• 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!

Mom with shotgun fends off daughter's would-be kidnapper.

Jerry

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
~snip~
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
Click to expand...

Mom with shotgun fends off daughter's would-be kidnapper
By Jim Guy - The Fresno Bee
Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012 | 07:24 AM
NkKYr.MiEm.8.JPG

Fresno County sheriff's detectives on Tuesday, Aug. 28,
investigate an attempted child abduction east of Fowler.

A mother fought off an intruder who tried to abduct her 2-year-old daughter and then used a shotgun to chase the man away Tuesday morning west of Fowler, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office said.

The woman battled furiously against the man after he broke into her home on the 8000 block of South Maple Avenue about 8:39 a.m., sheriff's spokesman Chris Curtice said.

The man used a door or window to enter the home. The man threw the woman to the floor but she to fight him as he struck and kicked her. He then grabbed the 2-year-old and tried to get to his car.The woman then got the shotgun and ordered the man to release her daughter. The suspect dropped the child and then drove south on Maple Avenue. Curtice said the toddler was not hurt and the woman sustained minor injuries.
Click to expand...

This is why I 'need' a gun.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
This is why I need a gun. So now you know.
Click to expand...
To make it easier to abduct young children from armed mothers?

(There is actually a serious point in that comment)
 
HonestJoe said:
To make it easier to abduct young children from armed mothers?

(There is actually a serious point in that comment)
Click to expand...
Yes, as a deployed single father of 2, I want to abduct children :roll:

This is the wrong thread to troll. Go be coy somewhere else.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, as a deployed single father of 2, I want to abduct children :roll:

This is the wrong thread to troll. Go be coy somewhere else.
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;

I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.

It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
 
As long as guns exist, at least one person is going to have at least one gun. That one person will have the power to compel others to do things they otherwise wouldn't have done. In fact, many people have guns, and not all of them use their power fairly or reasonably. The only solution is to allow everyone, within reason, who wants to own a gun, to own one. Actually, as many as they would like, methinks.
 
She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
 
sharon said:
She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
Click to expand...

Dont know what type of shot gun it was, the distances she was from him, or how good a shot she was but if it was me?

once he drops the kid, if I can do it safely, I shoot him dead.
 
HonestJoe said:
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;

I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.

It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
Click to expand...

That argument is used here against arming the British police in general and allowing gun ownership here. The thought is that if guns were more available and the police were armed then muggers and thieves would arm themselves too.

Trouble is, the wrong type of people can easily get guns here while the law-abiding can't. If this same scenario had happened here, this woman wouldn't have been able to order the would-be kidnapper to release her daughter.
 
HonestJoe said:
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;

I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.

It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
Click to expand...

strict gun restrictions means the woman wouldn't have a gun. Someone willing to commit a First degree federal felony with 15-25 years of prison under the Sentencing Guidelines is not going to worry about having an illegal gun

gun control makes criminals' activities safer for them
 
HonestJoe said:
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;

I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.

It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
Click to expand...
People have the right to address those complications and own a firearm in a manor which best suits their fact-dependent needs, lifestyle, and preferences.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
That argument is used here against arming the British police in general and allowing gun ownership here. The thought is that if guns were more available and the police were armed then muggers and thieves would arm themselves too.

Trouble is, the wrong type of people can easily get guns here while the law-abiding can't. If this same scenario had happened here, this woman wouldn't have been able to order the would-be kidnapper to release her daughter.
Click to expand...

Yep strict gun laws mainly do a couple things, punish and endanger law abiding citizens and reward and empower criminals!

Why because criminals dont give a **** about gun laws LMAO they will still have guns and I wont, it hinders my ablity to protect me and my family and gives them a greater upper hand.
 
sharon said:
She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
Click to expand...
Most people don't think like that when a gun is in their face. Most people instantly associate a gun with getting shot. This is why a lot of people ask the stupid question "why do you need a gun", and then folks like me make threads like this as an answer.

