should do what they want

its you who complain about their choices who has the burden and you again miserably failed to meet it

You can wuss out true.
 
He has supported his claim, multiple times. You just refuse to accept his explanation.

No, wild speculation isn't support. He asked for links from me and I gave them. Instead if waxing fearfully, he can link some actual crime stats, if he has them.
 
He has supported his claim, multiple times. You just refuse to accept his explanation.

This is typical-note how he changed from saying no chance to arguing the "likelihood" position

its nothing more than contrarian nonsense. He doesn't like our politics, he doesn't like people owning guns and most of all he doesn't like the fact that gun owners often vote against the candidates he supports. So he engages in these sort of attacks on the margin but never is able to make a solid argument

and you are right-he would support any sort of law restricting gun owners if he had the ability to do so
 
more lies-all I said is there is always a possibility a person might need more than 7 rounds
that is more than enough support for my claim

it is you who has engaged in evasion, dishonest arguments and pure nonsense.

Do I really have to go and fine it for you? :lamo
 
No, wild speculation isn't support. He asked for links from me and I gave them. Instead if waxing fearfully, he can link some actual crime stats, if he has them.

It isn't "wild" speculation. If home invaders enter your home and get cover and are shooting at you, you very well may need more than 7 rounds to protect yourself and your family.

Prevention is always the smartest move, regardless of whether the unprepared view it as fear or not. :roll:
 
No, wild speculation isn't support. He asked for links from me and I gave them. Instead if waxing fearfully, he can link some actual crime stats, if he has them.

you gave no links that supported the idiotic claim that citizens would never need more than 7 rounds. and you never gave any links that justify cops having 17 round weapons and other people not having them

most importantly, you cannot find any argument that justifies why you have spent so much time attacking those of us who believe in free choice when you finally admitted you really have no argument

you tend to avoid taking concrete positions where you will get destroyed due to ignorance of the subject with attacking the process and pretending that matters rather than the substance. Its common with anti gun posters to whine about secondary issues
 
Did you just ignore the link he posted?

No, I read it, and point out it didn't support him. The closes it came was that the shoot would likely empty however many rounds there was, but gave no statistics as to how many would scut ally be needed.
 
No, I read it, and point out it didn't support him. The closes it came was that the shoot would likely empty however many rounds there was, but gave no statistics as to how many would scut ally be needed.

WHAT? I just gave you a scenario. If the home invaders have cover and are shooting at you, you would most likely NEED more than 7 rounds. That isn't so far-fetched either, especially in this type of economy where many are desperate.
 
It isn't "wild" speculation. If home invaders enter your home and get cover and are shooting at you, you very well may need more than 7 rounds to protect yourself and your family.

Prevention is always the smartest move, regardless of whether the unprepared view it as fear or not. :roll:

I've seen no evidence it happens that way. My experience tells me they run away. But if it happens as you say, we should have verifiable record of that.
 
WHAT? I just gave you a scenario. If the home invaders have cover and are shooting at you, you would most likely NEED more than 7 rounds.
And I answered you.
 
Perhaps not for the law, but to me for understanding his claim, it matters.
Whose claim?

Whoever claimed there was a need for more than 7 rounds is confused themselves as to where the need should be placed.

Not on that side of the argument, I say.
 
Back
Top Bottom