- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
~snip~
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
Mom with shotgun fends off daughter's would-be kidnapper
By Jim Guy - The Fresno Bee
Wednesday, Aug. 29, 2012 | 07:24 AM
Fresno County sheriff's detectives on Tuesday, Aug. 28,
investigate an attempted child abduction east of Fowler.
A mother fought off an intruder who tried to abduct her 2-year-old daughter and then used a shotgun to chase the man away Tuesday morning west of Fowler, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office said.
The woman battled furiously against the man after he broke into her home on the 8000 block of South Maple Avenue about 8:39 a.m., sheriff's spokesman Chris Curtice said.
The man used a door or window to enter the home. The man threw the woman to the floor but she to fight him as he struck and kicked her. He then grabbed the 2-year-old and tried to get to his car.The woman then got the shotgun and ordered the man to release her daughter. The suspect dropped the child and then drove south on Maple Avenue. Curtice said the toddler was not hurt and the woman sustained minor injuries.
To make it easier to abduct young children from armed mothers?This is why I need a gun. So now you know.
Yes, as a deployed single father of 2, I want to abduct children :roll:To make it easier to abduct young children from armed mothers?
(There is actually a serious point in that comment)
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;Yes, as a deployed single father of 2, I want to abduct children :roll:
This is the wrong thread to troll. Go be coy somewhere else.
She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;
I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.
It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;
I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.
It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
People have the right to address those complications and own a firearm in a manor which best suits their fact-dependent needs, lifestyle, and preferences.You seem to have missed (or ignored) my point so I'll put it more straight forwards;
I don't necessarily disagree with the right to bare arms but you need to recognise that the freer gun ownership doesn't just make it easier for people like the mother in this case to get a gun but it also makes it easier for people like the man in the case to get one too.
It's not a simple issue, there are many complications that I think require more consideration than they seem to receive.
That argument is used here against arming the British police in general and allowing gun ownership here. The thought is that if guns were more available and the police were armed then muggers and thieves would arm themselves too.
Trouble is, the wrong type of people can easily get guns here while the law-abiding can't. If this same scenario had happened here, this woman wouldn't have been able to order the would-be kidnapper to release her daughter.
Most people don't think like that when a gun is in their face. Most people instantly associate a gun with getting shot. This is why a lot of people ask the stupid question "why do you need a gun", and then folks like me make threads like this as an answer.She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
Most people don't like that when a gun is in their face. Most people instantly associate a gun with getting shot. This is why a lot of people ask the stupid question "why do you need a gun", and then folks like me make threads like this as an answer.
And yes, she could have shot. At the tires, if nothing else. Even if she didn't disable the car, driving around with obvious gunshot holes is gong to get you noticed.
This is why I 'need' a gun.
She couldn't shoot the kidnapper.. He was holding her 2 year old.
Yes, as a deployed single father of 2, I want to abduct children :roll:
This is the wrong thread to troll. Go be coy somewhere else.
That's not quite the same point as I was making (the difference between ability and desire) and it's far from the only argument against routine arming of UK police (most commonly made by the officers themselves).That argument is used here against arming the British police in general and allowing gun ownership here. The thought is that if guns were more available and the police were armed then muggers and thieves would arm themselves too.
In the UK? I suggest that's generally a myth. The vast majority of criminals in the UK have no easy access to real, active firearms and apparently no great desire to use them. The key difference between the UK and the US is cultural though, rendering general comparisons largely meaningless.Trouble is, the wrong type of people can easily get guns here while the law-abiding can't.
True, but there are plenty of individual bad incidents in the US that couldn't have happened in the UK. None of that really tells us anything significant though.If this same scenario had happened here, this woman wouldn't have been able to order the would-be kidnapper to release her daughter.
Quite right, next time I'll take it to the Loft.LOL this coming from the person who has admitted to just trolling threads before in the past? Puhhhlease. If you don't like people trolling your thread, maybe you shouldn't troll other people's threads.
Back on topic though, I don't agree in taking away guns, however, yes there should be some gun control. I don't think a person should be able to fire off an M-60 whenever they want to in the neighborhoods. I think the gun control we have now though is pretty strict, however.
Good on the mother having a shotgun, there is nothing wrong with that.
This is why I 'need' a gun.
Dont know what type of shot gun it was, the distances she was from him, or how good a shot she was but if it was me?
once he drops the kid, if I can do it safely, I shoot him dead.
This is the kind of attitude that harms your argument. There is no reason for her to shoot him dead if her, or her daughters life, isn't in imminent danger.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?