• 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.

Chaddelamancha said:
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.
Click to expand...

harms what argument? LMAO
I didnt make any argument I simply stated what I would have done if it was possible and I stand by that statement.

If it was me and I had a clear shot after he sets my daughter down I shoot him dead,
 
Objective-J said:
harms what argument? LMAO
I didnt make any argument I simply stated what I would have done if it was possible and I stand by that statement.

If it was me and I had a clear shot after he sets my daughter down I shoot him dead,
Click to expand...

Which is why we have gun laws. Some people just can't be trusted.
 
Das Sozialist said:
Fair enough. I, personally, would still probably shoot him even if it's just to injure him. If someone attempted to kidnap a family member (or myself) I would try to make sure they couldn't get away and/or commit the crime again.
Click to expand...

I would probably do the same. But when people say "I would shoot him dead", either it's big talk on the internet, or they are the types of people we don't want having guns. Just because you can shoot and kill someone, doesn't mean you should, that's what makes you a criminal.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Which is why we have gun laws. Some people just can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

what guns laws would I have factual broken? thats nothing more than your opinion LOL
also factually prove that I cant be trusted LMAO

I cant wait to hear LOL this:lamo

also dont dodge the question qhat argument were you talking about
 
Das Sozialist said:
Fair enough. I, personally, would still probably shoot him even if it's just to injure him. If someone attempted to kidnap a family member (or myself) I would try to make sure they couldn't get away and/or commit the crime again.
Click to expand...
My witness statement would say that you had a clear shot, took it, and the perp dropped your kid after being shot.

Yup that's "true and correct to the best of my recollection". That's how I saw it ;)

Did he drop the kid right next to the car? If so, then "I was in fear for the child's life" about to be run over by the car.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
A shotgun is arguably the best home defense weapon their is and this lady did a great job with a great tool. Nice work mom.
Click to expand...

Everytime someone gets a handgun for self defense in the home I'm always like "why not get a big ass double barrel shotgun"....the intimidation factor is 30 times higher and it's not as tough as aiming with a handgun.
 
Objective-J said:
what guns laws would I have factual broken? thats nothing more than your opinion LOL
also factually prove that I cant be trusted LMAO

I cant wait to hear LOL this:lamo

also dont dodge the question qhat argument were you talking about
Click to expand...

A) Never said would have broken gun laws. FACT

B) Never said you couldn't be trusted. FACT

C) I just assumed you were against strict gun laws, based on your statement. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
 
iliveonramen said:
Everytime someone gets a handgun for self defense in the home I'm always like "why not get a big ass double barrel shotgun"....the intimidation factor is 30 times higher and it's not as tough as aiming with a handgun.
Click to expand...
Long barrels make it difficult to use in a building, is the first reason that comes to mind. Military shot guns are shorter for that reason.

Double barrel = only 2 shots, is another reason. I'd rather have a nice pump-action or auto with more rounds.

And I guess my last reason is I wouldn't have any gun to intimidate. I would have a gun to kill.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
A) Never said would have broken gun laws. FACT

B) Never said you couldn't be trusted. FACT

C) I just assumed you were against strict gun laws, based on your statement. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...



Nice try but you dont get to back pedal

I said Id shoot they guy, your reply was "Which is why we have gun laws. Some people just can't be trusted."

this CLEARLY implies you think id be breaking the law by shooting him and I cant be trusted. In both cases you ASSumed WRONG lol which is a FACT.

also I am against "strict" gun laws which isnt hurt by anything I said here nor does my statement hurt any argument I made LOL

thanks for playing ;)
 
Jerry said:
Long barrels make it difficult to use in a building, is the first reason that comes to mind. Military shot guns are shorter for that reason.

Double barrel = only 2 shots, is another reason. I'd rather have a nice pump-action or auto with more rounds.

And I guess my last reason is I wouldn't have any gun to intimidate. I would have a gun to kill.
Click to expand...

Sure I agree with the shorter barrel makes it better to use in more confining spaces.

When you're talking to someone that doesn't spend a lot of time at a range and owns a weapon strictly for protection purposes I'm pretty sure safety is first. They would probably prefer intidimidation than getting into a firefight in their living room with a handgun while their adreneline is going.

I do agree with you on a shotgun with more than 2 rounds.
 
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...

If every household in the US had a gun it would matter less if the criminal element had them too. Even if you have a gun your not going to want to put yourself into a possible confrontation with someone else that has a gun. No way I would ever break into a home if I knew that if someone was inside they likely had a gun (not that I break into homes, was using myself as an example. Yes I have to say this because sure enough someone would comment about me breaking into homes if I didnt :doh).
 
Objective-J said:
Nice try but you dont get to back pedal

I said Id shoot they guy, your reply was "Which is why we have gun laws. Some people just can't be trusted."

this CLEARLY implies you think id be breaking the law by shooting him and I cant be trusted. In both cases you ASSumed WRONG lol which is a FACT.

also I am against "strict" gun laws which isnt hurt by anything I said here nor does my statement hurt any argument I made LOL

thanks for playing ;)
Click to expand...

Shooting an unarmed man when your life isn't imminent danger isn't against the law? I bet I could find a prosecutor who would try the case.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Shooting an unarmed man when your life isn't imminent danger isn't against the law? I bet I could find a prosecutor who would try the case.
Click to expand...
The child's life was in imminent danger, and besides...it's to easy to say you thought you saw him reach for a weapon. He's already committing a felony, so in a void of direct evidence, who's more believable?
 
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...

no one disagrees with USE restrictions that make sense-like no shooting at skeet targets on Times Square or plinking tin cans in the middle of a busy city street. Its the possession restrictions that are idiotic
 
Jerry said:
The child's life was in imminent danger, and besides...it's to easy to say you thought you saw him reach for a weapon. He's already committing a felony, so in a void of direct evidence, who's more believable?
Click to expand...

Yea, it's easy to say, but lying about it makes you more guilty. Justify it any way you want to, it doesn't make it right. Your kid is safe, you are safe, and then you shoot the guy. That's murder. Congrats, now you are the criminal.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Shooting an unarmed man when your life isn't imminent danger isn't against the law? I bet I could find a prosecutor who would try the case.
Click to expand...

see this is called an assumption?

umarmed meaningless to this case
imminent danger meaningless to the case, nor is it need in self defense and its something subjective

the prosecutor would have to prove there was no threat to me and my daughter nor were our lives in danger and i had no reasonable reason to think otherwise, Id love to see that.

I think I could find a lawyer to defend me easier than youd find a prosecuter and I think a jury with parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts etc would likely side with me.

unless of course you have some super solid way to prove that a man that fordably broke into my house:
assaulted me, kicking me while im down
fought me to get to my child
grabbed my child and had possession of her
fought me some more
then made his escape

is some how trustworthy and its not reasonably to think that he could seriously harm me or my child MORE or kill us both.

now I admit I am assuming the jury would side with me but I have lots of reasonable logic to not trust this violent criminal and to think he is a real threat, what would your reasonable reason to deem him a not a threat?
 
Jerry said:
The child's life was in imminent danger, and besides...it's to easy to say you thought you saw him reach for a weapon. He's already committing a felony, so in a void of direct evidence, who's more believable?
Click to expand...

not to mention in some places in the US committing a felony of this nature deadly force is allowed based on that alone. Rape, abduction etc
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Yea, it's easy to say, but lying about it makes you more guilty. Justify it any way you want to, it doesn't make it right. Your kid is safe, you are safe, and then you shoot the guy. That's murder. Congrats, now you are the criminal.
Click to expand...

nope thats you GUESSING again
 
Objective-J said:
see this is called an assumption?

umarmed meaningless to this case
imminent danger meaningless to the case, nor is it need in self defense and its something subjective

the prosecutor would have to prove there was no threat to me and my daughter nor were our lives in danger and i had no reasonable reason to think otherwise, Id love to see that.

I think I could find a lawyer to defend me easier than youd find a prosecuter and I think a jury with parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts etc would likely side with me.

unless of course you have some super solid way to prove that a man that fordably broke into my house:
assaulted me, kicking me while im down
fought me to get to my child
grabbed my child and had possession of her
fought me some more
then made his escape

is some how trustworthy and its not reasonably to think that he could seriously harm me or my child MORE or kill us both.

now I admit I am assuming the jury would side with me but I have lots of reasonable logic to not trust this violent criminal and to think he is a real threat, what would your reasonable reason to deem him a not a threat?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be real easy to get away with it. Doesn't mean you didn't murder the guy.

Objective-J said:
nope thats you GUESSING again
Click to expand...

Nope. Second-degree muder: murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation. Fact.
 
Ill never understand people that think its rational and reasonable to trust a criminal/felon in situations like these? Makes me laugh

Why would any rational and smart person give someone like this the benefit of the doubt under the circumstance, I have no reason to "wonder" if they are a threat or to trust them them at all.

now of course Im not saying everyperson would respond the same way Im just stating the fact theres no reason to trust a criminal/felon in the middle of another violent crime as such.

You want me to trust you and not question the idea if you are a threat or not, keep you ass on the outside of my house, dont assult me and kick me while im down then try to steal my kid!

the solution is pretty simple because doing the above can get you shot and killed and rightfully and justifiably so. :shrug:
 
Chaddelamancha said:
1.)I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be real easy to get away with it. Doesn't mean you didn't murder the guy.



2.)Nope. Second-degree muder: murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation. Fact.
Click to expand...

1.) another back pedal you are getting good and ignoring the fact you are making wrong knee jerk statements

translation: you have none lol

actually it does mean I didnt murder the guy unless by some miracle you find enough stupid people to put on a jury that arent smart enough to realize its clearly reasonable not to trust a piece of crap felony in the middle of an assault and kidnapping case.

I guess you think it is rational and reasonable to trust him LOL

2.) um 100% wrong, what "I BOLDED" in your post was assumption and unless you could prove it, its not a fact.

maybe thats the issue you simple dont understand facts vs opinion vs law lol
 
Objective-J said:
1.) another back pedal you are getting good and ignoring the fact you are making wrong knee jerk statements

translation: you have none lol

actually it does mean I didnt murder the guy unless by some miracle you find enough stupid people to put on a jury that arent smart enough to realize its clearly reasonable not to trust a piece of crap felony in the middle of an assault and kidnapping case.

I guess you think it is rational and reasonable to trust him LOL

2.) um 100% wrong, what "I BOLDED" in your post was assumption and unless you could prove it, its not a fact.

maybe thats the issue you simple dont understand facts vs opinion vs law lol
Click to expand...

Still murder. If I steal something and a jury finds me not guilty, suddenly I am not a thief? Don't think so. And show me where my argument has changed because it hasn't.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Still murder. If I steal something and a jury finds me not guilty, suddenly I am not a thief? Don't think so. And show me where my argument has changed because it hasn't.
Click to expand...

yep thats it you just proved that you issue is with law

no its not MURDER because thats a legal term, there no murder without being found guilty of it

in your other example it depends on how you are using the words, if you steal something and are found not guilty, no you are not guilty of theft, you could be a thief (non legal) but you are not guilty of theft (legal)

i think the word you are looking for is killer

I would indeed be a killer but not a murderer

you back peddled because you tried to say im untrustworthy and what I said was against the law, that was wrong
then you back peddled again when you said my statement hurts my strict laws argument, it doe not
then you back peddled again when you tried to ADD things like imminent danger and unarmed then instead of me going to jail you said it wouldnt be easy, then you tried to say its a fact it be second degree murder which was also wrong because you tried to force the wrong argument on me.

Its a back pedal when you say something false, its proved wrong and you just move on to other things with new made up scenerios instead of addressing why you were already wrong.

now if im wrong please tell me what you argument is because you are all over the place. What is your argument?

My original statement still stands, i would have infact killed the guy and theres nothing in my statement that makes me a murder, untrustworthy or violates gun laws lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom