Because there are numerous posts here about "armed person defends self" "Gun owners shoots intruder" I wanted to post the OTHER stories - those times when a more effective weapon was used - ingenuity http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/phone-filming-thwarts-armed-robbery/4401080?section=qld http://999thepoint.com/armed-robber-thwarted-after-chili-powder-thrown-in-his-face-video/ This guy threw cans of beer http://publiccyberconnections.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/armed-robbery-attempt-thwarted-dilip.html Admittedly this might not work in Australia where they would be so delighted they would drop whatever they ware holding to catch the beer cans - but then he WAS throwing AMERICAN beer.........so it is no wonder the robber left!! but my favourite story is this http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...y_shop_worker_armed_with_Toilet_Duck/?ref=rss
I'm just doing some "fair and balanced" reporting she says innocently These are anecdotal reports. If anecdotal reports of guns being used to defend oneself are to be counted as "proof" guns are "necessary" then these reports where a gun was not used should be equally valid
No you're not.....Here in theUS we have people who've thwarted robberies without a firearm But unlike your examples,we here have the choice to be armed, or not The people in your examples didn't have that option since your government decided to start playing nanny with your subjects lives And that'swhere your 'examples' fail
The point seems to be you'd cite an Onion satire if if agreed with you. A specific cannot prove the general. THAT is the point about anecdotes. Examples-samples-anecdotes can certainly demonstrate that something can happen, they can falsify a theory. "Anecdotes" certainly can prove specific things. They are not worthless at all. There was a good story today from San Fran, of an Asian lady who used pepper spray and a wooden sword on a thief. Way better outcome than if she'd shot him. Nobody here denies or contests that such measures have worked and are far more desirable than the use of deadly force. That is what one would expect from reasonable people, that they would accept and agree with the obvious. YOU on the other hand refuse to accept that there are times that only deadly force is going to be effective in defense of life. Fair and balanced? "the other point of view'? Nope, what we see from you is rigid ideology.
I think before declaring that "nobody here" does something you had better read through posts on threads OTHER than mine!
I did read them. No such thing there. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>> Nobody but a pure total idiot would deny that non lethal measures often work very well. We dont have anyone here who does, despite your false claim to the contrary. You cannot cite an example. And only someone with a rigid, unrealistic ideology would refuse to admit that there are times when a gun is the only way to protect oneself. You cant cite a single example for your claim but I can sure cite you for mine.
I see an incompetent criminal. Of all the armed and unarmed training I have had, I have never had an instructor recommend your self defense technique.
Sorry - but I do note I supply link after link after link - the majority of which are to academic sources while the majority of respondents simply state "Thats not right". <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>
What "ingenuity" is not recommended as a defence technique? ((((((((Sigh))))))))))) I could make a comment here about "needs a brain to be ingenious" and how that might be incompatible in America.................
Your ingenuity will get people killed. We already discussed your self defense advise in other threads. What we found was misinformation and ignorance.
What "Advice" (note spelling) I am simply offering an alternative view to "have a gun ready at all times"
And we all recognize that there may be alternatives. Almost any effective alternative is better. But someone is being very stubborn about admitting that sometimes there is no alternative. Now, when will you admit that sometimes there is no alternative?
Julio Gonzalez killed 87 people with a dollars worth of gas so what? someone wants to kill they will, despite the knee jerky reactins of lawmakers
Actually they won't Do you want to do a comparison of mass murders accomplished WITHOUT guns as opposed to those WITH guns - especially in the USA? Mass murders in Australia pre buy back - approx 1 per year for 13 years, post buy back, about one in 13 years
