• 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.

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

Killer, murderer, semantics.

In case I wasn't clear, I support strict gun laws. You don't. Saying that you would kill (murder) an unarmed man, just because you can, hurts your position. It's attitudes like yours that gives us those strict gun laws you oppose.
 
1.)Killer, murderer, semantics.

In case I wasn't clear, I support strict gun laws. You don't. Saying that you would kill (murder) an unarmed man, just because you can, hurts your position. It's attitudes like yours that gives us those strict gun laws you oppose.

1.) LMAO :lamo see this is ANOTHER back pedal because that isnt semantics, those words are in fact VERY different and just further proves my point about you not understanding the subject at hand.

2.) again, maybe overall, your issue is just basic English and comprehension, at no time did I ever say I would murder anybody simply because I can, that is a bold face lie and further shows your lack of understanding of reality LMAO

its also why it doesnt hurt my position because I didnt even come close to saying anything you said.

anything else you want to make up? lol WOW

and what are these "strict gun laws" you support
 
1.) LMAO :lamo see this is ANOTHER back pedal because that isnt semantics, those words are in fact VERY different and just further proves my point about you not understanding the subject at hand.

2.) again, maybe overall, your issue is just basic English and comprehension, at no time did I ever say I would murder anybody simply because I can, that is a bold face lie and further shows your lack of understanding of reality LMAO

its also why it doesnt hurt my position because I didnt even come close to saying anything you said.

anything else you want to make up? lol WOW

and what are these "strict gun laws" you support

I'm not going to jump through these same stupid hoops every time with you. You don't have to be convicted of killing someone to be a murderer and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. You yourself said that you would shoot the guy, after he had let you kid go, even though there was no threat to you life. That's murder.

As for backpedaling?
montoya.jpg

Have a nice day.
 
I'm not going to jump through these same stupid hoops every time with you. You don't have to be convicted of killing someone to be a murderer and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. You yourself said that you would shoot the guy, after he had let you kid go, even though there was no threat to you life. That's murder.

As for backpedaling?
View attachment 67133464

Have a nice day.

LMAO

oh the irony, you have no idea how foolish you are making yourself look, its cute

no its not murder and your inability to understand that shows how uneducated you are on this subject

also you are LYING again, why do you lie?

at no time did I say "Id shoot the guy just because I can" now you are infact back peddling and trying to add to this argument and falsly saying I sad "Id shoot the guy, after he had let you kid go, even though there was no threat to you life."

This is back peddle because first you say one thing then you tried to add to it to change the argument. :laughat:

You are the one who is lying, doesnt understand the word murder or the word backpedal and I have proved it.

If you think im wrong please prove otherwise LOL

now whip the egg off your face and move on because with ever post you dig yourself deeper or please continue because its funny as hell.
 
Personally, I think it is a shame she didn't kill the guy.

If he is still at large (I haven't heard otherwise), he remains a threat to the public and to children. Killing him would have removed that threat for the whole community.


Anyone who breaks into another's house in the middle of the night is asking to get shot. Trying to abduct a child is deserving to get shot dead.


In some jurisdictions, like mine, the mere fact that he broke into your home makes him legally shootable, if you have any reasonable belief that he might pose a threat.

In my state he could have been shot while fleeing, since he'd demonstrably committed a serious violent felony (attempted forcible child abduction plus B&E and battery).
 
Personally, I think it is a shame she didn't kill the guy.

If he is still at large (I haven't heard otherwise), he remains a threat to the public and to children. Killing him would have removed that threat for the whole community.


Anyone who breaks into another's house in the middle of the night is asking to get shot. Trying to abduct a child is deserving to get shot dead.


In some jurisdictions, like mine, the mere fact that he broke into your home makes him legally shootable, if you have any reasonable belief that he might pose a threat.

In my state he could have been shot while fleeing, since he'd demonstrably committed a serious violent felony (attempted forcible child abduction plus B&E and battery).

no no no goshin he set the kid down that means he is a nice guy, no longer a threat and is probably riding a flying unicorn through a rainbow right now. <end sarcasm>

and yes of course you are right, lethal force is totally legal in some places for just committing felonies such as this one and rape etc.
 
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.

Good points on shotguns and sawing the barrel off for home defense is a must I agree. Eighteen inches is the legal length for the barrel or 26 inches overall length which means you can generally get the barrel down to 16 inches or so. Thats what I always left with my wife when I used to work out of town alot.
 
Good points on shotguns and sawing the barrel off for home defense is a must I agree. Eighteen inches is the legal length for the barrel or 26 inches overall length which means you can generally get the barrel down to 16 inches or so. Thats what I always left with my wife when I used to work out of town alot.


Bear in mind you can't saw it off yourself, has to be done by a gunsmith to be legal IIRC.
 
I didn't know that.

Actually I'd better admit I am not 100% sure about that. I was TOLD, by someone who is usually right about such things, that it had to be done by a gunsmith to be legal. I haven't looked it up myself... probably under Federal Law, either the 68 act or the 30-something act....might depend on just how short you're cutting the barrel too.

I've never been overly interested in sawn-off shotguns since one early experience with one left me unimpressed, so I am not expert on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Actually I'd better admit I am not 100% sure about that. I was TOLD, by someone who is usually right about such things, that it had to be done by a gunsmith to be legal. I haven't looked it up myself... probably under Federal Law, either the 68 act or the 30-something act....

The whole Randy Weaver thing was about him sawing off a shotgun for some fed informer so you may be right.
 
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.

Jerry is correct. Once you pick up a gun in defense, you should have already made the decision to use it, if you must. Personally, I think it is bad practice to display a gun as a threat. If the threat doesn't work you then have to make the decision to use the gun or not. At that point you could be several seconds too late. Or force yourself into a situation where you use it perhaps when you shouldn't, or you force the other guy and thus escalate the situation. If you display a weapon the reason should be that you are in the process of using it.

I have a coach gun. It's fun. It's a 20 ga.x3, 20", with exposed hammers. Century Arms (Chinese). My wife wanted it for when I am not at home - or maybe for if I come home way too late. :eek: I enjoy shooting it more than she does. It's her primary defense choice, before she goes to her S&W .38 Special backup. It's not my choice, but it is the choice she is comfortable with.
 
Jerry is correct. Once you pick up a gun in defense, you should have already made the decision to use it, if you must. Personally, I think it is bad practice to display a gun as a threat. If the threat doesn't work you then have to make the decision to use the gun or not. At that point you could be several seconds too late. Or force yourself into a situation where you use it perhaps when you shouldn't, or you force the other guy and thus escalate the situation. If you display a weapon the reason should be that you are in the process of using it.

.


Pretty much, yeah. If I pull it I mean to use it, unless the perp "ceases forthwith" REALLY fast... as in somewhere between Drawstroke Phase 1 and completion of trigger squeeze, and that ain't gonna be long.


Incidentally, with apologies to Colonel Cooper, I switched to a four-phase linear drawstroke with three integral firing positions about a decade ago, rather than his semi-circular drawing arc. The linear 4 phase is more "ruggedized" for close quarters and obstacles and gives me a better indexed sight picture when it ends in an isoceles grip position.
 
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.
Kill a guy who tries to kidnap my child...yeah...I'm totally good with that. I think forward in time...assume I get convicted of someothing...could I tell my family why I'm in jail? Could I sell a future employer on why I was convicted?

"I killed a guy who tried to kidnap my son".

Yeah, I'm good with that.

I'm no knight in shining armor. I'm not going to yeald to the bad guy just because they're just inside the line of the law. I'm going to look for a way to end his life and get away with it. If I find that way, the kidnapper's dead, no question.

If you don't want to play by the rules, I won't play by the rules either.
 
Last edited:
Kill a guy who tries to kidnap my child...yeah...I'm totally good with that.

I'm no knight in shining armor. I'm not going to yeald to the bad guy just because they're just inside the line of the law. I'm going to look for a way to end his life and get away with it. If I find that way, the kidnapper's dead, no question.

If you don't want to play by the rules, I won't play by the rules either.

It's a choice and mine just happens to be different. I can respect your choice, even if I don't agree with it.
 
Actually I'd better admit I am not 100% sure about that. I was TOLD, by someone who is usually right about such things, that it had to be done by a gunsmith to be legal. I haven't looked it up myself... probably under Federal Law, either the 68 act or the 30-something act....might depend on just how short you're cutting the barrel too.

I've never been overly interested in sawn-off shotguns since one early experience with one left me unimpressed, so I am not expert on this subject.

I think the legal limit for shotgun barrel shortening is 18"?
 
Killer, murderer, semantics.

In case I wasn't clear, I support strict gun laws. You don't. Saying that you would kill (murder) an unarmed man, just because you can, hurts your position. It's attitudes like yours that gives us those strict gun laws you oppose.
A person doesn't have to be armed for lethal force to be justified.
 
True, but just because you have the option to kill someone, doesn't mean you should.
Uh, yes, if he's trying to kidnap my child, yes that means I should kill him. Every single time.
 
Seems to me that if someone snatches a parent's child, the kidnapper has done everything but put the parent's gun in his mouth. An enraged parent isn't likely to be thinking much about the kidnapper's rights in such a situation.
 
Seems to me that if someone snatches a parent's child, the kidnapper has done everything but put the parent's gun in his mouth. An enraged parent isn't likely to be thinking much about the kidnapper's rights in such a situation.

Exactly. A kidnapped child is every parent's nightmare.

I had an absolute horror about this when my son was young. The fear of death inherent to the human condition is trivial in comparison... having my child be missing and not knowing if he was alive or dead or being mistreated or abused or tortured would have destroyed me. I'd hate to tell you what I could do to a man who tried to kidnap my child, it would sound medieval.

Would I shoot such a man? Yes. How many times? How many shells are in the shotgun? Anyone who broke into my home and tried to steal my child would never get a second chance at it.
 
Back
Top Bottom