Actually, I rely on valid statistical data, which covers trends involving large numbers. Anecdotes are like the fundamentalist who says prayer works because he knows someone who prayed and got what he prayed for.Seth wrote:
General principle: "Anyone who ignores validated examples of pertinent data because it defies his myopic preconceptions is an idiot."
But if they are collected without any sample bias, and analysed correctly, they provide a valid summary of a broad sample of facts/opinions.FBM wrote:Statistics are simply collected anecdotes.
Um, then they are not anecdotes, they are data points taken from police reports and news media. Just because you don't believe that they are true doesn't mean that they are not valid data points. You have been entirely unable to challenge a single example given for its veracity, and therefore you must accept the reports as valid and therefore a data point in favor of the fact that firearms are frequently used for lawful self defense in the US.JimC wrote:But if they are collected without any sample bias, and analysed correctly, they provide a valid summary of a broad sample of facts/opinions.FBM wrote:Statistics are simply collected anecdotes.
Anecdotes, notoriously, are chosen, consciously or not, to validate the opinion of the person who tells them...
Seth wrote: Just because you don't believe that they are true doesn't mean that they are not valid data points.
I like that!Blind groper wrote: As I said before, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Not when you start adding them up, which is what I'm doing by way of example that completely refutes your idiotic notion that firearms are seldom used for lawful self defense. These examples are just the tiniest fraction of what happens every day that are reported in local news media, but not nationally. And then there's all the thwarted and prevented crimes that never get reported that happen even though you don't believe it.Blind groper wrote:Seth wrote: Just because you don't believe that they are true doesn't mean that they are not valid data points.
I don't believe anyone has claimed your anecdotes are not true. However, individual anecdotes are a lousy way of trying to demonstrate wider generalised principles.
Strawman. You have used the term "all prayers" which renders your argument entirely invalid. No one, not even "religious nutters" claim that ALL prayers come true.As I said before, the religious nutter who claims one of his prayers came true, may not be lying. But to claim the general principle that all prayers come true because one did, is ludicrous. In fact, with a little research, I am sure the religious nut cases could come up with a thousand quite truthful anecdotes about prayers coming true. Of course, they are ignoring the 100,000 cases where the opposite happened.
Complete non sequitur. If a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal it precisely proves that citizens carrying guns are a good thing. This does not mean that it's a perfect good, or that there are not other important considerations in who exactly carries a gun, but to claim that a citizen who defends himself against a criminal is not a good thing is utter nonsense. Does this mean that all citizens are qualified to carry guns? Of course not. But since the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege extended by the government, the presumption is that unless and until an individual demonstrates that he is NOT qualified to carry a guy, he may do so in a peaceable fashion and use it safely and appropriately. If he fails in that duty, his right to carry a gun may be forfeited, but the idea that because some citizen somewhere may misuse a gun it is therefore reasonable to bar all citizens from having guns is the height of illogic and unreason.in the same way, if a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal, that does not demonstrate that citizens carrying guns are a good thing, any more than the prayer example is valid.
And that evidence exists. You just deny the data. But your denial isn't authoritative, and neither is your putative source.You need much stronger evidence than a few anecdotes in order to make your case.
Facts are not anecdotes, they are data points.As I said before, the plural of anecdote is not data.
ot Topics:
Gun Control
TheBlaze TV
Sequestration
Take Action
Crime
Thief Shot and Killed With AR-15 After Burglarizing Oregon Home — But You Won’t Believe How It Happened
Mar. 4, 2013 5:15pm Jason Howerton
Thief Shot and Killed After Burglarizing at Least Two Oregon Homes But You Wont Believe How It Happened
MIAMI, FL – DECEMBER 18: In this photo illustration a Rock River Arms AR-15 rifle is seen on December 18, 2012 in Miami, Florida. Credit: Getty Images
Police in Polk County, Ore. found a suspected burglar dead inside a stolen truck Sunday morning. They say he burglarized a home twice the night before, stealing several items, including two guns.
In a statement, investigators said 19-year-old Genaro Hernandez Mendoza of West Salem, Ore. was heading to his family’s farm when he broke into a home on Independence Highway and stole several items. He then returned to the farm and hid the stolen items behind a barn.
Police say he then stole a pickup truck and returned to the same home he had already burglarized to steal more items, including a shotgun and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
Detective John Williams says investigators found a shotgun and the rifle Sunday morning, side by side on the passenger-side floorboard of a stolen farm truck, barrels pointed at the driver.
Williams says it appears that a lever on the shotgun got into the trigger guard of the rifle. When the truck hit a bump in the road, the rifle fired once, striking and killing Mendoza in a freak accident.
However, Sheriff Bob Wolfe said police are still investigating the incident to make sure no other parties were involved in the burglary. He added that it seemed clear that Mendoza’s death was accidental and the result of failing to safely store the weapons he stole.
If I carry an epipen and inject its adrenalin into a person having an anaphylatic reaction to something, I will very likely save his life. That does not mean that carrying an epipen and jabbing people who appear to be in trouble is a good thing. For every life I save, I would kill 20.Seth wrote: If a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal it precisely proves that citizens carrying guns are a good thing.
That's because you'd be an idiot to do so. But, if you properly diagnose the condition as anaphylaxis, then your epipen will indeed save a life and be a good thing. Interesting point, I have three of them, they reside in my three trauma kits, one for each vehicle, for precisely the reason you state; somebody else might need me to save their life. That's the same reason (one of them) that I carry a gun. And the fact is that your epipen, according to your idiotic logic, should be banned entirely for everyone simply because some idiot carrying one insists on injecting people without justification.Blind groper wrote:If I carry an epipen and inject its adrenalin into a person having an anaphylatic reaction to something, I will very likely save his life. That does not mean that carrying an epipen and jabbing people who appear to be in trouble is a good thing. For every life I save, I would kill 20.Seth wrote: If a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal it precisely proves that citizens carrying guns are a good thing.
In the same way, we know from statistics that having a gun available increases a woman's risk of being murdered (main culprit - the male partner) three fold.
Except that it's 800,000 (DOJ) to 2.5 million (Kleck, Lott et al) times each year that firearms are used defensively against crime, which massively outweighs the small number of people who are killed by firearms.That is thousands of extra murders from having a gun around - mainly hand guns. If a couple dozen lives are saved each year from people carrying guns, that is massively outweighed by the thousands of people who die because those guns are available.
But in this case the reports are merely the tip of the iceberg of validated evidence, which floats in an ocean of unreported DGUs, which justify the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right by US citizens.That is why anecdotes are so misleading. Anecdotes so often describe exceptions to general rules.
This is why law-abiding citizens are permitted to act on reasonable inferences rather than having to wait for the bad guy to take the first shot.Crime
Robber Attempts to Hold Up Bank With Fake Plastic Gun, Gets Shot in the Face With Very Real .357 Magnum
Mar. 4, 2013 10:00pm Jason Howerton
Armed with a realistic plastic replica handgun, a 34-year-old man on Friday attempted to rob a bank in Trimble, Mo., according to police. Unfortunately for the robber, one of the bank’s employees was able to retrieve a very real Smith and Wesson .357 revolver and shoot the suspect in the face, effectively ending the robbery attempt.
The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri said Monday that Michael Oliva has been charged in federal court in connection with the attempted bank robbery and leading police on a high-speed chase. Oliva remains hospitalized and is in federal custody pending a detention hearing, WDAF-TV reports.
WDAF-TV has more details about the robbery based on court documents:
According to an affidavit filed in support of Monday’s criminal complaint, Oliva entered First Security Bank, 202 U.S. Hwy. 169, Trimble, at about 1:25 p.m. Friday, March 1.
Oliva allegedly pulled on a black mask, pointed what appeared to be a handgun, but was later found to be a realistic plastic replica, at a bank employee and ordered her to give him the money in her teller drawer.
The employee instead dropped to the floor behind the teller stations and began crawling toward another bank employee, shouting for help. As she was crawling, the affidavit says, she saw Oliva lean over the teller station and point his handgun at her. She grabbed a plastic trash can and tossed it over the teller counter toward Oliva; however, Oliva had moved around the end of the teller stations and was directly behind her.
The second bank employee, who was in an office, heard the shouts for help. He saw Oliva pointing a handgun at the first bank employee, the affidavit says, and retrieved a Smith & Wesson .357 revolver. He fired two rounds at Oliva. The first shot struck Oliva in the jaw, according to the affidavit, and he turned and started toward the bank’s front doors.
No money was taken during the attempted robbery.
The worker who fired the shots is not expected to face charges. He is reportedly a legal concealed carry permit holder.
“Anybody that does any kind of crime, breaks into houses or goes and robs anybody they basically they’re taking their own life on the line,” said Chief Larry Fish, Trimble Police Chief.
A bank employee told police she saw the robber staggering behind a building after the robbery attempt. Police said the man left a significant blood trail for about 150-200 feet leading to a handicapped parking space.
Trimble police officers located Oliva’s Dodge Stratus and pursued him at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour, according to the affidavit. Police used spike strips to stop the vehicle.
After police officers approached the vehicle, Oliva emerged from the car and reportedly asked, “You guys going to let me die?”
Police said Oliva seemed to have suffered a gun shot to the jaw or chin and there was a lot of blood on him and his vehicle.
Government
Colorado Dem to Rape Survivor: A Gun Wouldn’t Have Helped You Against Rapist Because ‘Statistics Are Not on Your Side’
Mar. 5, 2013 4:29am Jason Howerton
Rape survivor Amanda Collins bravely spoke about her horrific attack during a Monday legislative hearing concerning Colorado’s proposed ban on concealed firearms on college campuses. She explained how she wished she would’ve had a firearm to defend herself from her rapist, which could have possibly prevented the attack from occurring.
After calling her story “unsettling,” Democratic state Sen. Evie Hudak quickly went after Collins, saying “actually, statistics are not on your side, even if you had a gun.”
“You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experienced in Tae Kwon Do, and yet because this individual was so large, was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you,” she added.
Hudak claimed that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.
“Respectfully senator, you weren’t there,” Collins said before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. “Had I been carrying concealed, he wouldn’t have known I had my weapon; and I was there. I know without a doubt in my mind at some point I would’ve been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.”
Republican state Sen. Ted Harvey told Collins that the point of Colorado’s proposed ban on firearms on campus is to make sure people aren’t “uncomfortable.”
“How does rendering me defenseless protect you against violent crime?” Collins asked.
“What we are trying to do here tonight is not to protect ourselves from violent crime. What we are trying to do here tonight is prevent students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself,” Harvey said.
“Every witness that has come up here tonight, they want to feel unintimidated and feel free to debate freely on a college campus. And having you have the right to defend yourself against a violent attacker weighs more for them than for you and the right to self-defense. And for that, I apologize,” he added.
Always handy with the facts, radio host Dana Loesch provides some data on firearms and self-defense:
According to the FBI, Americans use firearms in self defense 2.1 million times annually. Cases where firearms are used criminally amount to 579,000. Seventy percent of those cases are carried out by criminal repeat offenders. Barrett and Democrats would seek to punish those protecting themselves rather than the criminals.
There is a war on women, and it’s coming from the left to turn women into victims. Note this (bold my emphasis):
In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen even wound his attacker.
Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
Further, Loesch notes that one in four collegiate women report experiences that fit the legal definition of rape and one in five woman are raped during their college years.
“See, Amanda Collins was overpowered, disarmed, and left to be a victim. By Nevada lawmakers. Not her rapist. Just what Hudak said would happen, though not exactly,” Loesch writes.
Democrats were apparently unconvinced by Collins’ testimony and the Judiciary Committee approved the campus concealed carry ban along with six other gun control proposals. All seven gun control bills are scheduled to be debated on the Colorado Senate floor on Friday. Some of the other bills included, “assault weapons liability” (making “assault weapons” manufacturers and retailers responsible for crimes), a high-capacity magazine ban, required background check fees, gun restrictions for domestic violence offenders and universal background checks.
Colorado is the same state where lawmakers have proposed using ballpoint pens, rape whistles and safe zones as an alternative to people defending themselves with a gun. Additionally, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs advised women to urinate and vomit on an attacker.
Seth wrote:That's because you'd be an idiot to do so. But, if you properly diagnose the condition as anaphylaxis, then your epipen will indeed save a life and be a good thing. Interesting point, I have three of them, they reside in my three trauma kits, one for each vehicle, for precisely the reason you state; somebody else might need me to save their life. That's the same reason (one of them) that I carry a gun. And the fact is that your epipen, according to your idiotic logic, should be banned entirely for everyone simply because some idiot carrying one insists on injecting people without justification.Blind groper wrote:If I carry an epipen and inject its adrenalin into a person having an anaphylatic reaction to something, I will very likely save his life. That does not mean that carrying an epipen and jabbing people who appear to be in trouble is a good thing. For every life I save, I would kill 20.Seth wrote: If a citizen carrying a gun shoots a criminal it precisely proves that citizens carrying guns are a good thing.
Your simile is stupid because people who lawfully carry firearms don't just go around shooting people on scanty evidence that they are justified in doing so. The facts show that armed citizens are eleven times LESS likely to use deadly force in a situation where it is authorized than police officers.
Your simile is also stupid because if your child has a known allergy to peanuts but you don't have an epipen because it's been denied to you by government on the idiotic premise that somebody, somewhere, sometime might misuse it and harm someone, your child is going to die needlessly. When it comes to violent criminal attacks, it's not a matter of medical diagnosis, it's obvious on the face of things that an unlawful attack is taking place. If that attack gives rise to the requisite mens rea in the victim, or another person, that justifies the use of lethal force, then it's not a "mistake" to use deadly force.
Likewise, if I'm denied the ability to carry a handgun, in the unlikely (but possible) event that I or another person is violently attacked in a manner that justifies the use of deadly force in self defense (which means axiomatically that the attack itself poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the victim), I will be unable to respond effectively to the attack and perhaps save a life.In the same way, we know from statistics that having a gun available increases a woman's risk of being murdered (main culprit - the male partner) three fold.
Which is a very good reason for women to carry guns.
Except that it's 800,000 (DOJ) to 2.5 million (Kleck, Lott et al) times each year that firearms are used defensively against crime, which massively outweighs the small number of people who are killed by firearms.That is thousands of extra murders from having a gun around - mainly hand guns. If a couple dozen lives are saved each year from people carrying guns, that is massively outweighed by the thousands of people who die because those guns are available.
But in this case the reports are merely the tip of the iceberg of validated evidence, which floats in an ocean of unreported DGUs, which justify the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right by US citizens.That is why anecdotes are so misleading. Anecdotes so often describe exceptions to general rules.
Just because you've drunk the hoplophobe anti-gun Kool-Aid doesn't mean you're correct, just gullible.
was excellent. 
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests