Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Seth]

More data...

Fearless Mom Ignores Gun-Wielding Home Intruder, Retrieves Her Shotgun and Fires Three Blasts
Mar. 5, 2013 7:00pm Jason Howerton

A mother in Mandeville, La. woke up in the middle of the night to find an armed home intruder standing in her bedroom doorway. The intruder pointed the gun at the woman, likely expecting her to cower in fear and obey his every command.

That didn’t happen.

The fearless mother instead screamed at the armed criminal, seemingly startling the man and sending him retreating from the bedroom, The Times-Picayune reports. The woman then retrieved her shotgun from her closet.

Shotgun in hand, the mom first went to check on her children to make sure they were safe. Then she went after the man who broke into her home, who has been identified as Joseph Hall Rogers.
Fearless Mom Ignores Gun Wielding Home Intruder, Retrieves Her Shotgun and Fires Three Blasts

Joseph Hall Rogers (Nola.com)

When she got to the doorway, the woman fired three rounds at Rogers as he scrambled to escape with his life. Luckily for the home intruder, all three rounds missed their target.

Police and a K-9 unit later searched the neighborhood and eventually located the drunk man. Rogers reportedly resisted arrest and was tased prior to being taken into police custody.

Rogers has been charged with home invasion and resisting an officer. His bond had not been set as of Tuesday afternoon, according to police.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Monopole argument.

[Seth]

Monopole argument.

Feel free to present your countervailing data. I'm not required to do your homework for you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You couldn't anyway.

[Seth]

You couldn't anyway.

Well, I certainly could, but won't. You, on the other hand, are incapable of doing so, which is ironic considering that even if you were capable, you wouldn't be able to present much in the way of countervailing evidence because there pretty much isn't any.

In fact, the research has been done and it's clear that more guns equals less crime in every single jurisdiction in the US where it's been tried.

So you lose. Ignominiously so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Googled some big words? That's a GOOD boy! *pats head*

[Blind groper]

To Seth

I will start by awarding you brownie points for admitting that training to teach you when not to use a gun is the most important. Well done.

But your views on guns held by women are simply wrong. When there is a gun in the home, the probability of the woman being murdered increases three fold. This is because her male partner is then a lot more likely to shoot her. This happens inside the home.

No one, male or female, in the sanctity of their own home, carries a hand gun all the time. it is put aside - hopefully into a gun safe, but much too often simply into a drawer. Then we get a domestic, in which the male partner gets angry. He grabs a gun, which will very likely be his wife's gun, and shoots her. Even if she owns a gun, she will almost certainly not have it on her. After all, this is inside the 'safety' of her own home.

The other thing you ignore, is the double effect of letting "law abiding citizens" own guns.
1. A lot of those 'law abiding' people' are not so damn law abiding when the heat goes on. When they get into a raging row with someone, or (for a lot of guys) when they get drunk, and they turn out to be mean drunks. Those "law abiding" people, with access to guns, end up as murderers.
2. There is no way in the world that guns can be made available to "law abiding" people, and not be equally available, if not more so, to criminals. It is inevitable that, when you allow one third of those called 'law abiding' to own a hand gun, that a lot more than that, possibly approaching 100%, of criminals will also end up owning hand guns.

The statistics show that the USA is the only rich western nation to allow widespread ownership of hand guns, and it has a murder rate averaging about four times that of other rich developed nations. This is not a coincidence. Widespread gun ownership, especially of hand guns, increases the homicide rate.

The lesson that all those western nations with low murder rates have for the USA, is that reducing gun ownership reduces murder rates.

And I will continue not to read your silly anecdotes. This is not due to narrow mindedness. It is simply due to the fact that I am too well aware of the fact that anecdotes are meaningless.

If I were arguing with a Christian fundamentalist, that idiot would almost certainly use anecdotes under the misapprehension that they constitute an argument. No rational person falls into that trap.

[Seth]

To Seth

I will start by awarding you brownie points for admitting that training to teach you when not to use a gun is the most important. Well done.

What do you mean "admitting?" I've been telling YOU that for a long, long time, you just refused to hear it and you wrongly assume that police receive better training than civilians do. In some cases they do, but most people with permits practice much more often than the police do.

But your views on guns held by women are simply wrong. When there is a gun in the home, the probability of the woman being murdered increases three fold. This is because her male partner is then a lot more likely to shoot her. This happens inside the home.

So you're saying that an attacked woman can't use a gun in her own home? Balderdash.

No one, male or female, in the sanctity of their own home, carries a hand gun all the time. it is put aside - hopefully into a gun safe, but much too often simply into a drawer. Then we get a domestic, in which the male partner gets angry. He grabs a gun, which will very likely be his wife's gun, and shoots her. Even if she owns a gun, she will almost certainly not have it on her. After all, this is inside the 'safety' of her own home.

That's tactics, not policy. Just because SOME women may be bad tactical planners is no reason to deny everyone the ability to use good tactics and tools to defend themselves.

The other thing you ignore, is the double effect of letting "law abiding citizens" own guns.
1. A lot of those 'law abiding' people' are not so damn law abiding when the heat goes on. When they get into a raging row with someone, or (for a lot of guys) when they get drunk, and they turn out to be mean drunks. Those "law abiding" people, with access to guns, end up as murderers.

Horseshit. The criminal involvement rate for licensed concealed carry holders is usually less than one percent, sometimes much less. In the first 10 years of Florida's program more than 250,000 permits were issued and only 11 people had their permits revoked for a gun-involved offense. The statistics are much the same in ever other state.

So, once again you're bloviating without knowing the facts.

2. There is no way in the world that guns can be made available to "law abiding" people, and not be equally available, if not more so, to criminals. It is inevitable that, when you allow one third of those called 'law abiding' to own a hand gun, that a lot more than that, possibly approaching 100%, of criminals will also end up owning hand guns.

Worse, there is no way in the world that criminals can be prevented from acquiring guns, or other deadly weapons like knives, baseball bats, automobiles, gasoline-filled glass bottles (the biggest single killer in US history) or tire irons. That being the case, the only logical response is to allow law abiding individuals to keep and bear those arms suitable for self defense. Your stupidity just means that criminals will be armed and victims will not, meaning more criminal victimization.

The statistics show that the USA is the only rich western nation to allow widespread ownership of hand guns, and it has a murder rate averaging about four times that of other rich developed nations. This is not a coincidence. Widespread gun ownership, especially of hand guns, increases the homicide rate.

And widespread gun ownership, especially hand guns, decreases the criminal victimization rate substantially in every jurisdiction where concealed carry is lawful, which is proven by the fact that crime is down in the US overall, and up in the UK and everywhere else guns are banned, including Japan.

The lesson that all those western nations with low murder rates have for the USA, is that reducing gun ownership reduces murder rates.

But increases radically other forms of violent criminal victimization, which you consistently ignore, as if the only crime that has any impact on anyone is homicide.

And I will continue not to read your silly anecdotes. This is not due to narrow mindedness.

Then it must be bull-headed stupidity. I was trying to be charitable.

It is simply due to the fact that I am too well aware of the fact that anecdotes are meaningless.

No, it's simply that my data points authoritatively refute your false claim that firearms are rarely if ever successfully used to thwart crimes.

If I were arguing with a Christian fundamentalist, that idiot would almost certainly use anecdotes under the misapprehension that they constitute an argument. No rational person falls into that trap.

Anecdotes are, by definition, unproven assertions. My data points are verified instances of legitimate defensive gun uses that blow your asinine arguments out of the water, which is why you continue in your bull-headed denial of facts.

[Blind groper]

Just because SOME women may be bad tactical planners is no reason to deny everyone the ability to use good tactics and tools to defend themselves.

No, it is just normal human behavior. If a woman feels she has to carry a gun to protect herself against her husband, then good tactics is to leave home permanently. The only reason a woman shares a home, and a bed with a man is because she loves and trusts him. Sadly, that love and trust is too often betrayed.

there is no way in the world that criminals can be prevented from acquiring guns, or other deadly weapons like knives, baseball bats, automobiles, gasoline-filled glass bottles

True. But attacks with those weapons kill a far smaller percentage of people than attacks with hand guns. 8,000 hand gun murders each year in the USA. Far fewer than that with all non firearm weapons put together, in spite of the much wider availability of non firearm weapons. And outside the USA, where hand guns are not available, other western nations have an even smaller rate of non firearms murders. It appears that the American gun culture overflows into lethal attacks with other weapons as well.

widespread gun ownership, especially hand guns, decreases the criminal victimization rate substantially in every jurisdiction where concealed carry is lawful,

According to John Lott, the charlaton whose warblings have been discredited by reputable university researchers.

On anecdotes.
Your definition is wrong. According to Webster's dictionary, an anecdote is a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident. They are not unproven assertions, as you claim. You use anecdotes as argument, which is a fallacious way of arguing.

[Seth]

Just because SOME women may be bad tactical planners is no reason to deny everyone the ability to use good tactics and tools to defend themselves.

No, it is just normal human behavior. If a woman feels she has to carry a gun to protect herself against her husband, then good tactics is to leave home permanently. The only reason a woman shares a home, and a bed with a man is because she loves and trusts him. Sadly, that love and trust is too often betrayed.

Indeed. But most often it's not, and the family firearms are used either purely for recreation or are used to defend the family or its members. Your assertion is that because some number of women are victimized by their domestic partners, no one should possess handguns. This is patently ridiculous and is the same thing as saying because some drunk drivers kill people, automobiles must be banned. You consistently ignore this simile because it shows just how stupid your conclusions are.

there is no way in the world that criminals can be prevented from acquiring guns, or other deadly weapons like knives, baseball bats, automobiles, gasoline-filled glass bottles

True.

Damned right it's true.

But attacks with those weapons kill a far smaller percentage of people than attacks with hand guns.

Strawman argument. You are once again mendaciously limiting the scope of your "rebuttal" to killings only, and you continue to ignore the fact that criminals will always have access to deadly weapons that they can use not only to kill, but to violently victimize short of killing. Crime victims have no less right to defend themselves against an attack that COULD result in them being killed or seriously injured than they do to defend against an obvious lethal attack with a firearm. This is why if you attack me with a baseball bat or knife, I'm going to reasonably believe that you intend my death or you intend to inflict serious bodily harm on me (or another), and I'm going to respond with superior, decisive and if necessary lethal force to prevent such harm.

Whether or not you actually succeed in killing me or even doing serious bodily harm is utterly irrelevant as pertains to my right to use deadly force if I reasonably believe that you have the present ability and intention to do so.

Therefore, your argument is once again debunked completely.

8,000 hand gun murders each year in the USA.

Which could be 80,000 or 800,000 or 2.5 million each year under your ignorant plan.

Far fewer than that with all non firearm weapons put together, in spite of the much wider availability of non firearm weapons.

Completely irrelevant claim. It doesn't matter in the least what weapon the criminal uses. If he uses ANY weapon at all (including "natural weapons" like hands and feet) that produces the requisite apprehension of danger set forth in the law, the victim is legally justified in using lethal force to stop the attack or prevent the injury. It is a fallacy to try to limit the applicability of the self defense laws only to "deadly" weapons of your particular preference.

And outside the USA, where hand guns are not available, other western nations have an even smaller rate of non firearms murders. It appears that the American gun culture overflows into lethal attacks with other weapons as well.

And a much higher incidence of violent criminal victimization, which, by the way, victims have a right to effective self defense against.

widespread gun ownership, especially hand guns, decreases the criminal victimization rate substantially in every jurisdiction where concealed carry is lawful,

According to John Lott, the charlaton whose warblings have been discredited by reputable university researchers.

According to several credible and verified research studies that have not been discredited because the single university study from Harvard, a known liberal anti-gun organization, has itself been rebutted, refuted and discredited by the authors of the original studies.

On anecdotes.
Your definition is wrong. According to Webster's dictionary, an anecdote is a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident. They are not unproven assertions, as you claim. You use anecdotes as argument, which is a fallacious way of arguing.

No, YOUR use of the word is wrong. You are misusing "anecdote" in this context.

An anecdote is a short and amusing or interesting account, which may depict a real incident or person.[1] Anecdotes can be as brief as the setting and provocation of a bon mot. An anecdote is always presented as based in a real incident[2] involving actual persons, whether famous or not, usually in an identifiable place. However, over time, modification in reuse may convert a particular anecdote to a fictional piece, one that is retold but is "too good to be true". Sometimes humorous, anecdotes are not jokes, because their primary purpose is not simply to evoke laughter, but to reveal a truth more general than the brief tale itself, or to delineate a character trait in such a light that it strikes in a flash of insight to its very essence. Novalis observed "An anecdote is a historical element — a historical molecule or epigram".[3] A brief monologue beginning "A man pops in a bar..." will be a joke. A brief monologue beginning "Once J. Edgar Hoover popped in a bar..." will be an anecdote. An anecdote thus is closer to the tradition of the parable than the patently invented fable with its animal characters and generic human figures— but it is distinct from the parable in the historical specificity which it claims.

Anecdotes are often of satirical nature. Under the totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union numerous political anecdotes circulating in society were the only way to reveal and denounce vices of the political system and its leaders. They made fun of such personalities as Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, and other Soviet leaders. In contemporary Russia there are many anecdotes about Vladimir Putin.[4]

The word 'anecdote' (in Greek: "unpublished", literally "not given out") comes from Procopius of Caesarea, the biographer of Justinian I, who produced a work entitled Ἀνέκδοτα (Anekdota, variously translated as Unpublished Memoirs or Secret History), which is primarily a collection of short incidents from the private life of the Byzantine court. Gradually, the term anecdote came to be applied[5] to any short tale utilized to emphasize or illustrate whatever point the author wished to make.[6]

source: wikipedia

Anecdote is a story based in some event that is not a formal description of that event. An anecdote is presented as a simile or metaphor or as illustrating some point.

A news report of a crime gleaned from police reports is not an anecdote because it is not attempting to illustrate some point, it is a recitation of facts, and is therefore a valid data point.

My use of such reports may be anecdotal in that they are intended to illustrate a point, which is that guns are often used by citizens to thwart crime, and as a refutation of your unsubstantiated and factually false claim that guns are NOT often used to thwart crimes. But the presentation "anecdotally" of the set of facts does not make the facts contained therein "anecdotes."

If that's the metric you propose to use, then your own claims are anecdotes and therefore invalid.

You say "[There are] 8,000 hand gun murders each year in the USA." But you present no evidence whatever of the truth of this claim, so it's an "anecdote" that you pulled out of your ass according to your own dubious logic and faulty reasoning.

You expect me to accept that as fact uncritically without a shred of evidence that it's true, and yet you call the published reports from verified and reliable news sources "anecdotes" that are worthless as evidence.

That's the essence of hypocrisy and illogic. You get held to your own standard so your arguments are deemed worthless and invalid as unproven assertions of anecdotal evidence.

You lose. Again.

[Gallstones]

More data...

Fearless Mom Ignores Gun-Wielding Home Intruder, Retrieves Her Shotgun and Fires Three Blasts
Mar. 5, 2013 7:00pm Jason Howerton

A mother in Mandeville, La. woke up in the middle of the night to find an armed home intruder standing in her bedroom doorway. The intruder pointed the gun at the woman, likely expecting her to cower in fear and obey his every command.

That didn’t happen.

The fearless mother instead screamed at the armed criminal, seemingly startling the man and sending him retreating from the bedroom, The Times-Picayune reports. The woman then retrieved her shotgun from her closet.

Shotgun in hand, the mom first went to check on her children to make sure they were safe. Then she went after the man who broke into her home, who has been identified as Joseph Hall Rogers.
Fearless Mom Ignores Gun Wielding Home Intruder, Retrieves Her Shotgun and Fires Three Blasts

Joseph Hall Rogers (Nola.com)

When she got to the doorway, the woman fired three rounds at Rogers as he scrambled to escape with his life. Luckily for the home intruder, all three rounds missed their target.

Police and a K-9 unit later searched the neighborhood and eventually located the drunk man. Rogers reportedly resisted arrest and was tased prior to being taken into police custody.

Rogers has been charged with home invasion and resisting an officer. His bond had not been set as of Tuesday afternoon, according to police.

I have some problems with this example and would not have chosen to offer it for these reasons:

1. A self defense weapon should be accessible, not stored away in a closet (or gun safe etc).

• I believe that if one makes the choice to defend using a weapon they have to mean it and that weapon needs to be accessible in the very moment.
  
  • It was on the American Rifleman program this morning that there are devices that allow a shotgun to be stored out of reach of children but readily reachable/grabbable by adults.

2. She should never have gone to check on her children first.

• I'm sorry, I know that parents normally are concerned about the safety and well being of their children but she should never have distracted herself from the location and behavior of the intruder to do that. By checking on her children before locating the intruder she may have led him right into their bedroom and given him even more valuable hostages.

3. She fires on the intruder as he is in the act of leaving.

4. She fires a shotgun three times and doesn't hit the intruder.

• I suspect she lacks familiarity and practice with it. If not that she missed because he was already some distance from the house, which links to #3. I accept that there may be additional information I am not privy to that would render my speculations incorrect.

[Blind groper]

Your assertion is that because some number of women are victimized by their domestic partners, no one should possess handguns.

Not quite.
My assertion is that the high rate of murders of women by their male partners with hand guns shows that having hand guns in the home add to the risk, not reduce it. This makes the self defense argument ridiculous. Self defense is a measure taken to save lives. If the measure actually ends up killing more people, which hand guns do, then it is not self defense. More like self destruction.

It doesn't matter in the least what weapon the criminal uses.

It matters a great deal to the victim. If the criminal uses fist, knife or club, your chances of surviving the attack are much higher than if he uses a firearm.

And a much higher incidence of violent criminal victimization

Wrong.
Among the 24 riches nations, in which murder rates are much, much higher in the USA, overall violent crime is similar for the USA compared to the average for the other nations.

According to several credible and verified research studies that have not been discredited because the single university study from Harvard, a known liberal anti-gun organization, has itself been rebutted, refuted and discredited by the authors of the original studies.

John Lott's critics are wrong because John Lott says they are wrong. Yes, that is one hell of an argument!

http://blog.bradycampaign.org/category/ ... -misdeeds/

I quote :

“In at least eight published articles, more than a dozen academics have found enough serious flaws in Lott’s model to discount his findings,” says Harvard’s David Hemenway in his fascinating, must-read book Private Guns, Public Health (p.101).

Anyone with access to a computer can find extensive consistent research that RTC laws “are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults,” as a Johns Hopkins report (see p.9) recently reported. Researchers Ian Ayres and John Donohue found that RTC laws “increased crime in substantially more jurisdictions than they decreased crime.” (Stanford Law Review 4/16/2003, p.1271)

In other words, Lott's claims are garbage.

If that's the metric you propose to use, then your own claims are anecdotes and therefore invalid.

My claims are statistical - not based on individual anecdotes. If I tell you that the USA has 5 times the murder rate of my country (which it does) that is data, not anecdote. Anecdotes as argument are designed to mislead, because they are usually exceptions to a rule.

[Blind groper]

Here is one especially for Seth and Gallstones. An anecdote.

DECEMBER 28--An Oklahoma City man facing a murder charge told cops that he accidentally shot his wife while the couple was having sex and engaging “in sexual fantasy involving a gun.”

Arthur Sedille, 23, called police last Tuesday to report that he “accidentally shot his wife in the head,” according to a court filing. Rebecca Sedille, 50, died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

Sedille top cops that he and his wife “often engage in sexual fantasy involving a gun,” and that he had “retrieved a handgun from a shelf beside the bed, racked the slide back causing the gun to cock and then placed the gun to his wife’s head.” The gun then discharged


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... ex-gunplay

The difference is, of course, that I am not going to claim that this anecdote proves that hand guns are dangerous because people use them in sex play. Unlike Seth and Gallstones, I am aware that anecdotes are told because the subject matter they report is rare. I am very aware, unlike the less rational people in this world, that anecdotes prove nothing.

But wait! There is more!

How about this anecdote?

"MARCH 6--An Oklahoma woman arrested Monday on drug charges had a loaded handgun hidden in her vagina, according to police.

The weapon was discovered during a search of Christie Dawn Harris, 28, by a female officer with the Ada Police Department. According to a police report, the cop spotted the handle of the five-shot revolver "sticking out from" inside Harris, who is seen at right.

In a less shocking find, investigators also discovered plastic baggies containing methamphetamine lodged in the crack of Harris’s buttocks.

The Freedom Arms .22-caliber handgun was loaded with three live rounds and one spent shell, cops reported. As to where the weapon was recovered, the police report noted, “gun located in suspect vagina.”

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... ina-687341

Should I argue that hand guns must be banned because some stupid woman is likely to shoot herself in the ......

If we are gonna get into anecdote wars, I can pull out dozens of ridiculous anecdotes. Of course, they prove exactly nothing.

[Gallstones]

I've never used a hand or long gun for sexplay. What kind of sicko are you?

[Kristie]

I've never used a hand or long gun for sexplay. What kind of sicko are you?

I would say he's not a sicko. Based on what he quoted, some gun freak is the sicko.