• 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!

Gun Collector-3, violent robbers 0

TurtleDude said:
that is a stupid question-it is like asking why do you need two fire extinguishers when you were able to put out a given fire with one.
Click to expand...

In case the first one fails ?
If a person in the UK can have a shotgun, they can have two shotguns


So I don't see the similarity in the "question" at all


You have never been in a gun fight, You have no idea what happens in one. pretending you'd never miss is stupid.
Click to expand...

I have fired guns, so I know you can miss

However my perception is that firing a shotgun, within the confines of your own home, is much less likely to result in a miss against a man sized target


I have all sorts of credentials in shooting and I would never limit myself to three rounds.
Click to expand...

But you're not limited

You can re-load - and it doesn't take the brains of an arch bishop to do it


Why should people who weren't world class competitors limit themselves?
Click to expand...


How are you limiting ?

What gun are you aware of, that doesn't require a re-load ?
(or a change of barrel in case you offer a belt fed machine gun).
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah but its hard to feel sorry for the surviving mope
Click to expand...

Well, as usual none of us has all the facts so our theries are meaningless. It just might be possible that the last guy left standing was the instigator of the armed invastion which means he is responsible for what happened and should suffer the consequences.
 
Rich2018 said:
In case the first one fails ?
If a person in the UK can have a shotgun, they can have two shotguns


So I don't see the similarity in the "question" at all




I have fired guns, so I know you can miss

However my perception is that firing a shotgun, within the confines of your own home, is much less likely to result in a miss against a man sized target




But you're not limited

You can re-load - and it doesn't take the brains of an arch bishop to do it


How are you limiting ?

What gun are you aware of, that doesn't require a re-load ?
(or a change of barrel in case you offer a belt fed machine gun).
Click to expand...

when someone is on record wanting to ban all guns and then talks about limiting how many rounds one can have-the obvious purpose is gradually banning guns
 
Rich2018 said:
It was said in the OP, which is was I'm arguing against

Do you think there is a case for murder ?
Click to expand...

Felony murder rule:

A Rule of Law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.


Would have to see the actual written law for all the details.
 
TurtleDude said:
when someone is on record wanting to ban all guns and then talks about limiting how many rounds one can have-the obvious purpose is gradually banning guns
Click to expand...

You know I have do not want to ban all guns

That is a most disingenuous Straw-Man


Sure I've said the way forward would be to ban all guns (so as to avoid convoluted legal definitions), BUT allow the national executive to exempt firearms, that fall into certain gun types, based on make/model number


Do NOT say I haven't explained this to you.
 
Individual said:
Felony murder rule:

A Rule of Law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.


Would have to see the actual written law for all the details.
Click to expand...


But what if that killing is by the victim, and is ruled a "justifiable homicide"

Can we rule it "justifiable and non-justifiable ?
 
Rich2018 said:
But what if that killing is by the victim, and is ruled a "justifiable homicide"

Can we rule it "justifiable and non-justifiable ?[/QUOTE

"If a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime)", two killings occurred, "the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder",

Had the third person fled the scene without firing a shot, he might not have had the charge applied, but since he did fire a shot and missed fleeing only after being shot, I feel the additional charge is justified.
Click to expand...
 
Individual said:
"If a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime)", two killings occurred, "the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder"

Had the third person fled the scene without firing a shot, he might not have had the charge applied, but since he did fire a shot and missed fleeing only after being shot, I feel the additional charge is justified.
Click to expand...


So a killing can be ruled both "justifiable" and "non-justifiable" (murder) ?


I'm curious to see if that flies

Had the person killed been the victim or another member of the victim's family, then yes, as it is...it would be the most ridiculous conviction ever.

Has anyone been convicted of murder in these circumstances before ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So a killing can be ruled both "justifiable" and "non-justifiable" (murder) ?


I'm curious to see if that flies

Had the person killed been the victim or another member of the victim's family, then yes, as it is...it would be the most ridiculous conviction ever.

Has anyone been convicted of murder in these circumstances before ?
Click to expand...

The killing was justifiable self defense. The 3 committing a felony are responsible for any killing happening. Since 2 of the 3 were the ones killed, only 1 remains to take responsibility.

Find and read the law, it will explain it better than me.

I can't knowingly answer your last question, though I suspect the answer is yes.

All I can say is, It's a shame the victims gun jammed.
 
Rich2018 said:
You know I have do not want to ban all guns

That is a most disingenuous Straw-Man


Sure I've said the way forward would be to ban all guns (so as to avoid convoluted legal definitions), BUT allow the national executive to exempt firearms, that fall into certain gun types, based on make/model number


Do NOT say I haven't explained this to you.
Click to expand...

you constantly contradict yourself on this issue
 
Rich2018 said:
How ???


Where is the contradiction ?
Click to expand...

you have posted dozens of times you want to get rid of all guns

then you say you want British style gun bans

and then you claim you want complete gun bans with the president able to exempt some

the problem is, you never can come up with a rational reason to ban a type of gun so you keep running around in circles.
 
Rich2018 said:
So how can the same killing be classed as murder ?

Like I said, read the law and maybe then you will understand.



Why, would the victim have been even safer ?
Click to expand...

No, then it might be more likely that the 3rd person would not be facing any charges at all.
 
TurtleDude said:
you have posted dozens of times you want to get rid of all guns

then you say you want British style gun bans
Click to expand...


To avoid convoluted legal definitions, I would simply ban all guns, and then allow the national executive to exempt some guns, using the guns allowed under British gun laws as a template (not necessarily a facsimile)

These exempted guns would be listed by make/model number and added to a national list of "exempted guns"


and then you claim you want complete gun bans with the president able to exempt some

the problem is, you never can come up with a rational reason to ban a type of gun so you keep running around in circles.
Click to expand...


Well I said national executive and the president is only one part of that

The rational reason to ban guns is to cut down on shootings in general and mass shootings in particular


Shotguns and hunting rifles (plus muzzle loading guns) have not historically been guilty of that
I have changed my mind on "classic" guns too and would also exempt any firearm made before 1946

If any exempted gun subsequently saw a significant use in shootings, it could easily be withdrawn from the exempted list

Now what is contradictory about that ?
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
To avoid convoluted legal definitions, I would simply ban all guns, and then allow the national executive to exempt some guns, using the guns allowed under British gun laws as a template (not necessarily a facsimile)

...

The rational reason to ban guns is to cut down on shootings in general and mass shootings in particular
Click to expand...

There may be up to 600 million firearms in the the US:

Are There More Than 300 Million Guns in America?

How do you expect to confiscate that many guns?
 
Rich2018 said:
Because the gun jammed and had it done so earlier, no-one needed to have been killed ?
Click to expand...

No, because the victim would have been able to fire more shots.

If the three hadn't broken into the home none of them would have had to be killed.
 
Rich2018 said:
To avoid convoluted legal definitions, I would simply ban all guns, and then allow the national executive to exempt some guns, using the guns allowed under British gun laws as a template (not necessarily a facsimile)

These exempted guns would be listed by make/model number and added to a national list of "exempted guns"





Well I said national executive and the president is only one part of that

The rational reason to ban guns is to cut down on shootings in general and mass shootings in particular


Shotguns and hunting rifles (plus muzzle loading guns) have not historically been guilty of that
I have changed my mind on "classic" guns too and would also exempt any firearm made before 1946

If any exempted gun subsequently saw a significant use in shootings, it could easily be withdrawn from the exempted list

Now what is contradictory about that ?
Click to expand...

What is nuts about it is the idea of considering and describing inanimate objects as "guilty" and "not guilty".
 
Individual said:
No, because the victim would have been able to fire more shots.

If the three hadn't broken into the home none of them would have had to be killed.
Click to expand...

Why did the victim have to fire shots at all ?

America's jails have over 2 million inmate, most of who'm must bemoan the same thing...if only.
 
9/19/19

"Felony murder charges have been dropped against five Chicago teenagers after a 14-year-old who was with them during a burglary attempt was shot and killed by a homeowner, prosecutors announced.
The teens were initially charged with murder after the youngest member of their group died after they allegedly tried to break into a car in front of a home in Old Mill Creek, Illinois, about 47 miles north of Chicago, on Aug. 13, according to the Lake County Sheriff's Office.
When the 75-year-old homeowner went outside to confront the teens, he told deputies that two of the people in the group "quickly approached him," one of whom was "holding something in his hand," prompting him to fire his gun at least three times...


Murder charges dropped against 5 teens after 14-year-old killed during burglary attempt in Illinois - ABC News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom