Echoes of Trayvon Martin in Wisconsin shooting

[goalie]

How quickly is forgot, the Krueger family near Waseca a few years back.

Time for some logic 101:

First off, there are a lot of logical fallacies. The above is a classic one. It is called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The person using the fallacy is trying to infer that the scenario/crux of the debate/whatever, is a simple A or B scenario, and if you don't agree with that person's view, let's call that "A," then you must hold view "B" View "B" is often an extreme view.

In this instance, the inferred idea that the people who are advocating something other than just shooting anyone you find in your house, (whether they broke in, came through an unlocked door, flew down the chimney, or teleported) ........before actually identifying that said person or persons are actually a threat to you and your family, have forgotten about the Krueger family is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

I personally disagree with the "anyone in my house is automatically a threat" line of thinking shown by some posters in this thread. I also have not forgotten the Krueger family.

[Heffay]

Time for some logic 101:

First off, there are a lot of logical fallacies. The above is a classic one. It is called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The person using the fallacy is trying to infer that the scenario/crux of the debate/whatever, is a simple A or B scenario, and if you don't agree with that person's view, let's call that "A," then you must hold view "B" View "B" is often an extreme view.

In this instance, the inferred idea that the people who are advocating something other than just shooting anyone you find in your house, (whether they broke in, came through an unlocked door, flew down the chimney, or teleported) ........before actually identifying that said person or persons are actually a threat to you and your family, have forgotten about the Krueger family is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

I personally disagree with the "anyone in my house is automatically a threat" line of thinking shown by some posters in this thread. I also have not forgotten the Krueger family.

Well lookee here who has all dem fancy book-lernin and fancy 2 bit words! Up here all showin off your fancy edumacation in a fancy you-ni-verrrr-city, eh? Well by golly, we don't like yer kind around here! I'll give you a logical fallimacywhatchmacallit to your FACE!

[justaguy]

Time for some logic 101:

First off, there are a lot of logical fallacies. The above is a classic one. It is called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The person using the fallacy is trying to infer that the scenario/crux of the debate/whatever, is a simple A or B scenario, and if you don't agree with that person's view, let's call that "A," then you must hold view "B" View "B" is often an extreme view.

In this instance, the inferred idea that the people who are advocating something other than just shooting anyone you find in your house, (whether they broke in, came through an unlocked door, flew down the chimney, or teleported) ........before actually identifying that said person or persons are actually a threat to you and your family, have forgotten about the Krueger family is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

I personally disagree with the "anyone in my house is automatically a threat" line of thinking shown by some posters in this thread. I also have not forgotten the Krueger family.

Well lookee here who has all dem fancy book-lernin and fancy 2 bit words! Up here all showin off your fancy edumacation in a fancy you-ni-verrrr-city, eh? Well by golly, we don't like yer kind around here! I'll give you a logical fallimacywhatchmacallit to your FACE!

A real man would invite him over to his house and then shoot him. Claiming he was breaking in and had it coming.

[tazdevil]

How quickly is forgot, the Krueger family near Waseca a few years back.

Time for some logic 101:

First off, there are a lot of logical fallacies. The above is a classic one. It is called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The person using the fallacy is trying to infer that the scenario/crux of the debate/whatever, is a simple A or B scenario, and if you don't agree with that person's view, let's call that "A," then you must hold view "B" View "B" is often an extreme view.

In this instance, the inferred idea that the people who are advocating something other than just shooting anyone you find in your house, (whether they broke in, came through an unlocked door, flew down the chimney, or teleported) ........before actually identifying that said person or persons are actually a threat to you and your family, have forgotten about the Krueger family is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

I personally disagree with the "anyone in my house is automatically a threat" line of thinking shown by some posters in this thread. I also have not forgotten the Krueger family.

So in the scenario where your home and someone breaks in, how would you react?

[tazdevil]

Maybe you will lobby for laws that will allow you to shoot anyone who enters your abode. The point is the present laws are not necessarily in your favor to do so now.

I'm not looking for permission/laws to shoot "anyone" that enters my abode. But someone who breaks in has made their choice by breaking in. When we excuse criminal behavior with the "they had no ill will" or "they never had a chance growing up" crap, we just further enable and protect the criminal element, instead of innocent victims. As far as lobbying, I have wrote a few letters, called many in congress.

Let's just calm down here and all take a step back.

Why, because the holes in your arguments are getting too big?

I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and calm down.

Shoot first is never the answer.

Ok, then I'll let you ask Mr/Mrs. 2am break in person (had to keep that vague, we aren't going to assume any race, or sex, or even planet they're from) what their intentions are. Me, I'll be on with 911 and arming at the same time. When the shotgun makes its distinctive noise, and I yell to leave or prepare for consequences, that's all the time they get. My families safety comes before some idiot that I don't know what their intentions are with breaking in my house.

[goalie]

So in the scenario where your home and someone breaks in, how would you react?

It really depends on the situation. I don't see any benefit of going to an on-line forum and typing in what I would do, although I do see a ton of (potential) negatives to doing so.

This thread does remind me of a saying though: "If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

[jdege]

I personally disagree with the "anyone in my house is automatically a threat" line of thinking shown by some posters in this thread.

Anyone who has entered my house without the permission of someone in the household is automatically a cause for increased concern and alertness.

If I'm sitting at my desk, and I see you walking down the sidewalk, I'll pay no attention to you at all. If I see you in my flowerbed, I'll investigate. If I see you climbing in a window or walking in a door, I'll confront you.

It may be that you pose no threat, and it may be that you have a perfectly legitimate reason for being there. But the presumption is to the contrary. I won't shoot you, if you pose no threat, but you'll have to demonstrate to me that you pose no threat.

[tman]

Ok, then I'll let you ask Mr/Mrs. 2am break in person (had to keep that vague, we aren't going to assume any race, or sex, or even planet they're from) what their intentions are. Me, I'll be on with 911 and arming at the same time. When the shotgun makes its distinctive noise, and I yell to leave or prepare for consequences, that's all the time they get. My families safety comes before some idiot that I don't know what their intentions are with breaking in my house.

There's nothing insane with being prepared to defend your home / loved ones against an intruder.

It's the actual act that causes concern. I would suggest defending it within the confines of the the law. Otherwise, your kids may grow up and only see you on "visisting days."

[Heffay]

Ok, then I'll let you ask Mr/Mrs. 2am break in person (had to keep that vague, we aren't going to assume any race, or sex, or even planet they're from) what their intentions are. Me, I'll be on with 911 and arming at the same time. When the shotgun makes its distinctive noise, and I yell to leave or prepare for consequences, that's all the time they get. My families safety comes before some idiot that I don't know what their intentions are with breaking in my house.

There's nothing insane with being prepared to defend your home / loved ones against an intruder.

It's the actual act that causes concern. I would suggest defending it within the confines of the the law. Otherwise, your kids may grow up and only see you on "visisting days."

I think they intend to think about their actions carefully, but they don't want to seem like giant ******* on the internet. Therefore they beat their chest, fling a little poo, and then talk about how they ain't gonna back down, ya hear!?

[justaguy]

Ok, then I'll let you ask Mr/Mrs. 2am break in person (had to keep that vague, we aren't going to assume any race, or sex, or even planet they're from) what their intentions are. Me, I'll be on with 911 and arming at the same time. When the shotgun makes its distinctive noise, and I yell to leave or prepare for consequences, that's all the time they get. My families safety comes before some idiot that I don't know what their intentions are with breaking in my house.

There's nothing insane with being prepared to defend your home / loved ones against an intruder.

It's the actual act that causes concern. I would suggest defending it within the confines of the the law. Otherwise, your kids may grow up and only see you on "visisting days."

I think they intend to think about their actions carefully, but they don't want to seem like giant ******* on the internet. Therefore they beat their chest, fling a little poo, and then talk about how they ain't gonna back down, ya hear!?

Or maybe they are the real deal.

[CarryCauseICan]

We just won't know til it happens now will we. I pray to God I'll never have to find out!

[goalie]

Or maybe they are the real deal.

I'm thinking this is it. Stone cold killers with mad ninja skillz on MGT keeping it real.

[justaguy]

Or maybe they are the real deal.

I'm thinking this is it. Stone cold killers with mad ninja skillz on MGT keeping it real.

That is the definition of MGT forum members.

But dont show any pictures/video of bad gun handling, it makes them nervous.

[CarryCauseICan]

More karate, than ninja!

[gyrfalcon]

I personally disagree with the "anyone in my house is automatically a threat" line of thinking shown by some posters in this thread. I also have not forgotten the Krueger family.

The military uses that line of thinking quite often. If anyone is found in a certain area they're automatically assumed to be a threat unless proven otherwise.