And yes, she could have shot. At the tires, if nothing else. Even if she didn't disable the car, driving around with obvious gunshot holes is gong to get you noticed.
 
Last edited:
I got one thing to say to this mom.

Yippie Ki-Yay Mother****er.
 
Jerry said:
Most people don't like that when a gun is in their face. Most people instantly associate a gun with getting shot. This is why a lot of people ask the stupid question "why do you need a gun", and then folks like me make threads like this as an answer.

And yes, she could have shot. At the tires, if nothing else. Even if she didn't disable the car, driving around with obvious gunshot holes is gong to get you noticed.
Click to expand...

Often a gun is not fired but still functions as a deterrent. Had the mom stood there holding a mop bucket instead of a shot gun I have no doubt the kidnapper's reactions would have been different.
 
Jerry said:
This is why I 'need' a gun.
Click to expand...

I agree.

You wouldn't have had to drop the two year old if you had a gun.











I kid. I kid.
 
sharon said:
She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
Click to expand...

Yes she could. Just not thru her child. She also could have blown his car to pieces.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, as a deployed single father of 2, I want to abduct children :roll:

This is the wrong thread to troll. Go be coy somewhere else.
Click to expand...


LOL this coming from the person who has admitted to just trolling threads before in the past? Puhhhlease. If you don't like people trolling your thread, maybe you shouldn't troll other people's threads.

Back on topic though, I don't agree in taking away guns, however, yes there should be some gun control. I don't think a person should be able to fire off an M-60 whenever they want to in the neighborhoods. I think the gun control we have now though is pretty strict, however.

Good on the mother having a shotgun, there is nothing wrong with that.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
That argument is used here against arming the British police in general and allowing gun ownership here. The thought is that if guns were more available and the police were armed then muggers and thieves would arm themselves too.
Click to expand...
That's not quite the same point as I was making (the difference between ability and desire) and it's far from the only argument against routine arming of UK police (most commonly made by the officers themselves).

Infinite Chaos said:
Trouble is, the wrong type of people can easily get guns here while the law-abiding can't.
Click to expand...
In the UK? I suggest that's generally a myth. The vast majority of criminals in the UK have no easy access to real, active firearms and apparently no great desire to use them. The key difference between the UK and the US is cultural though, rendering general comparisons largely meaningless.

Infinite Chaos said:
If this same scenario had happened here, this woman wouldn't have been able to order the would-be kidnapper to release her daughter.
Click to expand...
True, but there are plenty of individual bad incidents in the US that couldn't have happened in the UK. None of that really tells us anything significant though.
 
GOOD FOR HER!! Now let's hope the child won't have any memory of it. Did they catch the guy?
 
TheNextEra said:
LOL this coming from the person who has admitted to just trolling threads before in the past? Puhhhlease. If you don't like people trolling your thread, maybe you shouldn't troll other people's threads.

Back on topic though, I don't agree in taking away guns, however, yes there should be some gun control. I don't think a person should be able to fire off an M-60 whenever they want to in the neighborhoods. I think the gun control we have now though is pretty strict, however.

Good on the mother having a shotgun, there is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Quite right, next time I'll take it to the Loft.
 
She did that in Cali and got away with it? Wow. I would of thought they would of run her in like a mass murder and at least charged her with brandishing and menacing with a bond she couldn't afford. Do they still have that excessive force BS there?
 
Jerry said:
This is why I 'need' a gun.
Click to expand...


You will never see the liberal media argue in favor of making it easier for law abiding citizens to own a firearm, nor will they encourage a law abiding citizen to get a firearm. But heaven forbid that the one in a billion chance out of the 270+million firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens a handful of guns are used for a mass shooting and they want to infringe on peoples right to keep and bear arms.
 
Objective-J said:
Dont know what type of shot gun it was, the distances she was from him, or how good a shot she was but if it was me?

once he drops the kid, if I can do it safely, I shoot him dead.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of attitude that harms your argument. There is no reason for her to shoot him dead if her, or her daughters life, isn't in imminent danger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom