Time to call the police?

[Coito ergo sum]

No. It doesn't. All an isolated incident can do is add to circumstantial evidence. An isolated example can disprove a proposed general case but it can never, by itself, prove a general case.

Your cognitive bias is showing, Seth.

An isolated event is direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence. It is evidence directly related to a fact in dispute. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which a fact can be inferred. As you said, you can't logically infer the general proposition from a single anecdote, so it is not circumstantial evidence. It is direct evidence that sometimes guns can be used in self defense, without even being fired.

[Coito ergo sum]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the government were to disarm the hijackers, she wouldn't need a gun either.

That isn't correct, because merely not having a gun doesn't mean that a woman is physically able to fend off four attackers or robbers. The gun, as they used to call the Colt 45, is a "great equalizer."

[Coito ergo sum]

You make guns illegal, and you prosecute those that disobey the law.
That is how it works in civilised countries.

Which are the civilized countries?

[Coito ergo sum]

You seem to be missing the point. I could provide a single anecdote where a person pulling a gun got shot and killed. But a single anecdotal point by itself doesn't an argument make.

That being said, with every such incident, people make such arguments.

[Coito ergo sum]

fucking whacked society.....collective gun worshipping idjits the lot.

meanwhile the banks and medical establishment et al rob you fucking blind.......wake up.

Mind your own piece of shit sorry excuse for a country.

[Seth]

Yes, and by logical extension the same applies to other similar events and other persons.

I didn't say it proved the general case.

Did you actually post those two stattements one after the other? Yep. You did.

And still I did not say that a single event proved the general case. I said that by logical extension the utility of a handgun demonstrated in one instance shows that a handgun may be of utility in another case. The "general case" inherent in that statement is the general case that handguns are useful tools of self defense. I didn't make the claim that they are a panacea for self defense in EVERY case, which is what you seem to be inferring.

Making a general claim from an isolated incident is a major logical fallacy.

Depends on the nature of the claim.

No. It doesn't.

Yes, it does.

All an isolated incident can do is add to circumstantial evidence. An isolated example can disprove a proposed general case but it can never, by itself, prove a general case.

It can, and in this case does. The problem is you don't understand which "general case" is being addressed by the claim.

Your cognitive bias is showing, Seth.

Er, no, that's YOUR cognitive bias that's showing.

The "general case" involved is the utility or non-utility of a handgun as a weapon of effective self-defense. This single incident demonstrates without any question that a handgun IS an effective weapon of self-defense, which refutes BG's common claim that handguns are "useless" for self-defense.

Whether it is an effective weapon of self-defense in EVERY situation is another question entirely.

[Seth]

That the possession and proper use of a handgun has important utility for self defense of course.

You seem to be missing the point. I could provide a single anecdote where a person pulling a gun got shot and killed. But a single anecdotal point by itself doesn't an argument make.

No, you seem to be missing the point. A single anecdote of the nature you state would prove the general case, you just have to know which general case it's proving. In your case it would be the general case "sometimes pulling a gun against an armed opponent will get you shot and killed."

That does not disprove my claim that a handgun has utility as a weapon of self-defense. Any single instance of any person anywhere ever using a handgun effectively for self-defense proves that general claim. It's just like hammering in a nail with a hammer proves the general case that claims that hammers have utility as nail-striking tools.

Conversely, you cannot, as a result of this single report, accurately claim that handguns do NOT have utility as a weapon of self-defense. You might claim that a particular handgun in a particular incident did not prove to have utility as a weapon of self-defense, or even that the presence of the handgun was negatively influential in terms of self-defense, but those are different general claims.

It is a fact that handguns have utility as weapons of self-defense. The instant example proves that claim beyond any question.

All the rest is surplusage.

[Collector1337]

You make guns illegal, and you prosecute those that disobey the law.
That is how it works in civilised countries.

You know that's idiotic, right?


Oh, and yet more snobbery. The same shit over and over again. "Civilized." Civilized my fucking ass. That's such a joke, it's pathetic.

[Collector1337]

It is direct evidence that sometimes guns can be used in self defense, without even being fired.

Which is exactly what happens about 99.99% of the time.

[Collector1337]

It worked this time...

Risky, though; if the gun wielding guy had been more determined, she could have been shot...

Or she could have been shot just for not moving fast enough, or because the carjackers didn't want to be identified, or she could have been kidnapped, serial raped and murdered.

Lot's of "could haves" there. But one thing we know for sure is that she successfully used a handgun to defend herself, which she could not have done if she had been disarmed by her government.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if the government were to disarm the hijackers, she wouldn't need a gun either.

That isn't correct, because merely not having a gun doesn't mean that a woman is physically able to fend off four attackers or robbers. The gun, as they used to call the Colt 45, is a "great equalizer."

[Collector1337]

You make guns illegal, and you prosecute those that disobey the law.
That is how it works in civilised countries.

Which are the civilized countries?

I am also curious.

[rainbow]

You make guns illegal, and you prosecute those that disobey the law.
That is how it works in civilised countries.

Which are the civilized countries?

I am also curious.

Countries where citizens can rely on the police for protection, instead of having to carry their own guns.

Why do I need to state the obvious?

[Seth]

You make guns illegal, and you prosecute those that disobey the law.
That is how it works in civilised countries.

Which are the civilized countries?

I am also curious.

Countries where citizens can rely on the police for protection, instead of having to carry their own guns.

Why do I need to state the obvious?

Because there is no such country anywhere on the face of the earth, nor has there ever been, nor, hopefully, will there ever be.

You just don't understand the concept of the police. They are NOT there to protect you against any particular criminal. That's not their function or their duty. Never has been. In order for the police to protect every single person in a society against criminal attack the society would have to be a literal police state where half the population guarded the other half 24/7. That's just ridiculous.

The police are there to GENERALLY deter crime when and where they can, and they are mostly there to respond to crimes that have occurred, investigate and attempt to bring the perpetrator to justice.

When the mugger steps out from behind the bush as you walk down the darkened street, the police will not be there to protect you.

The only person who is responsible for YOUR safety in the immediate term is YOU.

Thus the necessity for everyone to be given the free choice of carrying or not carrying arms that are effective for self-defense.

[rainbow]

So then explain why in Japan, where a citizen can't easily own a gun, why there isn't a huge amount of mugging.

[Tyrannical]

So then explain why in Japan, where a citizen can't easily own a gun, why there isn't a huge amount of mugging.

Because Japan is almost 100% Japanese. A racially and culturally homogenous society is a peaceful society, generally speaking.