no, Im not arguing that it 'could never'

Im arguing that stopping one doesnt PRESUME that it 'would have' and thus cant be broadly assumed to have saved a life,,,,

You just happened to fall upon the Spanish word for stupid? I'm sorry, but I'm not that gullible.

The stats from NRA are not real stats anyway.

They make it up as they go along.

They also fearmonger to make their sales go up.

It is crap.

Something like 16% of all violent crimes result in a murder. So it's reasonable to assume that 16% of violent crimes stopped by the use of guns would have resulted in the murder of the victim. That's not presumption, it's deduction.

NRA stats are garbage so don't believe em Harmony

its a bad deduction

A. 16 percent of all violent crimes result in murder
B. 16 percent of violent crimes stopped by guns would have ended in murder

,,,,This presumes the group in A is the SAME Group in B,,,that they are the exact same 16 percent,,,which is unlikely


unless ALL The violent crimes had been stopped by guns, making the statements conclusive,,,


that would be the same as saying this

15 percent of the population is black
therefore
15 percent of the criminal population is black,,,,

stats are often a grey area for me dragonness

as a victim myself, I have seen the actual STATS at fbi cites actually listing (in the same time frame of years my attack took place) that there were ZERO assaults on black women by white men,,,,


so , yeah, we have to be careful with 'stats' too
numbers can be slanted to whatever direction an intelligent person wishes,,,,

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/324502

Some more information on this case if you haven't seen it.

the media can really twist things and run with hearsay and 'he said/she said' stuff


this case proves it


I just hope the parents (and now most likely the world) will be able to get the FACTS presented in a court where the criteria for integrity and FACTUAL validity are a bit higher than they are in the media...

So lets just say Travon punched him in the face for that matter. So it is OK for a person to murder someone after taking a punch. Sounds like a fake tough guy to me. It is ok to confront a person and not expect him to fight back. But when he does it is ok to kill him. One fist is equal to a bullet. Bunch of BS. Actually I would guess most of the people with guns have no idea how to defend themselves without a deadly weapon.

As a general rule, any death caused by injuries received in a fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime is classified as Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter


a fight, by itself, is not grounds to justify a shooting,,,

what I have been trying to get across, it is a case by case basis

by the UCR code, for instance

if someone robs a place with a GUN and is shot with a GUN, it is justifiable

if someone gets in a fight at a card game and the first man attacks the second with a broken bottle and the second man shoots the first , it is NOT JUSTIFIABLE

I agree. A fist is not a deadly weapon. Even if he decided to use his gun he could of shot him in the leg.

So if I would get attacked by someone with a broken bottle and there isn't another bottle around I'm just siht out of luck?

Yes a fist is a deadly weapon.
And it's easy to armchair quarterback and say he could have shot him in the leg. Is it easy to shoot where you want when pinned to the ground and someone is pounding your head in the ground?

My point exactly.

Use a bit more brain and less "tool".

If you feel threatened when you go outside and have to have a weapon then use one that will protect but not kill. Like a neighborhood watch guy carrying some pepper spray to spray those pesky kids with candy that he likes to follow.

Or fight back, kick, scratch, bite, hit him where the sun dont shine. Obviously he could of hit back but he used his hands and grabbed a gun and escalated the situation.

And you were there and know Zimmerman didn't try to fight back, kick, scratch.....
What if he did do that? And what if Martin was grabbing for Zimmermans gun? Then what?

Deductive reasoning, in other words, sound and reliable.



Inductive reasoning, in other words, a guess.

Poisoned well fallacy.