• 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!

Young man in Texas protects parents from violent intruders

joko104 said:
Not if you or a loved one is the victim in that anecdote. My signature line now takes the single example to the final total overall statistics.
Click to expand...

And a single quote about a tragic accidental shooting counters your signature, which is why anecdotal evidence is piss poor debate. Mindless appeals to emotion are just that, mindless.

joko104 said:
Obama uses anecdotals all the time, including on these gun issues. You believe he should stop mentioning any specific school shooting or anyone who was there as piss-poor presentation?
Click to expand...

Yes, when Obama does it, it does not make it good. Just because Johnny jumped off a bridge does not mean you should too. Logic, good thing to try.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you asserting that for every lawful, intentional shooting that there is an accidental shooting? Care to back that assertion up?
Click to expand...

No...what I'm saying is for every story that supports gun activists there are stories that support those favoring gun control.....if you look on any given day you will find a story to support your side.
 
Personal anecdotals by members own experiences are questionable as to truth, but also may reveal something about the member whether what s/he posts is true or not.

What anecdotals do is give events of enourmous proportion something people can understand on an emotional level, and humans are as much if not more driven by emotion than logic. Emotions are not pointless nor necessarily inferior to logic. Probably the greatest (and worst) traits of humans are found in our emotionalisms - such as "love," compassion, charity, sympathy... and the negatives - hate, rage, etc - and since that is what we are and how we are motivated, addressing "emotions" is appropriate, particularly if the goal is persuasion.

School children or adults can be told 6 millions Jews were killed in a holocaust in a war setting long before they were born, but that doesn't doesn't really register. A true anecdote such as the Diary of Ann Frank does. So does a few photos of starved concentration camp victims - death and survivors. When that is then also applied then to the raw overall numbers, the matter has been presented both emotionally and logically.

Anecdotes serve their purpose if used correctly. Given the many, many accounts given of wrongful gun deaths by those opposing firearms, it is not only reasonable but even foolish not to tell the other side - including (but not limited to) counter anecdotal "evidence" - which is emotional evidence in the context of reality.
 
Sorry I can't accept the premise of this thread until it is peer reviewed.




[/sarcasm]

(note avatar)
 
joko104 said:
Personal anecdotals by members own experiences are questionable as to truth, but also may reveal something about the member whether what s/he posts is true or not.

What anecdotals do is give events of enourmous proportion something people can understand on an emotional level, and humans are as much if not more driven by emotion than logic. Emotions are not pointless nor necessarily inferior to logic. Probably the greatest (and worst) traits of humans are found in our emotionalisms - such as "love," compassion, charity, sympathy... and the negatives - hate, rage, etc - and since that is what we are and how we are motivated, addressing "emotions" is appropriate, particularly if the goal is persuasion.

School children or adults can be told 6 millions Jews were killed in a holocaust in a war setting long before they were born, but that doesn't doesn't really register. A true anecdote such as the Diary of Ann Frank does. So does a few photos of starved concentration camp victims - death and survivors. When that is then also applied then to the raw overall numbers, the matter has been presented both emotionally and logically.

Anecdotes serve their purpose if used correctly. Given the many, many accounts given of wrongful gun deaths by those opposing firearms, it is not only reasonable but even foolish not to tell the other side - including (but not limited to) counter anecdotal "evidence" - which is emotional evidence in the context of reality.
Click to expand...

Trying to justify why your anecdotal appeal to emotion is somehow special is painfully weak.
 
Redress said:
Trying to justify why your anecdotal appeal to emotion is somehow special is painfully weak.
Click to expand...

And I thought I was going to change your mind on this particular subject of gun control.

And your partisan-based standards are obvious. However, if you can show equal critical messages you posted on anti-gun anecdotal threads I'd be proven mistaken.
 
joko104 said:
And I thought I was going to change your mind on this particular subject of gun control.

And your partisan-based standards are obvious. However, if you can show equal critical messages you posted on anti-gun anecdotal threads I'd be proven mistaken.
Click to expand...

You are apparently ignorant of my stance on gun issues. Nice try though to claim my argument is based on partisanship, when in fact they are based on knowing how to actually debate the issue.
 
joko104 said:
Young man in Texas protects parents from violent intruders - Little Rock gun rights | Examiner.com

On Thursday night, Feb. 21, around 8:00, a Houston family was in the middle of baking a cake when they were attacked in their own home. There was a knock at the door and the father saw a young man standing at the door who he presumed was a friend of his son. Upon opening the door slightly, three armed intruders then violently forced their way into the home, as reported by KHOU.
After forcing their way in, the intruders then knocked the father down to the floor. They then proceeded to go after the mother. At which point, the son grabbed his father's gun, shooting and killing one of the intruders. The other two intruders quickly fled the home, but were soon caught by police.
No charges against the son are expected to be filed, as he was acting in self-defense. According to the report, Harry Moulder, a neighbor of the family, stated:
"People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence."
The young man was just doing what he had to do in order to protect his family.


- - - -

A very responsible and clear headed young man.
Click to expand...

This is wrong. The son should have called 911 and waited 20 minutes for the police to arrive. :mrgreen:
 
straykatz said:
No...what I'm saying is for every story that supports gun activists there are stories that support those favoring gun control.....if you look on any given day you will find a story to support your side.
Click to expand...

Now I like your "evolving" position better, yet it still has plenty of room for improvement. This now implies that on any given day (or other time period) that as many guns are actually used to stop/prevent crime as to commit crime. That is more likely true, yet still very hard to prove, as a prevented crime (non-event?) is much less likely to make the news (or be recorded as a statistic), compared to a crime (event) that always has an innocent victim, thus is much more likely to make the news.

The simple fact, of the matter, is that the vast majority of guns are never used to commit any crime at all, criminals comprise a teeny, tiny percentage of the population, and those criminals actually using guns are a minority even within that small group of criminals. Any gun control measure will therefore affect far, far more law abiding gun owners than any of the very few criminal gun users.

The whole concept of depriving freedom of choice to, or increasing the administrative cost burden upon, the vast majority of law abiding gun owners in the mere hope that it will deter some tiny number of criminals from using "illegal" guns is simply an insane policy.
 
Last edited:
Redress how would you debate the issue from a standpoint of a gun rights person? Especially when his or her opposition is standing on the graves of the children killed at Sandy Hook attempting to demonize gun rights folks by bombarding them with emotional examples of why they should give up their rights. I say level the playing field. Gun rights people should use the same tactics as the antis do. Emotional arguments work. Hell Obama won re-election based on emotional arguments. Scaring old people and the middle class.
 
This is wrong, those deadbeat parents shouldn't be depending on children to protect them.
 
I feel that charges should be brought against the parents for child endangerment, because they didn't properly secure the weapon. In more cases than not, the children will end up hurting themselves in this scenario, and I also feel that manslaughter charges should be brought against the son, because he didn't have to aim to kill. He could have even tackled one of the suspects instead of resorting to lethal force. :lol:
 
Redress said:
Trying to justify why your anecdotal appeal to emotion is somehow special is painfully weak.
Click to expand...

Odd that this was not your response to Obama and others mourning the Sandy Hook victims and using that as a catalyst for all manner of new gun control laws. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Odd that this was not your response to Obama and others mourning the Sandy Hook victims and using that as a catalyst for all manner of new gun control laws. ;)
Click to expand...

you might want to read my comments on Sandy Hook before making claims like this. Just sayin'.
 
Redress said:
No one does.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. You do indeed have people who are opposed to private gun ownership - not simply of so-called "assault weapons", but of handguns as well.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary. You do indeed have people who are opposed to private gun ownership - not simply of so-called "assault weapons", but of handguns as well.
Click to expand...

And the handful of them are pretty irrelevant.
 
apdst said:
But, you never speak out when they're spewing their vitriol.
Click to expand...

I do not go into the gun control section because the stupid and the rhetoric is painfully high on both sides in there. It is worse than the abortion and ME sections.
 
Redress said:
I do not go into the gun control section because the stupid and the rhetoric is painfully high on both sides in there. It is worse than the abortion and ME sections.
Click to expand...

Or, are you afraid to speak out against your fellow libbos?
 
apdst said:
Or, are you afraid to speak out against your fellow libbos?
Click to expand...

Except I have and do. Nice try though, except for the fail.
 
Redress said:
And the handful of them are pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...
So long as one does not live in or ever travel through one of the cities they govern, or happen to be in an area they declare suddenly "an emergency zone" which must have all guns stripped from it, I suppose.
 
joko104 said:
Young man in Texas protects parents from violent intruders - Little Rock gun rights | Examiner.com

On Thursday night, Feb. 21, around 8:00, a Houston family was in the middle of baking a cake when they were attacked in their own home. There was a knock at the door and the father saw a young man standing at the door who he presumed was a friend of his son. Upon opening the door slightly, three armed intruders then violently forced their way into the home, as reported by KHOU.
After forcing their way in, the intruders then knocked the father down to the floor. They then proceeded to go after the mother. At which point, the son grabbed his father's gun, shooting and killing one of the intruders. The other two intruders quickly fled the home, but were soon caught by police.
No charges against the son are expected to be filed, as he was acting in self-defense. According to the report, Harry Moulder, a neighbor of the family, stated:
"People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence."
The young man was just doing what he had to do in order to protect his family.


- - - -

A very responsible and clear headed young man.
Click to expand...


Good for them! This family could have ended up being just another statistic.

And if the family didn't have a weapon for self defense, I wonder how the situation would have turned out?

Maybe they would have tried to throw books at them or something. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
So long as one does not live in or ever travel through one of the cities they govern, or happen to be in an area they declare suddenly "an emergency zone" which must have all guns stripped from it, I suppose.
Click to expand...

And again, not happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom