Support NeoGAF

[HyperionX]

To further my point, the actually statistics regarding "home invasion" is pretty small:

http://www.thenation.com/article/171879/we-fear-each-other-when-guns-themselves-are-real-danger#

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports about 100 homicides per year across America that happen in the course of household burglaries. That’s less than 1 percent of U.S. homicides.

Number suggests the family probably was not in any danger.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

To further my point, the actually statistics regarding "home invasion" is pretty small:

http://www.thenation.com/article/171879/we-fear-each-other-when-guns-themselves-are-real-danger#



Number suggests the family probably was not in any danger.

Numbers have little meaning in a situation as the one in this story. And not every sitution will fit the numbers.

 

[RyanDG]

Number suggests the family probably was not in any danger.

I don't see how you can argue that the family wasn't in any danger when 1) the criminals already grabbed the daughter and were forcing her inside with a weapon, and 2) they were brazen enough to already be targeting a home that was obviously occupied.

Furthermore, if you account for home burglaries where victims were present there are a lot of interesting statistics here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Roughly 27% of burglaries occur with the victims present, and in those cases, 1 in 4 of those burglaries also result in some sort of violent action taken against the victim. That indicates to me that it is completely off base to suggest that the family was "not in any danger".

 

[RELAYER]

Sorry, reality doesn't work like that. It's more likely the story was a huge exaggeration than real.

Reality has a liberal bias, right?

 

[HyperionX]

I don't see how you can argue that the family wasn't in any danger when 1) the criminals already grabbed the daughter and were forcing her inside with a weapon, and 2) they were brazen enough to already be targeting a home that was obviously occupied.

Furthermore, if you account for home burglaries where victims were present there are a lot of interesting statistics here:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Roughly 27% of burglaries occur with the victims present, and in those cases, 1 in 4 of those burglaries also result in some sort of violent action taken against the victim. That indicates to me that it is completely off base to suggest that the family was "not in any danger".

If there were 3.7 million burglaries and only 100 deaths, that's one in 37,000 chance they would have died. Violent action can apply to just using a gun in the crime without firing.

So it's still extremely unlikely still that this was as much of an action movie as reported. It could still be an armed robbery without intent to kill. Maybe "no danger" is too strong of a description, but low danger is extreme likely.

Reality has a liberal bias, right?

Yes apparently. Whenever a right-wing news organization reports something amazing convenient for their political viewpoint, experience strongly suggests it is a lie or partial truth.

 

[RELAYER]

If there were 3.7 million burglaries and only 100 deaths, that's one in 37,000 chance they would have died. Violent action can apply to just using a gun in the crime without firing.

But you are using the wrong number.
His source said 27% of burglaries occur when the victim is home, and furthermore that 1 in 4 of those result in violence.

That is the relevant number, not the 3.7 million.

So it's still extremely unlikely still that this was as much of an action movie as reported. It could still be an armed robbery without intent to kill. Maybe "no danger" is too strong of a description, but low danger is extreme likely.

Would you consider having a loaded gun to your head a low-danger or high-danger situation?

Yes apparently. Whenever a right-wing news organization reports something amazing convenient for their political viewpoint, experience strongly suggests it is a lie or partial truth.

Why should I simply assume any part of this story is fabricated?

 

[sturmdogg]

So it's still extremely unlikely still that this was as much of an action movie as reported. It could still be an armed robbery without intent to kill. Maybe "no danger" is too strong of a description, but low danger is extreme likely.

Yes, that's possible. But if you were the one whose home was being invaded, and please be honest with your answer here, would you still be confident that you wouldn't be killed by the bad guys? Or if you were the father here, would you take the chance with the lives of your family?

 

[HyperionX]

But you are using the wrong number.
His source said 27% of burglaries occur when the victim is home, and furthermore that 1 in 4 of those result in violence.

That is the relevant number, not the 3.7 million.

You can't reconcile that with the 100 deaths number. 1/4 out of 27% is 249750, and 100 / 249750 means 0.04% chance of death. Clearly violence rarely means death.

Would you consider having a loaded gun to your head a low-danger or high-danger situation?

Assuming it happened like told, possibly.

Why should I simply assume any part of this story is fabricated?

Because that's an extremely likely outcome. Though since I can't prove it, you can believe whatever you want.

 

[HyperionX]

Yes, that's possible. But if you were the one whose home was being invaded, and please be honest with your answer here, would you still be confident that you wouldn't be killed by the bad guys? Or if you were the father here, would you take the chance with the lives of your family?

Yes. Math doesn't change just because you're using an appeal to emotion.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Gun skill ranking goes father>criminal>mother?

Calculating points Time Crisis Arcade style

Dad - S-rank
Mom - D

 

[RELAYER]

You can't reconcile that with the 100 deaths number. 1/4 out of 27% is 249750, and 100 / 249750 means 0.04% chance of death. Clearly violence rarely means death.

....so what's your point? That deathless violence and a 0.04% chance of death in this situation are both somehow acceptable?

Assuming it happened like told, possibly.

A loaded-gun to your head is very dangerous even if you yourself are the one holding it, much more so for a belligerent stranger with ill-intent. Answering that it's 'possibly' dangerous is really nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

Because that's an extremely likely outcome. Though since I can't prove it, you can believe whatever you want.

Ok, I'll rephrase.
Why should I assume that it is "extremely likely" that any part of this story was fabricated?

edit-

Yes. Math doesn't change just because you're using an appeal to emotion.

Oh, you're one of those types.
Don't bother replying, that's all I needed to read.

 

[turtle553]

You can't reconcile that with the 100 deaths number. 1/4 out of 27% is 249750, and 100 / 249750 means 0.04% chance of death. Clearly violence rarely means death.

.

It's perfectly fine if they are just beaten and raped then as long as nobody dies?

 

[Vyroxis]

Yes. Math doesn't change just because you're using an appeal to emotion.

Yes, because you would be completely logical and analytical in such a situation. A spot of complete calm in a massive storm.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

 

[HyperionX]

....so what's your point? That deathless violence and a 0.04% chance of death in this situation are both somehow acceptable?

A 0.04% chance of death clearly implies a very loose definition of violence, apparently including a large number of not-so-violent variants.

A loaded-gun to your head is very dangerous even if you yourself are the one holding it, much more so for a belligerent stranger with ill-intent. Answering that it's 'possibly' dangerous is really nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

Ok fine, assuming it happened exactly as described it would be dangerous. But that's very unlikely like I said. It could have been a hugely less incredulous version of that event.

Ok, I'll rephrase.
Why should I assume that it is "extremely likely" that any part of this story was fabricated?

Statistics first and foremost. But If that doesn't sway you, just read the original post then. It's pretty obvious the story is told amazingly biased and obviously embellished. Furthermore, the pro-gun movement has a long history of creating these types of highly embellished stories to sell guns. Put all of these things together and its pretty obvious this is a hard to believe story. Heck, I settle for a less dramatic series of events but still placing them in some danger as believable.

Oh, you're one of those types.
Don't bother replying, that's all I needed to read.

Thanks for admitting your position is just emotion appeal.

 

[Dice]

So glad they had guns to kill those bad guys who had guns. Clearly everyone having guns is a good thing. What's a school shooting every week and tens of thousands dying from guns every year compared to the safety of shooting down men who were using your daughter as a shield?

 

[HyperionX]

Yes, because you would be completely logical and analytical in such a situation. A spot of complete calm in a massive storm.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

I don't own a gun so I won't have to worry about such a situation. Actually seeing how there are 606 accidental deaths in 2010 I actually reduced my chances of dying.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Okay reading some responses and it's making my brain hurt. So in going to break down a few gun facts to clear a few things up.

Supressors aka silencers: class 3 item, requires a 200 dollar tax stamp. Tax stamp takes about a year to be issued by the ATF, after a background check. All class 3 items are subject to random inspections by the ATF. At the end of this process your local law enforment chief must sign off on it and can arbitrarily refuse depending on what state you are in. Once this is complete that item registered and on a list, if you travel anywhere out of state with it you MUST contact the ATF.

Edit- some comments about rate of fire, semi autos only fire as fast as you can pull a standard 5 pound trigger. You won't hit worth a shit because shooting guns is nothing like video games or movies.

 

[RELAYER]

Thanks for admitting your position is just emotion appeal.

My position is the protection of one's loved ones on one's own property by any means necessary.

I'm pretty sure categorizing the protection of one's daughter as a logical fallacy is reductio ad absurdum against logic itself.

 

[HyperionX]

My position is the protection of my loved ones on my property by any means necessary.

I'm pretty sure categorizing the protection of one's daughter as a logical fallacy is reductio ad absurdum against logic itself.

606 accidental shooting deaths per year versus 100 deaths from "home invasions." So you're 6 times more likely to die from a gun accident than being shot by a burglary.

I've yet to see logic leave my side.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

606 accidental shooting deaths per year versus 100 deaths from "home invasions." So you're 6 times more likely to die from a gun accident than being shot by a burglary.

I've yet to see logic leave my side.

More people own guns than there are burglaries in a year in which the victim is home.

 

[JJD]

Police just released a photo of the father and daughter:

 

[Vyroxis]

606 accidental shooting deaths per year versus 100 deaths from "home invasions." So you're 6 times more likely to die from a gun accident than being shot by a burglary.

I've yet to see logic leave my side.

You are 9000 times more likely to be killed by a doctors mistake than you are a gun owner. Gonna stop going to doctors also, Mr statistic? Because they have a far better chance at offing you than Jimbo across the street cleaning his rifle.

 

[HyperionX]

You are 9000 times more likely to be killed by a doctors mistake than you are a gun owner. Gonna stop going to doctors also, Mr statistic? Because they have a far better chance at offing you than Jimbo across the street cleaning his rifle.

First of all this is a complete red herring (logical fallacy BTW). We can fix the gun problem at the same time as fixing other problems. Not only are the numbers not nearly as high as you claimed, there also more accurately described as "failed to save someone's life" in most cases than causing a death. In reality doctors save millions of lives every year.

It's unfortunate this brain-dead pro-gun talking point has taken root, since it is an amazingly stupid argument to make. Not only is it obviously a logical fallacy, it also is implying that doctors are somehow harmful to society and leads into the whole "modern medicine is a conspiracy" movement. It would be truly sad if large numbers of people die from failing to go to the hospital as a result of this talking point.

 

[RELAYER]

First of all this is a complete red herring (logical fallacy BTW). We can fix the gun problem at the same time as fixing other problems. Not only are the numbers not nearly as high as you claimed, there also more accurately described as "failed to save someone's life" in most cases than causing a death. In reality doctors save millions of lives every year.

It's unfortunate this brain-dead pro-gun talking point has taken root, since it is an amazingly stupid argument to make. Not only is it obviously a logical fallacy, it also is implying that doctors are somehow harmful to society and leads into the whole "modern medicine is a conspiracy" movement. It would be truly sad if large numbers of people die from failing to go to the hospital as a result of this talking point.

It's almost as though statistics don't tell the whole story.

 

[HyperionX]

It's almost as though statistics don't tell the whole story.

Are you seriously trying to defend this clownish talking point? Do you really think doctors are harming society more than guns?

 

[not psycho]

First of all this is a complete red herring (logical fallacy BTW).

They are just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

You don't understand the statistics you are citing. The total number of deaths involving doctors, cars, hot air balloons, etc, don't tell you what the chances are in a specific instance. If we were to say "a family was at home and someone tried to burglarize the home" (with no other information, such as whether the intruders were armed), the chance that they experienced violence is 1/4. That is the applicable statistic.

But in this case, we have the extra information that the intruders were armed and pointed guns at the family. That most likely makes the chance of violence increase well above 1/4, but I haven't found any statistics on what percentage of families experience violence after home invaders use guns to take a family member hostage.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Are you seriously trying to defend this clownish talking point? Do you really think doctors are harming society more than guns?

You're completely missing his point.

 

[HyperionX]

They are just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

You don't understand the statistics you are citing. The total number of deaths involving doctors, cars, hot air balloons, etc, don't tell you what the chances are in a specific instance. If we were to say "a family was at home and someone tried to burglarize the home" (with no other information, such as whether the intruders were armed), the chance that they experienced violence is 1/4. That is the applicable statistic.

But in this case, we have the extra information that the intruders were armed and pointed guns at the family. That most likely makes the chance of violence increase well above 1/4, but I haven't found any statistics on what percentage of families experience violence after home invaders use guns to take a family member hostage.

The argument that you need a gun beforehand to defend against this type of situation is still totally intact, as per the statistics. This is more or less a separate question unrelated to this one. It was a mistake on my part to bring up the statistics aspect in this thread. Of course if they really were held hostage and there really was a "gun to the head" situation, things might be different.

But then you run into the plausibility of the story itself. So I am to believe that he was able to stay calm enough to be able shoot around his own daughter and hit only the bad guy, while his wife missed completely (both felt the urge to shoot simultaneously?). Even trained soldiers can't pull this shit off, never mind a father when his daughter life is at stake. I'm sorry but that can't be the true story. Maybe elements of this are true, but something has to be amiss.

Combine that with the original source, a right-wing website with obvious pro-gun leanings, you obviously see where it can be made-up or exaggerated beyond belief.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

But then you run into the plausibility of the story itself. So I am to believe that he was able to stay calm enough to be able shoot around his own daughter and hit only the bad guy, while his wife missed completely (both felt the urge to shoot simultaneously?). Even trained soldiers can't pull this shit off, never mind a father when his daughter life is at stake. I'm sorry but that can't be the true story. Maybe elements of this are true, but something has to be amiss.

Combine that with the original source, a right-wing website with obvious pro-gun leanings, you obviously see where it can be made-up or exaggerated beyond belief.

Logical Fallacies: The Post

If you don't have any actual evidence, then I have zero reason to doubt the official story. Trying to salvage an argument by claiming that your opposition's sources are lying never makes you look good.

 

[HyperionX]

Logical Fallacies: The Post

If you don't have any actual evidence, then I have zero reason to doubt the official story. Trying to salvage an argument by claiming that your opposition's sources are lying never makes you look good.

If it's on the Internet it must be true right?

It's a not scientific paper. It's a news article, and a dubious one. If your BS meter doesn't trip or doesn't work here I don't know what to tell you.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

If it's on the Internet it must be true right?

It's a not scientific paper. It's a news article, and a dubious one. If your BS meter doesn't trip or doesn't work here I don't know what to tell you.

Do you always refuse to believe anything short of a peer-reviewed scientific paper, or does this only apply to sources you disagree with? Because it sounds like you're just poisoning the well here.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

If it's on the Internet it must be true right?

It's a not scientific paper. It's a news article, and a dubious one. If your BS meter doesn't trip or doesn't work here I don't know what to tell you.

Yep. News article. Of course there is always reason to take almost anything from a news source with a grain of salt, but please find real evidence to support your argument or simply let it go.

 

[HyperionX]

Do you always refuse to believe anything short of a peer-reviewed paper, or does this only apply to sources you disagree with?

You should apply your common sense and try to think about the story logically. You have to assume that reporters are humans too and they cannot report everything accurately. You can believe sillier stories without much drama, or very well researched stories. But sometimes you need to be on-guard if the writer seem to be presenting an agenda and story is clearly sensational.

Honestly, does nothing in this story sounds off or strange to you? It does to me and that suggest something is wrong with it. It reminds me of the WMD story a decade ago where many reporters just repeated the official line without questioning it. It happens and you have to be aware of it.

 

[dejay]

But then you run into the plausibility of the story itself. So I am to believe that he was able to stay calm enough to be able shoot around his own daughter and hit only the bad guy, while his wife missed completely (both felt the urge to shoot simultaneously?). Even trained soldiers can't pull this shit off, never mind a father when his daughter life is at stake. I'm sorry but that can't be the true story. Maybe elements of this are true, but something has to be amiss.

Without diagrams or whatnot, nobody really knows how much of a target the intruder was presenting and how much of that target, if any, the daughter was occluding. The guy made it into the lounge room, which could suggest that the father shot him from the side or at an angle with the daughter in front of the intruder, presenting little risk to the daughter from the father. Conjecture, but it's plausible and the most likely scenario if the given account is factual.

If you've ever watched some kind of practical shooting comp, you'll see plenty of people regularly doing this at a range 20 feet, let alone 3 feet. You have no idea how much practice the father may have had.

As for the mother, the father may have told the mother to shoot at the other guy, she may have been at a trickier angle, she may have been a crap shot, she may have been more concerned with not-hitting her daughter, she may have fired to suppress or intimidate or she may have flinched and accidentally discharged when the father started shooting. Anything is possible.

You're doubting a story because it fits your view. It's ok to be cynical of the media, but you're flat out wrong about the plausibility of the story.

 

[HyperionX]

Yep. News article. Of course there is always reason to take almost anything from a news source with a grain of salt, but please find real evidence to support your argument or simply let it go.

That's basically what I'm doing: applying the grain of salt. I hope you can admit I'm not complete off-base here.

 

[HyperionX]

Without diagrams or whatnot, nobody really knows how much of a target the intruder was presenting and how much of that target, if any, the daughter was occluding. The guy made it into the lounge room, which could suggest that the father shot him from the side or at an angle with the daughter in front of the intruder, presenting little risk to the daughter from the father. Conjecture, but it's plausible and the most likely scenario if the given account is factual.

Did you even read the story? She literally had a gun to her head. Your conjecture would be an admission the story was at least partially made up.

If you've ever watched some kind of practical shooting comp, you'll see plenty of people regularly doing this at a range 20 feet, let alone 3 feet. You have no idea how much practice the father may have had.

Can you serious do that with a real human being standing in front of the target? And the target is another human being too, and probably wasn't standing perfectly still.

No warm up time, no practice shots. Just grab a gun and within seconds pull off the shot.

As for the mother, the father may have told the mother to shoot at the other guy, she may have been at a trickier angle, she may have been a crap shot, she may have been more concerned with not-hitting her daughter, she may have fired to suppress or intimidate or she may have flinched and accidentally discharged when the father started shooting. Anything is possible.

The mother missing completely is actually the most believable part of the story. I won't dispute that part.

You're doubting a story because it fits your view. It's ok to be cynical of the media, but you're flat out wrong about the plausibility of the story.

By that reasoning everyone who doubt Bush and the WMD story were just politically motivated liars. That aside, I don't think you really read that original story.

 

[dejay]

I'd also add the term "human shield" may be misleading. It conjures an image of the intruder holding the daughter around the neck, when it doesn't specifically mention that in the article. She may have been at arms length or greater in front of the intruder as they entered the house.

Did you even read the story? She literal had a gun to her head. Your conjecture would be an admission the story was at least partially made up.

Yes, I read the story. It was very light on detail - it only mentioned that at one point the daughter had a gun pointed at her head. You seem to have painted a picture that's more detailed than what the report describes.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You should apply your common sense and try to think about the story logically. You have to assume that reporters are humans too and they cannot report everything accurately. You can believe sillier stories without much drama, or very well researched stories. But sometimes you need to be on-guard if the writer seem to be presenting an agenda and story is clearly sensational.

When I see several sources saying the same thing, I'm going to assume it's reasonably accurate, especially if a more plausible explanation is not presented. Maybe they're lying and an NSA drone shot the intruders, but that doesn't seem much more likely.

Honestly, does nothing in this story sounds off or strange to you? It does to me and that suggest something is wrong with it. It reminds me of the WMD story a decade ago where many reporters just repeated the official line without questioning it. It happens and you have to be aware of it.

And what do you propose happened, then? In your desperate attempts to discredit everything you disagree with, you're completely ignoring the actual story. How did the hostage-takers end up with bullets in them if they weren't shot?

 

[HyperionX]

I'd also add the term "human shield" may be misleading. It conjures an image of the intruder holding the daughter around the neck, when it doesn't specifically mention that in the article. She may have been at arms length or greater in front of the intruder as they entered the house.

Yes, I read the story. It was very light on detail - it only mentioned that at one point the daughter had a gun pointed at her head. You seem to have painted a picture that's more detailed than what the report describes.

The phrasing of "human shield" and "gun to the head" implies exactly what your think it does. If you hadn't notice I never said he had a hand around her neck. You clearly know what those words imply and imagined that yourself. The reporter would almost certainly have to know this too. Perhaps the reporter was trying to embellish the story without outright lying given the lack of details.

Anyways, I think I've made my point here. You're also admitting things couldn't have happened like the story was implying. There must have been some distance between the two like you said.

When I see several sources saying the same thing, I'm going to assume it's reasonably accurate. Maybe they're lying and an NSA drone shot the intruders.

You would've gotten many sources for the WMD story. You still have to apply common sense to it and deduce the validity yourself.

And what do you propose happened, then? In your desperate attempts to discredit everything pro-gun, you're completely ignoring the actual story.

Aren't you ignoring the actual story yourself? Do you really think a father could accurately shoot another person holding his daughter hostage and using her as a human shield?

If you want to know what I'm thinking, I'll fully admit that there was an armed burglary, which isn't all that uncommon, but the hostage situation never happened. That's just absurd.

 

[nateeasy]

I think they should have just watched their daughter get ass blasted with a gun down her throat and nicely asked the gentlemen to stop.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You would've gotten many sources for the WMD story. You still have to apply common sense to it and deduce the validity yourself.

Yeah, these aren't comparable. There was actual evidence that the WMDs were BS, whereas your "evidence" is nothing more than speculation and arguments from nonbelief.

Aren't you ignoring the actual story yourself? Do you really think a father could accurately shoot another person holding his daughter hostage and using her as a human shield?

Yes.

If you want to know what I'm thinking, I'll fully admit that there was an armed burglary, which isn't all that uncommon, but the hostage situation never happened. That's just absurd.

You're accusing the family of lying? C'mon, man.

This discussion will go nowhere if you can't provide any evidence. If you're just going to sit here and speculate away witness testimony, there's no point in even continuing.

 

[HyperionX]

Yeah, these aren't comparable. There was actual evidence that the WMDs were BS, whereas your "evidence" is nothing more than speculation and arguments from nonbelief.

It's too small of a story for contradicting evidence to appear. At least not yet. It only happened a few days ago.

Yes.

Not much point in continuing this discussion if you believe that. You clearly have your mind made up.

You're accusing the family of lying? C'mon, man.

34 year old father with a 17 year daughter? Not out of the question that they are lying.

This discussion will go nowhere if you can't provide any evidence. If you're just going to sit here and speculate away witness testimony, there's no point in even continuing.

And if you are completely unwilling to admit to the absurdity of the story, then there's nothing left to discuss.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

It's too small of a story for contradicting evidence to appear. At least not yet. It only happened a few days ago.

Then maybe you should wait before jumping to conclusions?

34 year old father with a 17 year daughter? Not out of the question that they are lying.

It's not out of the question that aliens did it, either. Provide evidence.

And if you are completely unwilling to admit to the absurdity of the story, then there's nothing left to discuss.

Glad to see we've reached an agreement. Feel free to come back when you're able to have a real discussion.

 

[HyperionX]

Then maybe you should wait before jumping to conclusions?

I'm willing to wait too, assuming this ever gets re-reported with more evidence. ATM though, I think it's not true or only partially true.

It's not out of the question that aliens did it, either. Provide evidence.

Use your own common sense for once. You clearly aren't even trying and just trying to sidetrack the issue.

Glad to see we've reached an agreement. Feel free to come back when you're able to have a real discussion.

Same to you. Goodbye.

 

[dejay]

You're also admitting things couldn't have happened like the story was implying.

I'm really not. Now you're twisting my words now to suit your view.

I'm saying that we don't know how it went down, yet you seem to think any situation that fits the very vague report would be implausible. Shooting someone at close range isn't that hard - the fact that it happens so often should attest to that. You don't have to be a trained soldier to automatically shoot at something; just repeating an action a thousand times makes you proficient at it, like driving. I'm not saying it went down exactly like that, but I'm saying it's plausible that the guy walked into the house and as soon as the dad saw him come around the corner he pulled the trigger with the sights roughly pointed at where he wanted the bullet to go.

Believe or not, there are people who are cool (or wreckless) enough under pressure to pull it off, even with a daughter's life on the line. Honestly, I don't think I'd be able to do it, at least with my limited experience, but I know people who could. We don't know anything about this guy and probably won't until the trial of the accomplice.

 

[werks]

Its the same source being re-reported over and over again by different media groups. It's not like every group did their own investigative report.

And I never claimed it's completely made up, rather it has been exaggerated to sell a story. It would not surprise me if the family was never in any danger. Certainly, the action movie part of the story falls short of plausibility.

The police report is lying too?

And those WMDs are still hiding in some bunker in Syria right?

Sorry, reality doesn't work like that. It's more likely the story was a huge exaggeration than real.

You are projecting your own bias, this is not a political issue but you are trying to make it one.

To further my point, the actually statistics regarding "home invasion" is pretty small:

http://www.thenation.com/article/171879/we-fear-each-other-when-guns-themselves-are-real-danger#



Number suggests the family probably was not in any danger.

Do you have any real world experience with statistics?

One of the criminals had prior shooting arrest, show me statistics of prior violent offenders that shot somebody and the statistical chances of them not shooting someone again during a violent home invasion.

Yes. Math doesn't change just because you're using an appeal to emotion.

Your math suck, go back and take some statistics classes that teach you how to properly use statistics. One of the home invaders had a prior murder arrest, your statistics doesn't account for that and is meaningless.

If it's on the Internet it must be true right?

It's a not scientific paper. It's a news article, and a dubious one. If your BS meter doesn't trip or doesn't work here I don't know what to tell you.

And you are smarter then the police, maybe lookup how forensics work?

34 year old father with a 17 year daughter? Not out of the question that they are lying.

So statistically, having a kid at 17 makes you a liar... to the police... so you can bring murder charges on yourself? Got any statistics to prove that?

Your judgement is clouded and you have no idea how to apply statistics, go home.

 

[HyperionX]

I'm really not. Now you're twisting my words now to suit your view.

I'm saying that we don't know how it went down, yet you seem to think any situation that fits the very vague report would be implausible.

Now you're twisting my words.

Shooting someone at close range isn't that hard - the fact that it happens so often should attest to that. You don't have to be a trained soldier to automatically shoot at something; just repeating an action a thousand times makes you proficient at it, like driving. I'm not saying it went down exactly like that, but I'm saying it's plausible that the guy walked into the house and as soon as the dad saw him come around the corner he pulled the trigger with the sights roughly pointed at where he wanted the bullet to go.

Believe or not, there are people who are cool (or wreckless) enough under pressure to pull it off, even with a daughter's life on the line. Honestly, I don't think I'd be able to do it, at least with my limited experience, but I know people who could. We don't know anything about this guy and probably won't until the trial of the accomplice.

Again, I'm claiming the report is embellished or a half-truth. I never said it had to be completely false. In fact if it happened like you described you're basically admitting the original story was embellished. Shooting a person with some distance between them is quite a difference after all, and implies a much lower threat level.

Look, you're finding excuses for something you admit you probably couldn't do yourself. We have to wait and see if this really pans out but there's simply no way it happened exactly like the story claimed it did.

The police report is lying too?

Did the police report really mirror the original story exactly? I haven't seen it so you'll have to show me.

You are projecting your own bias, this is not a political issue but you are trying to make it one.

The original report was clearly trying to politicize the issue and projecting his own bias. It's already trying to be political and that's one more reason why its bullshit.

I'm not going to quote the rest since that's just a rehash of other conversations. You're basically trying to nitpick the argument down when I'm trying to convey that the story as told is absurd. It was a response to someone admitting it reads like NRA fan-fiction, not a real story.

 

[werks]

Now you're twisting my words.



Again, I'm claiming the report is embellished or a half-truth. I never said it had to be completely false. In fact if it happened like you described you're basically admitting the original story was embellished. Shooting a person with some distance between them is quite a difference after all, and implies a much lower threat level.

Look, you're finding excuses for something you admit you probably couldn't do yourself. We have to wait and see if this really pans out but there's simply no way it happened exactly like the story claimed it did.



Did the police report really mirror the original story exactly? I haven't seen it so you'll have to show me.



The original report clearly was trying to politicize the issue and project his bias. It's already trying to be political and that's one more reason why its bullshit.

I'm not going to quote the rest since that's just a rehash of other conversations. You're basically trying to nitpick the argument down when I'm trying to convey that the story as told is absurd. It was a response to someone admitting it reads like NRA fan-fiction, not a real story.

So basically since your worldview doesn't align with a widely reported news story, its false. Not a single reporter fact checked including the local news reports, no one contacted the police department, nothing. Man, you must be the smartest man in the world to figure it out and everyone else is a complete fucking idiot.

I know why you won't quote the rest of the post. I didn't nitpick arguments that tried to convey the news report as absurd. I asked you to justify your bullshit statistics.

I bolded the parts on statistics because they are bullshit. You won't address then because you are mentally incapable of admitting that you are wrong and you don't have any real way to defend your self.

 

[HyperionX]

So basically since your worldview doesn't align with a widely reported news story, its false. Not a single reporter fact checked including the local news reports, no one contacted the police department, nothing. Man, you must be the smartest man in the world to figure it out and everyone else is a complete fucking idiot.

I know why you won't quote the rest of the post. I didn't nitpick arguments that tried to convey the news report as absurd. I asked you to justify your bullshit statistics.

I bolded the parts on statistics because they are bullshit. You won't address then because you are mentally incapable of admitting that you are wrong and you don't have any real way to defend your bullshit.

The only thing that is bullshit is the story. If you approach the story honestly you should have realized this. If you can't accept something is wrong, there is no point in talking to you. Perhaps it is your world view that can't allow you to accept something is wrong, not mine.

Statistics basically state that overall burglaries rarely turn deadly and that the definition of violence is incredibly broad. I already admitted that this may not be a particularly ideal case to apply statistics, since there are unusual circumstances, but for the rest us and burglaries in general they will. There's not much else there so I skipped it. You're still basically try distract from the problem of the absurdity of the story itself.

 

[werks]

The only thing that is bullshit is the story. If you approach the story honestly you should have realized this. If you can't accept something is wrong, there is no point in talking to you. Perhaps it is your world view that can't allow you to accept something is wrong, not mine.

Statistics basically state that overall burglaries rarely turn deadly and that the definition of violence is incredibly broad. I already admitted that this may not be a particularly ideal case to apply statistics, since there are unusual circumstances, but for the rest us and burglaries in general they will. There's not much else there so I skipped it. You're still basically try distract from the problem of the absurdity of the story itself.

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your fantasy. Multiple news organizations reported the story and the police were involved. You have zero evidence other that your gut feeling, which makes all this talk of statistics and math even more hilarious.

It's like arguing with a creationist or a 9/11 truther. Everyone else is wrong cause I believe something else.