- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,177
- Reaction score
- 1,458
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You wouldn't consider kidnapping imminent danger?
Not after he dropped her kid.
You wouldn't consider kidnapping imminent danger?
Not after he dropped her kid.
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.
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,
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.
Which is why we have gun laws. Some people just can't be trusted.
My witness statement would say that you had a clear shot, took it, and the perp dropped your kid after being shot.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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
nope thats you GUESSING again
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.
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
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.