Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Blind groper]

Gallstones

Yes, the moment of leaving is the most dangerous. A smart woman will not leave when her partner is around, but wait till he is at work, or otherwise somewhere else. Here in NZ, this is what women are advised to do.

Seth

You do not seem to understand what an anecdote is. When I quote a statistic, that is not an anecdote. When you tell a story about an individual, that is an anecdote. Good statistics are of value. Anecdotes are total garbage in a debate. Anecdotes are typically used by religious people in arguments, but are not used by rational people.

A ban on hand guns will not take centuries to have an effect. Your argument in that respect is based on the fallacious assumption that they will disappear only when worn out. A rational set of laws will make the possession of a hand gun (except when duly authorised, such as for police) into a felony. When a few hundred people have ended in prison for possession, that will speed the handing in of such guns with the occasional moratorium. Criminals, of course, will quickly realise that carrying a gun will lead to their arrest, and they will hide such guns away. Both ways, the end result will be fewer hand guns in circulation, and a dramatic drop in murder rate.

The ban on selling compatible ammunition will help also.

Not that I expect any of this to happen. Rational political decisions like that happen in rational nations, and all the other OECD nations have long since done that. Only the USA, among OECD nations, continues with the idiotic widespread possession of hand guns, and only the USA has a massively high rate of homicide.

[Seth]

Gallstones

Yes, the moment of leaving is the most dangerous. A smart woman will not leave when her partner is around, but wait till he is at work, or otherwise somewhere else. Here in NZ, this is what women are advised to do.

True. And that's a good time to have or obtain a gun, because the abuser is next most dangerous AFTER the victim has abandoned him. He may seek revenge or to regain control, he may stalk her, he may try to break into her new residence, he may try to assault or kill her. All of which are usefully defended against by the simple advent of getting an emergency CCW permit and a handgun. Of course, if no CCW permit is available under any circumstances, as in Illinois, or the delay to obtain one is egregiously long, as in New York and many other places, and if there are "waiting periods" to obtain a handgun, then the victim is screwed and must face down her attacker (most likely killer) with at best inferior weapons. Your own statements show just how ignorant you really are about domestic violence and how it usually pans out. Your argument about the victim not having time to retrieve her gun is blown out of the water by your own statements and by the evidence of women successfully using their firearms to defend themselves.

Seth

You do not seem to understand what an anecdote is. When I quote a statistic, that is not an anecdote.

Your citations are anecdotes because they tell a not-really-true story about what you claim someone else has said. In legal parlance it's called "hearsay" and it's inadmissible without proper foundation.

When you tell a story about an individual, that is an anecdote. Good statistics are of value. Anecdotes are total garbage in a debate. Anecdotes are typically used by religious people in arguments, but are not used by rational people.

Wrong. You are confusing "anecdote" with "anecdotal."

anecdote
Definition
an·ec·dote
[ ánnək dt ]
an·ec·dotes Plural
NOUN
1. somebody's account of something: a short personal account of an incident or event
[ Early 18th century. Directly or via French < modern Latin anecdota < Greek anekdota "things unpublished" < an- "not" + ekdidonai "publish" ]
Thesaurus
NOUN
Synonyms: story, tale, yarn, sketch, narrative, narration


anecdotal
Definition
an·ec·dot·al
[ ànnək dṓt'l ]
ADJECTIVE
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation "anecdotal evidence"
2. of anecdotes: relating to anecdotes or in the form of anecdotes
an·ec·do·tal·ly ADVERB
Thesaurus
ADJECTIVE
Synonyms: subjective, circumstantial, hearsay, unreliable, untrustworthy, undependable, sketchy
ADJECTIVE
Antonyms: objective

Factual reports of events that occurred are not "anecdotes" because they are not a "personal account" they are factual reports created based on actual evidence collected by the police at a crime scene. Such reports are not "narratives" or "tales," nor are they "anecdotal in nature because they are recitations of observed facts and not "secondhand accounts." They are first-hand knowledge provided by the actual observers, the police, and published by the news media. They are not unreliable, untrustworthy or subjective, they are reported observations of facts.

In other words, they are valid scientific data. That's why the courts allow police reports to be used as evidence. You may choose to engage in mendacious pettifoggery by insisting that a news report is "secondhand" because the reporter did not forensically examine the crime scene, but this would be nothing more than evasion. Each report I've provided can be examined for veracity by going to the original police reports upon which they are based, which is more than you can say for your "statistics." Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) once said, "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."" (Whether Disraeli actually coined this phrase is in deep dispute, but the point remains valid)

A ban on hand guns will not take centuries to have an effect. Your argument in that respect is based on the fallacious assumption that they will disappear only when worn out.

That's right. History proves it to be the case.

A rational set of laws will make the possession of a hand gun (except when duly authorised, such as for police) into a felony.

It's already a felony in every state (and a federal crime) for a person with criminal intent to possess a firearm of any type, or so much as a single round of ammunition. Doesn't seem to stop them from possessing them.

When a few hundred people have ended in prison for possession, that will speed the handing in of such guns with the occasional moratorium.

It might. Stupid people are stupid.

Criminals, of course, will quickly realise that carrying a gun will lead to their arrest, and they will hide such guns away. Both ways, the end result will be fewer hand guns in circulation, and a dramatic drop in murder rate.

So, why is it that criminals have and use guns today, in the US, and every other nation on earth? Oops, it seems your logic is still a bit flawed.

The ban on selling compatible ammunition will help also.

Ever hear of "reloading?"

Not that I expect any of this to happen.

It will never happen in the US.

Rational political decisions like that happen in rational nations, and all the other OECD nations have long since done that. Only the USA, among OECD nations, continues with the idiotic widespread possession of hand guns, and only the USA has a massively high rate of homicide.

Better than than the chains of slavery that you suffer under.

[Woodbutcher]

"Chains of slavery"! Explain, please. Also, nowhere in your definition of anecdote does it say that the anecdote is true. And you use the Lott et al. story as true because it is the only one that agrees with your viewpoint. To a gundamentalist like yourself facts do not matter, you pull your anecdotes out of your ass and from "Convenient Anecdotes for You Monthly". You must be so tense in public that you shit pellets.

[tattuchu]

"gundamentalist"

[Seth]

"Chains of slavery"! Explain, please.

Any nation that denies it's citizens the right to keep and bear arms sufficient to the purpose of overthrowing a despotic tyrannical government has enslaved its people. The chains may appear to be made of gold, as in the UK, but they are still chains and they can be jerked tight at any moment by a dictator or corrupt government without fear that the people will rise up in rebellion and overthrow it.

That's precisely why the first act of a tyrant is almost always to disarm the populace. History proves this to be fact time and time again, long before the days of firearms in fact.

Also, nowhere in your definition of anecdote does it say that the anecdote is true.

It's not my definition. It's one of several found online.

And you use the Lott et al. story as true because it is the only one that agrees with your viewpoint.

Not to put too fine a point on it but Lott et al. are qualified researchers who use valid statistical analysis procedures and provide the data sets to those who wish to confirm their conclusions, which many have done.

To a gundamentalist like yourself facts do not matter, you pull your anecdotes out of your ass and from "Convenient Anecdotes for You Monthly". You must be so tense in public that you shit pellets.

Once again, news reports of lawful DGUs are not anecdotes, they are factual data points presented as irrefutable evidence of the falsity of the claim that firearms are rarely to never used successfully for self defense by armed citizens. The ones presented here are NEW examples that represent the tip of the iceberg of all such events. I've referred you to the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column and I've challenged you to refute or prove false even ONE of those reports. Neither you nor anyone else has every decided to do so. All you can do is try to discredit the evidence by falsely calling it an "anecdote," which is also a false claim.

They are every bit as valid as the base data supposedly used by Lott et al's. detractors, all of which are based on first-hand police reports of crimes committed and investigated. The examples given here are not "anecdotal" because they have been factually verified. What could be considered anecdotal are personal responses to inquiries about crime victimization and response that have not been verified because they were not reported to or investigated by police. This fact is what leads to the ambiguity in the figures for DGUs reported by the FBI, Kleck, Lott et al. The FBI figures are reliable because they are statistical analysis of actual crime reports. The estimates given by Lott et al. are less reliable, but the reliability of the data was considered and accounted for in their calculations.

What is clear, however, is that law-abiding citizens use their firearms lawfully and defensively far more often that hoplophobes care to believe, which is why hoplophobes are desperate to ignore and discount such information, even when it's verifiable first-hand evidence.

If you want to continue to call all the law enforcement agencies across the country who investigate and document such events liars, go right ahead, but that just makes you look stupider than you already do, which is pretty damned stupid.

[Clinton Huxley]

"gundamentalist"

I like it, I shall use it. Death-loving psychotic gundamentalists, enjoying the freedom of the grave.

[Seth]

"gundamentalist"

I like it, I shall use it. Death-loving psychotic gundamentalists, enjoying the freedom of the grave.

Slavery-loving Marximentalists suffering the constraints of their chains.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

[Clinton Huxley]

Enjoy you go-bangs, little Seth. You're the free-est kid in the charnel house. In your mind.

[Gallstones]

People have different interests.
Let them.

[aspire1670]

People have different interests.
Let them shoot children with gunz.

FIFY

[Jason]

Has the jury reached a verdict?

[Gallstones]

People have different interests.
Let them shoot children with gunz.

FIFY

I guess some people are interested in shooting children. Don't walk in front of any windows.

[Woodbutcher]

I like guns. I have fired several types from fully automatic to cap and ball 45 Navy Colt.I have hunted and might yet again. I do NOT need a gun for personal protection, especially not a handgun at all times.Those who think they do are welcome to do as they wish, but if that is really necessary depends on your own interpretation. I have noticed that not acting like a prick towards your fellow men minimises the risk of threat of assault considerably.
On other news, Thunder Bay is the Canadian leader in spousal assault, largely due to a large native population.

[Jason]

Ah.. the vast trackless wastes between Sault Ste. Marie and Winnipeg. In many places cell phones are still a novelty.

[aspire1670]

People have different interests.
Let them shoot children with gunz.

FIFY

I am not interested in stopping gun owners shooting children. Don't let your kids walk in front of my windows I hav poor impulse control.

FIFY and pity reply.