Straw man fallacy: A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponents position a straw man that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds. It is only common sense that the police cannot protect you. Case in point, a policeman called the police locally while on a jog because a neighbor's house looked like it had been broken into, it took them 20 minutes to get there. This policeman is in full support of carry since he knows that the police are often too far away or busy to get to every incident in any kind of time to stop a criminal from criminal activities. If you don't take your own safety seriously, why do you think the police would?
Please be consistent Again I ask - What is your proposed solution to this perceived problem (assuming that it is a problem and not just a perception of a problem generated by reading selected anecdotes)
Hmmm - the OP was relating this to a hostage situation - one would assume that in the case of a hostage the victim has already BEEN disarmed
The primary duty of law enforcement personnel is to enforce the law, not protect private citizens. I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement and they often protect private citizens while enforcing the law but when seconds count, they are minutes away. Police officers are needed to maintain order and police those who will not police themselves but if it were ever to come down to someone breaking into my home, my goal is to put 3-5 rounds from my 9mm into their center mass region before they can get one off at me.
...and assumptions are the mother of all ***k-ups...... so strawman arguments, bowerbird, are assumptions. To create an assumption and apply it as fact, is a strawman. What if's are assumptions. When strawmen are offered up as proof, those arguments presented therein are fallacies. Since you are limited on how you can best defend yourself, then your results from such studies is even more limited. Instead, why not open your mind to other possiblities? If you had the right to bear arms, we already know you wouldn't have one in the house or on your person for all the snow in Antartica. We may believe that is a foolish notion, however, none in here have suggested that you be forced to use one. You, on the other hand have insisted, that we must consider that we give them up, because you do not or cannot own one over there. There is one area that you have failed to touch upon; the simple fact that it is our RIGHT. You have done a Native American dance around the fire, but failed to recognize that one issue throughout all of your posts and threads.
I only say that because statistically, the victim probably wasn't. In States that allow carry and depending what the demographic is, only about 2% to 5% have a carry license and often, many of them do not carry, so the chances are that there are actually few citizens that are carrying at any one time.
True, that is probably the case with a hostage situation. The hostages are not likely to be armed. Do you, tho, not suggest improvised weaponry? The main point of my comment and of the OP is that you cant rely on the police to play deus ex machina and save your bacon. They sure were not going to show up for me-and i was in fact unable to defend myself. Im lucky to be alive. A smith and wesson now protects my luck. The 911 hijack passengers who counterattacked the hijackers were not going to have the police show up for them either. Self reliance is the alternative. You have some objection to that, or, do you concede that self reliance is the alternative to being a sheep taken to the slaughter?
Self reliance need not mean using a gun. Your own experience is an example of that. You survived without one, like the vast majority do. Hoosier tells us that very few carry, even with a permit. It follows that those who survive do so using only their wits, which in most cases is sufficient, though some might feel the need for a gun instead.
Actually, the reverse is true, those that survive are only the ones that have not been attacked yet. You can take your chances or you can be prepared. The choice is yours.
Change the "are" to "may be' and i will agree. Depending on what you mean by "survive'. Part of me didnt. Im not into taking chances.
Right, if more people were armed, it would be lower. An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. ~ Robert A. Heinlein
I believe you. I also believe people when they tell me they saw Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Lockness monster.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-suspect-shot-face-victim-alleged-attack.html Read article to see rapist with one eye. Don't worry, police arrived in time to file the proper paperwork.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!! That is the "Great American Gun Myth No 4 - or the NRA Mantra" and it is complete and utter codswallop There only evidence supporting this comes from around 6 "academics" who play whoopsie with statistics
Overall homicide rate USA - 4.2 Australia - 1.0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime Bearing in mind our laws are different here - spitting on someone is considered assault and spitting on a cop is a serious assault charge for which you will be jailed!!!
Hoosier - have you EVER and I mean EVER posted any statistics of your own? I get a little tired of the game "Go spend lots of time doing research and we will just sit back and blow raspberries and not do anything ourselves!!!" It is played too often on this board
Six academics that you also saw playing cards with Bigfoot? Wo are these academics, what did they do? Apparently your the only one who knows in your la la la land. Lets see what you have so we can make sure that once again your not making this ups like your self defense advice with pepper spray or posting misrepresented data.
