• 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!

...you're More Likely to Shoot a Loved One

joko104 said:
The OPer is an older white male. That is information he's posted about himself on the forum now and then, though I don't know of any message to link to back that up. If an inaccurate memory I apologize.
Click to expand...

who knows-many of that poster's assertions are clearly lies or internally self-contradictory, so I wouldn't take anything as gospel.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a crock. Who, exactly, determined that thousands of folks shot and killed by armed civilians were not innocent and how? That nonsense would imply that only 30 civilian shooters were convicted of homicides with a firearm committed in 1993. BTW, being unarmed is not the same as being innocent - see Ferguson, MO shooting of Michael Brown.
Click to expand...

based on insurance settlements and other information I recall, when part of my job involved defending law enforcement in wrongful death shootings-I believe that article is fairly accurate.

It makes sense-when a private citizen shoots someone, he or she is normally shooting a person who has attacked the shooter or has broken into the home or business of the shooter. Identification of the attacker is easy. And most criminals don't attack people in crowds or break into heavily occupied businesses.

When cops confront criminals, the criminals are harder to identify and might well be mixed in with others. Hence, the wrongful shooting rates are higher
 
TurtleDude said:
based on insurance settlements and other information I recall, when part of my job involved defending law enforcement in wrongful death shootings-I believe that article is fairly accurate.

It makes sense-when a private citizen shoots someone, he or she is normally shooting a person who has attacked the shooter or has broken into the home or business of the shooter. Identification of the attacker is easy. And most criminals don't attack people in crowds or break into heavily occupied businesses.

When cops confront criminals, the criminals are harder to identify and might well be mixed in with others. Hence, the wrongful shooting rates are higher
Click to expand...

You seem not to be counting common criminals (like gang maggots) among your private citizen shooters either.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You seem not to be counting common criminals (like gang maggots) among your private citizen shooters either.
Click to expand...

nope, I am talking about people who were legally in possession of a firearm who shot someone else and claimed self defense
 
TurtleDude said:
nope, I am talking about people who were legally in possession of a firearm who shot someone else and claimed self defense
Click to expand...

That is not what I was referring to. Civilian shootings are not limited to those by "good guys with guns" just as police shootings are "justified" simply because an LEO pulled the trigger and claimed self-defense or made the claim of "I thought he/she was armed and dangerous".
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That is not what I was referring to. Civilian shootings are not limited to those by "good guys with guns" just as police shootings are "justified" simply because an LEO pulled the trigger and claimed self-defense or made the claim of "I thought he/she was armed and dangerous".
Click to expand...

I don't count actual premeditated felonies
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not, since they are what is driving the calls for ever more "gun control"?
Click to expand...

maybe among the sheeple but the leaders of the anti gun movement are motivated purely by political warfare.
 
pinqy said:
What is the purpose of voting registration, and would firearms registration have the same purpose? If not, your comparison fails.
Click to expand...

The point is someone claims you can not register a right when clearly you can.

Registration and licensing for guns is perfectly constitutional
 
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

18-280
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied.

The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.
Click to expand...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

Bottom of page 10, top of page 11.
 
vegas giants said:
The point is someone claims you can not register a right when clearly you can.

Registration and licensing for guns is perfectly constitutional
Click to expand...

Except registering to vote is to facilitate exercising that right..to make sure you can vote for the people to represent you and preserve the principle of one person one vote.
Firearm registration is to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and in no way facilitates that right.

It’s disingenuous to imply that there is any kind of equivalency.
 
pinqy said:
Except registering to vote is to facilitate exercising that right..to make sure you can vote for the people to represent you and preserve the principle of one person one vote.
Firearm registration is to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and in no way facilitates that right.

It’s disingenuous to imply that there is any kind of equivalency.
Click to expand...
As its been pointed out before, votes aren't registered potential voters are. Having guns registered would be no more constitutional than having votes registered, which it isn't and which they aren't. Now as for having potential gun owners registered, as somebody posted earlier the idea of making it so that the only requirement to buy a gun is to be a registered voter, so when I want to buy a gun all I have to do is show proof that Im a registered voter without filling out any paperwork and without waiting for and paying for a background check, that would work fine for me. :)
 
DebateChallenge said:
As its been pointed out before, votes aren't registered potential voters are. Having guns registered would be no more constitutional than having votes registered, which it isn't and which they aren't.
Click to expand...
Good point
Now as for having potential gun owners registered, as somebody posted earlier the idea of making it so that the only requirement to buy a gun is to be a registered voter, so when I want to buy a gun all I have to do is show proof that Im a registered voter without filling out any paperwork and without waiting for and paying for a background check, that would work fine for me. :)
Click to expand...
Not for me. Anymore than redirecting to vote requiring proof of gun ownership, or being a registered voter to attend church.
 
pinqy said:
Good point

Not for me. Anymore than redirecting to vote requiring proof of gun ownership, or being a registered voter to attend church.
Click to expand...

you make a sound point--I noted, a week or two ago, that registering to vote is needed to exercise that right-much like obtaining a letter ticket is the only way to put yourself in a position to win the jackpot. Registering a gun you own in NO WAY advances or qualifies you to be able to exercise the right
 
pinqy said:
Except registering to vote is to facilitate exercising that right..to make sure you can vote for the people to represent you and preserve the principle of one person one vote.
Firearm registration is to restrict the right to keep and bear arms and in no way facilitates that right.

It’s disingenuous to imply that there is any kind of equivalency.
Click to expand...

Sorry. It means you can register a right. Too bad
 
pinqy said:
Good point

Not for me. Anymore than redirecting to vote requiring proof of gun ownership, or being a registered voter to attend church.
Click to expand...

Guns and voting arec rights that can both be registered
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
If your family is having a fight making a growling sound and jumping out of the bushes 1130 at night is not the best idea.
Click to expand...
And he flew in from Norway. Last person I would expect jumping out. People I know and family know better than pull those stupid pranks.
 
pinqy said:
No, registering to vote is not registering a right.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. You can split hairs all day.


You can not vote without registration


The same can apply to guns
 
marke said:
I am a free American. I can arm or disarm myself without being told by some goose-stepping jack-booted democrat communist government official telling me what I can or cannot do.
Click to expand...
He's not one of those. No backbone. I think of him as a running dog,the person that hides in the shadows and snitches.:ssst:
 
zsu2357 said:
He's not one of those. No backbone. I think of him as a running dog,the person that hides in the shadows and snitches.:ssst:
Click to expand...

the most amusing thing about gun bans is that gun banners will be counting on armed men with guns to enforce their wet dreams of a disarmed America
 
zsu2357 said:
He's not one of those. No backbone. I think of him as a running dog,the person that hides in the shadows and snitches.:ssst:
Click to expand...

Get em ranger
 
marke said:
I am a free American. I can arm or disarm myself without being told by some goose-stepping jack-booted democrat communist government official telling me what I can or cannot do.
Click to expand...

To most progressive Democrats, you being a white male American Christian conservative who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights means that you are a Jew and they are the 1938 Nazi Brownshirts. They haven't become fascists to the extent of wanting to outright kill you, all your family and everyone else like you - yet - just disarm you for when they come for you and your kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom