• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%

  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%

  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
if you hunt a murderer down, and shoot him in the head, you too are now a murderer.

only police have the right & authority to apprehend criminal suspects.

the ONLY legal way one can apprehend a criminal suspect, is if you yourself actually witness the crime taking place.

then you can detain him..and even kill him if its necessary to save lives.
Click to expand...
Let me help you out Thunder. Go ahead and refer to me as tutor from now on, murder is a specific term used in homicides where the willful killing of another human occurs this can be pre-meditated or not pre-meditated but it involves killing someone without due cause meaning that in murder the guilty party is the aggressor. In most states third party defense falls under self-defense protections meaning it counts as a justifyable homicide. If you can't get this don't try to tackle something as advanced as militia definitions, powder loads, and muzzle velocities, learn the basics first.
 
Thunder said:
if you hunt a murderer down, and shoot him in the head, you too are now a murderer.

only police have the right & authority to apprehend criminal suspects.

the ONLY legal way one can apprehend a criminal suspect, is if you yourself actually witness the crime taking place.

then you can detain him..and even kill him if its necessary to save lives.
Click to expand...

No no, if I'm one of the people this guy is going after, he walks into my office with a gun drawn, I'm going to shoot him. There is no "hunting him down". He came to me. he displayed intent to inflict grave bodily harm. I'm totally justified. I doubt I would even be taken in for questioning or my weapon retained by the police as evidence. It's what police call a 'good shooting'.

And let's say I'm just a parent who happens to be in the school at the time; it's reasonable for me to fear for the safety of all the children on the campus and pursue the shooter, even killing him if the conditions are right.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Let me help you out Thunder. Go ahead and refer to me as tutor from now on, murder is a specific term used in homicides where the willful killing of another human occurs this can be pre-meditated or not pre-meditated but it involves killing someone without due cause meaning that in murder the guilty party is the aggressor. In most states third party defense falls under self-defense protections meaning it counts as a justifyable homicide. If you can't get this don't try to tackle something as advanced as militia definitions, powder loads, and muzzle velocities, learn the basics first.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv. But I will tell you this: IF you think someone has committed a murder, and you grab your gun, drive to his house, call him out, and shoot him dead.....YOU will be tried & likely convicted of murder.

There is only ONE time that you can kill someone: that is in self-defense of in the defense of others.

no need to thank me.
 
Jerry said:
No no, if I'm one of the people this guy is going after, he walks into my office with a gun drawn, I'm going to shoot him. There is no "hunting him down". He came to me. he displayed intent to inflict grave bodily harm. I'm totally justified. I doubt I would even be taken in for questioning or my weapon retained by the police as evidence. It's what police call a 'good shooting'.
Click to expand...

oh, if he hunts you down? in that scenario, let er' rip. :)
 
Thunder said:
I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv. But I will tell you this: IF you think someone has committed a murder, and you grab your gun, drive to his house, call him out, and shoot him dead.....YOU will be tried & likely convicted of murder.

There is only ONE time that you can kill someone: that is in self-defense of in the defense of others.

no need to thank me.
Click to expand...
And that isn't what anyone was talking about, we all know where the line is on the second amendment side.
 
Thunder said:
I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on tv. But I will tell you this: IF you think someone has committed a murder, and you grab your gun, drive to his house, call him out, and shoot him dead.....YOU will be tried & likely convicted of murder.

There is only ONE time that you can kill someone: that is in self-defense of in the defense of others.

no need to thank me.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, nobody other than you was talking about doing any such thing.

As far as I can see, in Jerry's post to which you responded with “and then you'd be guilty of murder”, he was very clearly talking hypothetically about killing someone who he might be witnessing about to murder someone else—circumstances that any rational person would recognize as fully-justified. Of course, because the crime in question happened in a “gun-free zone”, only the murderer had a gun, and everyone else was powerless to stop him.
 
Boo Radley said:
Think Rubby ridge. Or any number of individuals agaisnt the government. Out numbered and overrun.

Many of you are leaping to all out war, which is even more unlikely. If that ahppened, again, being armed would be the least of our problems. I spoke about us fighting our government, which would mean our army is intact, and there would hardly be any serious numbers of support. Over rather quickly. Others leapt to us being invaded, and went silly with an old D movie that presented something so unrealistic as to be laughable. reminded me of all those old communist films they showed in churches in the 50's and
60's. But such an event would also be different, and having our own guns would only a little.
Click to expand...

One of the points I truly admire about Ruby Ridge and other incidents was that it was not just all about survival. They stood up for a cause they believed in. They were not just fighting to live but for their rights and principles as well.

We do need more well armed and trained citizen militias in case of an unfortunate event.
 
RDS said:
Yeah self defence is important but how abt this scenario? - latest news
2 adults dead in Florida high school shooting - CNN.com
Click to expand...
That's the whole idiocy behind a lot of gun control. I understand wanting to limit the number of people who can be injured/killed in a given time-frame by a single person but any idea that gun control will stop murder is laughable. If you want someone dead there are many, many ways to kill them that don't involve guns. The average house is filled with potentially lethal instruments - knives, baseball bats, hammers, etc. - and that doesn't count martial arts/hand-to-hand combat or plain, old-fashioned amateur wrestling coupled with rage.

TurtleDude said:
well since Florida has the death penalty and short of breaking someone on the wheel or impaling them on a stake, the DP is the most severe deterrent we have but if a guy plans on killing himself the only way to stop him from killing others is to kill him first

let me guess, the Headmistress didn't have a weapon
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if she had a weapon or not. If someone gets the drop on you with a lethal weapon then you're probably toast.
 
fatimasm.jpg

One community took an approach that was very controversial, but it paid off.

(Kennesaw, GA) In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city.

Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw

Before you say it, I'm not for government "forcing anyone to purchase anything." It isn't Constitutional.

"The ordinance was purely symbolic. Most homes in Kennesaw already had a gun before the ordinance, and it seems unlikely the ordinance had any effect on prevalence since there was no penalty specified in the law for refusal to comply."

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

States with Higher Percentages of Gun Owners Have Less Violent Crime

More Guns Equals Less Violent Crime - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
Jack Webb said:
View attachment 67123534

One community took an approach that was very controversial, but it paid off.

(Kennesaw, GA) In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city.

Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw

Before you say it, I'm not for government "forcing anyone to purchase anything." It isn't Constitutional.

"The ordinance was purely symbolic. Most homes in Kennesaw already had a gun before the ordinance, and it seems unlikely the ordinance had any effect on prevalence since there was no penalty specified in the law for refusal to comply."

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

States with Higher Percentages of Gun Owners Have Less Violent Crime

More Guns Equals Less Violent Crime - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

I suspect a causal relationship error here at a minimum. More likely there is a lot liberty with the truth.
 
Thunder said:
enjoy shooting your paper targets. I'll be doing the same soon enough.
Click to expand...

I put about 100 rounds thru it this afternoon and I have to say I love this weapon. Various characteristics make it very safe to carry and manipulate. The pistol was surprisingly accurate out to 100 meters (the limit of the range I went to, unfortunately).
 
Jerry said:
I put about 100 rounds thru it this afternoon and I have to say I love this weapon. Various characteristics make it very safe to carry and manipulate. The pistol was surprisingly accurate out to 100 meters (the limit of the range I went to, unfortunately).
Click to expand...

There is no way that I could consistently hit a man sized silhouette with a pistol at 100 meters. 100 feet, all over it. 100 meters, pure luck.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's the whole idiocy behind a lot of gun control. I understand wanting to limit the number of people who can be injured/killed in a given time-frame by a single person but any idea that gun control will stop murder is laughable. If you want someone dead there are many, many ways to kill them that don't involve guns. The average house is filled with potentially lethal instruments - knives, baseball bats, hammers, etc. - and that doesn't count martial arts/hand-to-hand combat or plain, old-fashioned amateur wrestling coupled with rage.

Doesn't matter if she had a weapon or not. If someone gets the drop on you with a lethal weapon then you're probably toast.
Click to expand...

maybe, but if you are unarmed and someone gets the drop on you you are far more Screwed than if you have a weapon.

I shot in a few IPSC matches with this guy my first year on the tour

Jim Zubiena-first year of Miami vice playing a hitman caught by a bodyguard

 
Chiefgator said:
There is no way that I could consistently hit a man sized silhouette with a pistol at 100 meters. 100 feet, all over it. 100 meters, pure luck.
Click to expand...

I used to think that until I started shooting lots of IPSC. We have steel cutouts of rams at 100 yards at our range. They are about a foot long and about 10" high, With a ten round magazine in a Smith and Wesson 22 caliber model 41 target pistol I can hit 4/10 standing two hands. Off a bench rest-9-10/10
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe, but if you are unarmed and someone gets the drop on you you are far more Screwed than if you have a weapon.

I shot in a few IPSC matches with this guy my first year on the tour

Jim Zubiena-first year of Miami vice playing a hitman caught by a bodyguard

Click to expand...
Dead or unconscious is dead or unconscious, it doesn't matter if you happen to have a gun on you or not except that now the other guy will have it.

In that video the guy without the shotgun is just being stupid. If he wanted the other guy dead, or at least down, he would have been. Instead, he had to do the "Hollywood thing" to try and talk him to death. If someone wants you dead and gets the drop on you, you're gonna' be down at the very least. The best you can hope for is that he doesn't kill you on the first shot and someone else takes him out after you're down.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Dead or unconscious is dead or unconscious, it doesn't matter if you happen to have a gun on you or not except that now the other guy will have it.

In that video the guy without the shotgun is just being stupid. If he wanted the other guy dead, or at least down, he would have been. Instead, he had to do the "Hollywood thing" to try and talk him to death. If someone wants you dead and gets the drop on you, you're gonna' be down at the very least. The best you can hope for is that he doesn't kill you on the first shot and someone else takes him out after you're down.
Click to expand...

the point is, if you have a gun you have a much better chance than if you don't
 
TurtleDude said:
the point is, if you have a gun you have a much better chance than if you don't
Click to expand...
I know what your point is, I just disagree with it in the case of murder.

However, you do stand a better chance in a well-armed society because the would-be criminal will typically have more than one gun to face. Even if he catches everyone off-guard he can only get one, maybe two, before he's brought down. It's like MAD, no one shoots first because they know it'll kill them.

Ed:
Of course, even that wouldn't have helped in this case since the guy offed himself afterward.
 
Last edited:
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
 
a777pilot said:
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Great way to frame any debate!!!


Not.

:coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
:thumbs: Great way to frame any debate!!!


Not.
Click to expand...



when dealing with those antis whose main motivation is a snarky or sanctimonious attitude towards "benighted" gun owners, a777Pilot's framing the issue the way he did is perfect
 
Last edited:
a777pilot said:
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Click to expand...
So this woman with the gun has it in her hand all the time? Or is it in a holster on her hip. Or is it in her purse. So, if it's in her hand it can be pointed at me but she is legally toast. OK in her hand and and I walk by, oops that gun is mine; and, unless it was cocked it wouldn't have fired. On her hip, that gun is mine. In her purse, that gun is mine. And I can fense that gun to my pawn shop. Shall I continue?

I think that a woman with a gun is generally more of a target and more likely to be attacked. So keep it hidden, it may be useful to help someone else.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom