• 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!

Woman Stops Attempted Rape With A Gun

NeverTrumpGOP said:
Sounds like the gun was the closest object that she could grab... And if she did shoot him, she would be charged w/attempted murder. Not the best argument to be made for pro-gun people.
Click to expand...
So if the kid(dumb ass kid)decides to force the issue than she should just give in? It sounds like she could have shot him in the head but stated her hand when the twit backed off. Responsible gun owner.
 
Last edited:
Polar Bum said:
I think you will find that guns are used just about every day by private citizens to defend themselves, but you wont see it on the front page of most media sources.
Click to expand...
Oh hell no,unless it's a blurb on the local news. Sure won't see it on the MSM news unless there's blood and it happens in a school or church.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
If she shot him before he penetrated her, then the defense can easily argue that it wasn't a rape. Even rape cases w/o guns involved don't get high conviction rates.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. You are saying don't shoot the rapist until afterward? THEN the defense(prosecution?) will find it harder to prove rape? Why would her defense argue it wasn't rape?
 
Aristaeus said:
And guns are used every day to kill people. Your point?
Click to expand...
Yes and the bulk of those people are criminals. So you let the bad guy walk after being raped or near raped and he goes out and repeats it maybe killing his next victim. This is minus gang on gang shootings where incidentally if it happens on school property at midnight it's considered a school shooting.
 
Aristaeus said:
And guns are used every day to kill people. Your point?
Click to expand...

People defending themselves with guns happens many times more often than people murdering people with guns.
 
Maccabee said:
People defending themselves with guns happens many times more often than people murdering people with guns.
Click to expand...

Of course....bad news always pulls in more viewers, and it furthers the GCA narrative.
 
Maccabee said:
People defending themselves with guns happens many times more often than people murdering people with guns.
Click to expand...

Defending themselves from other people with guns. It's a circular argument: you're demanding the 2nd amendment as a method of fighting a problem that is caused by the 2nd amendment.
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
Defending themselves from other people with guns. It's a circular argument: you're demanding the 2nd amendment as a method of fighting a problem that is caused by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

No. I'm advocating the 2nd amendment to fix the problem caused by evil people.
 
Aristaeus said:
Defending themselves from other people with guns. It's a circular argument: you're demanding the 2nd amendment as a method of fighting a problem that is caused by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

People defending themselves with guns defend themselves from more than just bad guys with guns.
 
Aristaeus said:
Defending themselves from other people with guns. It's a circular argument: you're demanding the 2nd amendment as a method of fighting a problem that is caused by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Because without a 2nd Amendment guns would just magically disappear from criminals hands?

Clearly that worked so well with the 18th Amendment.
 
Aristaeus said:
Defending themselves from other people with guns. It's a circular argument: you're demanding the 2nd amendment as a method of fighting a problem that is caused by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
It sounds like in your HAPPYLAND if the Second Amendment didn't exist,all would be unicorn farts and fuzzy kittens.Let us know when you find that place.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Sounds like the gun was the closest object that she could grab... And if she did shoot him, she would be charged w/attempted murder.
Click to expand...

No, it would be justifiable homicide.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
If she shot him before he penetrated her, then the defense can easily argue that it wasn't a rape.
Click to expand...

This sounds right but is not. So, if someone tries to kill me, I can't use deadly force to stop him until after he has killed me?
 
Aristaeus said:
How many rapes have been committed with the threat of a gun?
Click to expand...

Precisely!

So many more rapes are committed with the thread of a (legal) gun than used in self-defense from a rape.

And same applies to robberies too (an often cited example by pro-gunners). So many robberies are committed with a thread of a gun than the useful self-defense occurrences against such robberies.

Average citizen would be much better off without second amendment, as more and more studies find (not surprisingly).
 
zsu2357 said:
It sounds like in your HAPPYLAND if the Second Amendment didn't exist,all would be unicorn farts and fuzzy kittens.Let us know when you find that place.
Click to expand...

nah it would be what he wants. Beloved dear leader Big Brother having a monopoly on legal firepower which would make honest people MORE dependent on the state and more helpless in the face of a dictatorship
 
Wan said:
This sounds right but is not. So, if someone tries to kill me, I can't use deadly force to stop him until after he has killed me?
Click to expand...

Intent is pretty easy to determine

 
Slavister said:
Precisely!

So many more rapes are committed with the thread of a (legal) gun than used in self-defense from a rape.

And same applies to robberies too (an often cited example by pro-gunners). So many robberies are committed with a thread of a gun than the useful self-defense occurrences against such robberies.

Average citizen would be much better off without second amendment, as more and more studies find (not surprisingly).
Click to expand...

how do you come to that silly conclusion

socialists, power hungry dictators and armed criminals would be better off without a second amendment-which is why those three groups all hate it. If the Democrats had not tried to pretend gun control was crime control (since Democrats tend to sympathize with violent criiminals) , the NRA never would have become something the left hated.
 
TurtleDude said:
nah it would be what he wants. Beloved dear leader Big Brother having a monopoly on legal firepower which would make honest people MORE dependent on the state and more helpless in the face of a dictatorship
Click to expand...

My own finding is that gun-banners think that only police officers should be able to carry guns. They might not say this out loud but they very likely feel this way. They also seem to think that when there is conflict between feds and ordinary people, the latter must be in the wrong.
 
Wan said:
My own finding is that gun-banners think that only police officers should be able to carry guns. They might not say this out loud but they very likely feel this way. They also seem to think that when there is conflict between feds and ordinary people, the latter must be in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I see no issue with this. I guess when police is asking for your help you first try to figure out whether they are in the wrong or the suspect, right? Or if you see a shootout of police vs someone else, and if you have a chance to somehow help the police, you'd rather not since, who knows who is right, correct?
 
TurtleDude said:
how do you come to that silly conclusion

socialists, power hungry dictators and armed criminals would be better off without a second amendment-which is why those three groups all hate it. If the Democrats had not tried to pretend gun control was crime control (since Democrats tend to sympathize with violent criiminals) , the NRA never would have become something the left hated.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of democracies out there that have no second amendment.

I know pro-gunners like to use this excuse that if the guns were gone, suddenly a dictator would take over the US and we, the poor people of the USA could not fight it. I think it's much more likely we will just elect a dictator and then live with them with or without guns, since most won't even realize what's going on... oh wait, we are on the way already...
 
Slavister said:
Yes, and I see no issue with this. I guess when police is asking for your help you first try to figure out whether they are in the wrong or the suspect, right? Or if you see a shootout of police vs someone else, and if you have a chance to somehow help the police, you'd rather not since, who knows who is right, correct?
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. But anyway: the law enforcement, along with agents of the government, are not always right. It has nothing to do with "who I'd help".

Why do you think the feds are always right?
 
Wan said:
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. But anyway: the law enforcement, along with agents of the government, are not always right. It has nothing to do with "who I'd help".

Do you think the feds are always right?
Click to expand...

They may not be always right, but that does not mean an average Joe Shmoe should have a gun as a protection against a police officer, because guess what, whenever there is an unpleasant encounter with police, that Joe Shmoe is likely going to think HE is right in 90% of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom