Topic: My wife is a hero: mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves kids - page 8. (Read 9438 times)

I agree 100% in the 2nd ammendment. If you think guns should be banned in America you are either misinformed or stupid. What I dont get is theres over 300,000,000 people in the united states, every time we have a shooting suddenly theres mass hysteria and call for reform, taking guns away from the countless responsible owners. People need to slow down and look at the FACTS. Guns protect our freedom, guns save more lives then they take, and "Assault rifles" are no different then hunting rifles, that is if they are semi automatic, which is the only way their availble to the general public. People need to stop thinking the police will be there to always help them, they wont. And if/when shit hits the fan a whole lot of "moms against guns" gonna get raped, robbed, and killed.

Most people are not rational and live in a demon-haunted world constructed of emotion, anecdotes, and other logical fallacies.

They are utterly persuaded by high profile tragedies that 'guns are evil' and no amount of statistical data or principled philosophy will convince them otherwise.

To reach those dim, bleating sheeple, an entirely different approach is called for.

Hence, we are zealously waving the bloody shirt and creating our of litany of anecdotes to counter the Marxist media's anti-gun narrative.

It's called rhetoric, the art of discourse. 

Ever heard of it?  No?  Time to learn.  From Wiki:


You've got the logos part down.  Good job, Sherlock!

Now try to understand the other two parts, pathos and ethos.

Your insistence we neglect these two and focus exclusively on logos is in itself a logical fallacy! 

Can you guess which one?   

They are, because idiots are also widespread and frequent. Following simple gun safety rules would have prevented that. A gun enabled the small, physically overpowered woman to take down and stop her larger, physically more powerful attacker, thus protecting her children. It also enabled an idiot father to kill his son. Darwin would say both events are a net gain.

Events like this:
http://news.yahoo.com/father-fatally-shoots-son-outside-pennsylvania-gun-store-022116082.html
are widespread and frequent as well.

Well, then, you need to learn to use it correctly. It might be an appeal to emotion, if there weren't clear logical benefits: the protection of her own life, as well as that of her children. It might be anecdotal, if such examples weren't so widespread and frequent.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

thanks myrkul for this very useful website 

"Emotional outburst?"  If you say so.     More like you wish to avoid the substance of my post, by psychoanalyzing and pathologizing perfectly normal speech.

I see a carefully articulated, and quite pointed, hypothetical situation with a little dig thrown in at the end for rhetorical effect.

Again:  Would you tell a survivor of a home invasion, to their face, they have no to right to use a weapon to protect themselves and their children? 

No, you wouldn't.  Because you know exactly what you would deserve (and hopefully receive) for doing that.

And blimey, who made you the qualification police anyway mate?    

Castration?!  That's the thanks I get for answering your question?   

Heh, looks like I touched a nerve.  Poor little rage machine.    

Taking responsibility for the terrible consequences of poor decisions is hard, isn't it?

We all know you'd never have the courage to share your immoral opinion with Mrs. Herman or Sarah McKinley, demanding to their face they be disarmed victims.

It's obvious why the heroic home invasion survivors would take offense to you telling them they should have just surrendered to their fate, and left their children in harm's way.

So as a deflection, you wish random harm on me.  Odd that you fixate on my genitals.  Get some help and see a therapist please.  Creep.

99.9999% of the time, they are bullshit.  I was rounding off for expediency.

On another note, the laws of physics don't exclude the possibility that the force of gravity could suddenly reverse itself and destroy the entire universe in another 'big bang'; but I find that possibility rather not worth considering.

I did not say he's normal but you said that wild west hip shooter were bullshit.

He's also a professional entertainer who practices hours every day to be able to do those trick shots.  He's amazing because the ability to do such things with a revolver is beyond 99.9999% of gun owners.  He's an aberation, not a example.

Fastest shooter in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=thCl_mYIUBE#t=131s

No mate, you disqualified yourself with your first post.  There is no debate to be had.  No one on this side of the pond really gives a fat flying fuck what "arguments" against our human rights some Eurotrash might be able to present in an obscure Internet forum.  I get so tired of this bullshit.  If you want to have this debate, come to my house and we can have a little chat over tea and crumpets.  I bet you have no idea how many of your countrymen have moved to this country just to get away from asshats like yourself.  I've met several, particularly down at the BBC (http://www.bbcbrew.com/) and all of them would have preferred to stay in their homeland.

And make no mistake, myself and many others really do consider it to be a human right.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Bugger off, wanker. 

In turn it would be even more rewarding to see you get castrated by one of those unfortunate parents.
I pray, I really do, for the sake of your children, that you may never have any.
 

We aren't talking about you, some self-rightous statist who has been programmed by the German educational system all his life.  If you had the time to shoot 5 bullets (38 special revolvers only hold 5 rounds, this ain't no Dirty Harry movie) at an attacker, it's because they were willing to keep their face in your sights instead of retreating, or even falling down and surrendering.  This guy did neither.  In order to even take more than one shot to the face without giving up, considering he didn't appear to have a gun himself, he had to be hyped up on PCP or some other major drug.

And even in the best hands, such as this obviously well practiced mother, firing all five rounds in a 38 special revolver (particularly with this kind of accuracy) takes several seconds.  This article doesn't give many details, but I'd wager that he got all five because the first four didn't stop him; and not because she just kept firing as fast as she could.  Those old west movies that show gunslingers shooting by slapping the hammer while shooting from the hip are total bullshit.  And even the fact that this mother was willing to run upstairs and call the cops first shows her consideration for the intruder; because it proves that she was willing to let him take anything and leave.  She lives in Georgia, which is a 'castle doctrine' state.  Said simply, this means that anyone who uses force to enter into your home is already presumed to have violent intent, and she could have waited at the door for him to break it down and shot him in the atrium, and she wouldn't even have been arrested.

..and emotional outbursts as this are one of the reasons i wnt take people serious who think that carrying guns is a good thing.
If you cant even start arguing about something without such polemics, then you shouldnt talk about a metter like that at all. Not my opinpion? Ridicule? Still not following my opinion? Shoot?
Sorry mate, you just disqualified yourself.

What a fascinating opintion you have.  Why don't you share it with Mrs. Herman and Sarah McKinley, the ladies from the OP?

Tell single teen mom Sarah McKinley, whose husband died of cancer on Christmas, that her child should be an orphan.  Tell her that her orphaned child's last memoir of his mother should be her screaming on a 911 tape as she's raped and murdered by her hunting knife carrying stalker.  Because only the police should have weapons, dontcha know?

And also tell Mrs. Herman that the last time her 9 year old twins see her alive should be while a home invader does god-knows-what to her.  Because it shooting a home invader after retreating to a closet is unjustified, naturally.

Please LMK ahead of time so I can laugh at you as they let you have exactly what you're asking for.   

to me this just sounds like an argument for why drunk people should be prepared to accept the consequences of their poor decisions.

Sorry, but thats just sick.
Noone except the law enforcement should be allowed to carry weapons...

If i have the chance and time to shoot 6 bullets in head and NECK of someone else i cant be in mortal danger - hence the use of arms is unjustified.

I don't agree with that in all cases.  If some drunk guy breaks into your house, and you flee up the steps with your kids; the deciding factor is wether or not he follows you.  If he just passes out on the couch, he probably thought he was home and was confused as to why his keys didn't work.  If he chases you up the steps, it's prudent to assume he has real ill intent on his addled mind, and he brought upon himself whatever happens next.  This guy was no burgler, he wanted something from the wife and kids.  If I was to hazard a guess, he was a serial rapist, and shooting him dead on the steps would have only improved the violent crime rate going forward as well as saved the taxpayers the money in prosecution and incarceration.

An armed society is a polite society.  What is rarely mentioned with that old saying, is the reason is that the 'criminallly impolite' have relatively short expectancies in an armed society.