• 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!

Fighting back is the most effective way to reduce violent crime

The courts won't punish those horrible perps.

So thanks be to courageous home owners!
The next that thing needs to happen is to remove / lighten the typical $200K in legal fees and other legal hassles for people defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property in the case where a shooting results.

There should be little to no penalties or punishment for defending yourself, your loved ones, or your property.
 
The next that thing needs to happen is to remove / lighten the typical $200K in legal fees and other legal hassles for people defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property in the case where a shooting results.

There should be little to no penalties or punishment for defending yourself, your loved ones, or your property.
I have long argued-and have told my senator and my congressman, that those who engage in felony attacks on honest citizens, should be barred from civil recoveries short of extraordinary conditions. For example, someone robs you and gets away, and a month later, you see him at say the shopping mall and you knock him down and shoot him in the knee caps or torture him-that might justify a civil verdict on top of a felony conviction for such actions. However, if someone breaks into your home or tries to mug you on the street and you shoot them-as long as you are cleared of the shooting, the criminal should be barred from a civil suit and that is based on the long time concept of issue preclusion and/or collateral estoppel that the courts have recognized.
 
Yep, killing anyone really.

Still even a trained professional got killed trying to fight back against armed criminals.
police officers aren't all that well trained btw. but the good news is that the mope will never leave prison alive
 
The next that thing needs to happen is to remove / lighten the typical $200K in legal fees and other legal hassles for people defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property in the case where a shooting results.
So true.

They should get a medal, not stuck with legal fees.

Sadly, the government slobbers over the bad guys.

That's 2022 America for you!
 
Better trained than any civilians (who aren't ex military/police).
more bullsht-proving you haven't a clue. you really haven't any concept of what you are talking about.
 
One hundred certificates from your shooting club doesn't mean s**t.
how many police officers do you think get into gun fights Rich
now let's look at your expertise-short of actually getting into gun fights rich-what would be the best training someone could have. I already know but I want to see if you actually know anything about this subject
 
Exactly my point - as if you must have a gun to fight back.
I’m surprised you haven’t recommended they try screaming at their attackers to scare them away.
 
You said you obtained your WCL (though you thought it was called a CCW) to make it easier to buy and transport a gun.

Square that with your advocacy for banning guns.

Because Rich is the biggest hippocrite. Ban Guns!...I own one....Look! An armed policeman was shot by a criminal...I legally carry one.

Nothing left to salvage of his credibility.
 
Because it didn't work so good the first time they were sexually assaulted without one.
Are you psychic? Or just reading your fantasies into a post that says nothing of the nature of the "violence"
 
Because Rich is the biggest hippocrite. Ban Guns!...I own one....Look! An armed policeman was shot by a criminal...I legally carry one.

Nothing left to salvage of his credibility.

To be fair, he said that is why he obtained the license, but he also said he hadn't yet carried through with actually getting a gun.
Something about he didn't know how to tell if a gun would be any good or something.
 
To be fair, he said that is why he obtained the license, but he also said he hadn't yet carried through with actually getting a gun.
Something about he didn't know how to tell if a gun would be any good or something.

I don't believe half of what he says now. Something I've learned with all he posts over his past history.

Maybe if he stuck to his story from the very beginning, he might be believable. But he flips on a dime at any time and that makes his reputation not a good one.
 
Last edited:
Plenty of armed citizens too:



A couple more good guys blown away, eh.

Cost of doin' business in the land of the gun and the filthy 2a-wavin' gun-cravers.

People in civilized countries continue shaking their heads in disbelief and horror.

Murr-ca.....................................................................................
 
A couple more good guys blown away, eh.

Cost of doin' business in the land of the gun and the filthy 2a-wavin' gun-cravers.

People in civilized countries continue shaking their heads in disbelief and horror.

Murr-ca.....................................................................................
do you ever post anything other than nonsense designed to troll the gun threads? Drive by baiting posts are pretty sad
 
I have long argued-and have told my senator and my congressman, that those who engage in felony attacks on honest citizens, should be barred from civil recoveries short of extraordinary conditions. For example, someone robs you and gets away, and a month later, you see him at say the shopping mall and you knock him down and shoot him in the knee caps or torture him-that might justify a civil verdict on top of a felony conviction for such actions. However, if someone breaks into your home or tries to mug you on the street and you shoot them-as long as you are cleared of the shooting, the criminal should be barred from a civil suit and that is based on the long time concept of issue preclusion and/or collateral estoppel that the courts have recognized.
There are a dozen or so companies that offer shooting in self defense insurance. They also cover you if you are arrested for most gun offenses. I think mine costs about $13 a month.
 
how many police officers do you think get into gun fights Rich

A far higher proportion that the number of armed civilians

let's look at your expertise-short of actually getting into gun fights rich-what would be the best training someone could have. I already know but I want to see if you actually know anything about this subject



Not offering any "expertise" in gun fights
I'm commenting on the results of two recent incidents when armed citizens(including a law enforcement officer) "fought back" and suffered for it
In both cases, do you think their families thought the vehicles were worth it ?
 
A far higher proportion that the number of armed civilians





Not offering any "expertise" in gun fights
I'm commenting on the results of two recent incidents when armed citizens(including a law enforcement officer) "fought back" and suffered for it
In both cases, do you think their families thought the vehicles were worth it ?

Are you claiming the LEO should have just ignored a crime in progress?
 
I'm commenting on the results of two recent incidents when armed citizens(including a law enforcement officer) "fought back" and suffered for it
In both cases, do you think their families thought the vehicles were worth it ?

You could also ask the families of robbers and car-jackers who were shot and killed if it was worth it, and they would of course say no. So what?

Fighting back is risky, and sometimes you lose when engaging in risky behavior, but that doesn't mean the rotten government should ban fighting back.

As a leftist, you want to remove the decision to fight back from the individual and collectivize it, so that the state can ban it. This greatly benefits criminals, yet you mistakenly believe that it's best for society to simply let violent criminals have their way.
 
A couple more good guys blown away, eh.

Cost of doin' business in the land of the gun and the filthy 2a-wavin' gun-cravers.

People in civilized countries continue shaking their heads in disbelief and horror.

Murr-ca.....................................................................................

Oh looky here, the land of fruits, nuts and gun control failed.
 
Back
Top Bottom