And? The bad guy has every advantage. He selected the location, the time, the victim. Do you think you can't die from being stabbed? Having your skull bashed in?
According to the Census folks some 80% of Americans live in urban areas. so, so much for your not applicalbe to America argument... AND Anecdotal evidence is not proof. And if you're drawing your firearm in self defense then is it most likely you did something stupid to put yourself in that situation. AND..If you have an opportunity to try to use your weapon you are 5.5 times more likely to die than if you'd left your gun at home. It's Just Math.
So Portland's advise, (one of the most liberal city in America) is the ultimate authority on how to handle a robbery? A city that discourages any kind of firearm ownership? First, not all violent encounters are robberies. Should women just submit to a violent beating and rape? Should men and women stand by idly during an aggravated assault? Should everyone trust violent thugs pointing a gun Or knife at them? They have already shown poor decision making skills. Should armed home invaders not be confronted when you hear a window break in another part of the home? You have the advantage in your own home. There are thousands of home security / firearm self defense experts in America. Many of them ex law enforcement and ex military. I'm proud to be one of them. We disagree with Portland's blanket advise. Listen, every situation is different. Sometimes, being submissive is the best course of action, many times it is not. Funny how criminals tend not to prefer witnesses. There are plenty of stories of people being shot even though they complied. For those that seek higher level force on force training, there is a complete toolbox of techniques to better survive and prevail over these encounters.
Firstly, if the assailant has every advantage in selecting the location, the time, and the victim, why was a victim who was armed selected, rather than a victim that was unarmed, if they were specifically selected according to you? Secondly, according to those defending the actions of Trayvon Martin, having your skull bashed in does not pose a threat sufficient enough to warrant deadly force in response.
1. Please cite where 80% of the 320 million Americans live in large urban environments. 2. Tell the millions of people who may not be living today had it not have been for successfully defending themselves and their families that they are anecdotal evidence. 3. That the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. Evil finds even the most vigilant folks. Very typical of the left to blame victims. According to you, if you use an ATM in broad daylight and are held up, you are stupid. If you are held up in a parking lot, you are stupid, if you are car jacked at a red light, you are stupid, if a woman is raped in a parking garage after leaving a Dr's appointment, she is stupid. If you are perceived as an easy target because you are elderly, you are stupid. Every victim is stupid. How does it feel to be the only smart person?
Its actually relevant you know he said in low conspiratorial tone, silly people often make the most sense....
No, every situation is not different. Every situation in this discussion starts with the bad guy being aware of his intentions, selecting the time, the place, and the target, and the victim being unaware of the risk. I assume, of course, if the victim is aware he's about to be involved in a violent confrontation, he will change direction, leave, find help, as opposed to just being stupid. Now, your advice is to ignore the advice of the police because the city is "liberal." I will simply respond by saying... That advice is stupid and no gun will save you from stupid.
Neither the bad guy nor the victim know the status of the other. But, statistically, if you're armed and you have the opportunity to use your weapon you're 5.5 times more likely to die than an unarmed victim in the exact circumstances. It's just math. Martin? Are you referring to the thing where a "neighborhood watch" guy ignored the advice and instruction of the police and pursued a person then panicked put himself and an innocent victim in danger? Is that the stupidity you're using to defend your position?
It is the CENSUS. https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=percentage+of+americans+living+in+urban+areas There, I did the hard work. Educate yourself. And, in this conversation, I am the smart person. I do not "blame" I learn from mistakes. my mistakes, your mistakes, no matter, I figure what went wrong and learn. There are no accidents. "Accidents" happen when someone does something they're not supposed to do or fails to do something they are supposed to do. Everything else is an act of "God." I use drive up ATMs. And never if there's someone nearby. I do not enter the lane until the car in front has clearly exited and I do not sit there counting my money. I take pains to understand risk and eliminate what I can. Tell me, when you get stopped at a red light, how many car lengths do you leave between you and the car in front? Less than 1? Then you've eliminated your escape path. Did you know that? Do you even ever consider escapability as a defense is your gun your only defense? Defend stupid if you want. I will stand on the side of smart because... No gun will save you from stupid but no gun might keep you from dying from stupid.
4.5 if you have a gun 5.5 if you try to use it. 5.5 is more than 5. Take your fingers off your "gun" and try to follow along.
First you claim that the assailant has every advantage, not simply the advantage but every advantage, in selecting who their victim will be. Then you contradict yourself by claiming the assailant does not know the intended victim is armed, despite apparently hand selecting them for the purpose of the assault. If the assailant does not know, then the intended victim has the advantage in the situation because they are not helpless, and has the advantage of surprise. Your statistics are simply wrong. It does not matter what math you utilize, it does not matter what census you cite, your entire position is completely wrong. Coutnless individuals are alive today because they were armed, and thus able to fight back against their assailants. Yours is not a scientifically based study with findings that can be properly replicated time and time again, regardless of the venue the experiment is carried out in. It is nothing more than some random survey asking individuals invasive questions they have no reason to be honest about. It is no different than the general social survey claiming firearms ownership is down, simply because randomly selected individuals did not want to admit to owning a firearm. According to those defending the actions of Trayvon Martin, having your skull bashed in does not pose a threat sufficient enough to warrant deadly force in response. Are you claiming that they are wrong, and that head trauma can indeed lead to death? Was George Zimmerman justified in shooting him in self defense since his head was being slammed against the pavement?
Educate yourself. Turns out that according to your link, 80% of what are described as urban areas are actually small towns. Like I said earlier, the Philadelphia urban area where your limited study was done, does not represent most of America. Quote: "But 2,500 people is hardly what we'd think of as a city, or even 5,000 for that matter. Let's say we decided to call places with 20,000 residents or less small towns. Of the 3,573 urban areas in the U.S. (both urbanized areas and urban clusters), 2,706 of them are small towns, by this definition. That's 75.7 percent. If roughly 80 percent of our population is urban, roughly 80 percent of our urban areas are actually small towns." Go ahead and keep blaming victims if you think it justifies your position. Go ahead and blame the 1,200,000 victims of violent crime per year as reported by the FBI. You should become a self defense expert, because clearly you know more than the top experts in the country. The successful DGUs that we read about every single day must be just dumb luck. Nobody must have told them Dadoalex said they were supposed to die. You must be disappointed that they prove you wrong.
OK. You got a gun. You're jogging in the wooded marshland, alone with your big gun strapped to your hip. Good for you. you've already made one mistake. You're alone in a remote area but, hell, you've got your gun, what could go wrong? Your next mistake? You're wearing those buds because you just love your tunes. Now this completely blocks your hearing but, hell, you've got your gun, what could go wrong? Now you're jogging along, seating and getting tired. But you got your tunes and your gun so....When the guy steps from behind a tree and bashes your skull in with a 34" aluminum bat you never even see it coming. Now he's got your bun, your buds, your phone and you may or may not die as a result. But, your gun? didn't do a thing to save you from your own stupid. Do you know why it's countless? Because most of it is made up. Here's how it works...I was not killed today at least 2 times because I was not armed. I was at the Y and some guy made a bad call and because I wasn't armed we just played instead of shooting it out. And then I was at Dunkin Donuts and I didn't get killed because the guy behind me didn't think I was going to rob the place with the gun I didn't have. That's the "quality" of your "countless" counts. The statistics are not wrong. They are what they are. They don't address gang violence or domestic violence or whatever the reason for the event. They address the event and they do so in a scientific statistically sound manner. If you want a larger study, DEMAND your Republican congressman stop blocking this type of research. I damn well guarantee Democrats will support additional funding for this research. What happened after Martin and Zimmerman engaged is unimportant to this conversation. But is an EXCELLENT example making my point. There is no doubt that an unarmed Zimmerman does not follow Martin. Because he was armed Zimmerman felt "safe" in ignoring both his training and the instruction of law enforcement. No gun, no altercation, no one dead. No gun will save you from stupid and in Zimmerman's case no gun would have saved us all from his stupid.
how about tarrytown and scarsdale those are "small towns" according to your numbers but they both lie within the NYC-NEWARK metro area. How about rosemont, norridge, and harwood heights, Il all three count a "villages" by your figuring but all three border the North side of chicago while Riverdale and Calumet city border the south side. You dare to say the study is not representative because it's not representing what you think are "small cities" but, the simple fact is that 80% of people in this country live in or very near a large city. Soooo... You arguments are just as full of holes as the fools who think that carrying a gun will save them from their own stupid acts.
Living near a large city is not same as urban Philadelphia where your small sample study was done. Most of America is nothing like Urban Philadelphia. There you go again, calling the 1.2 million victims of violent crime stupid. I don't think you could get anyone in this country to agree with your assessment that all victims of violent crime are to blame for their victimization. Thats absolutely absurd.
No one should ever defend themselves right? She must have done something stupid, right? Glendale Arizona is exactly like urban Philadelphia, right? Posted:Aug 01 2016 05:49AM MST GLENDALE, Ariz. (KSAZ) - Glendale police say preliminary results of their investigation of a shooting support accounts by a woman and other witnesses that the woman fatally shot a man who was attempting to rob her at gunpoint. Police say 23-year-old Carol Miracle fatally shot 27-year-old Frank Taylor early Monday morning near a convenience store in the area of 59th Avenue and Camelback Road. According to police, Miracle and other witnesses said Taylor had pointed a gun at Miracle's head during the attempted robbery and that she then drew her own handgun from a hip holster and shot him once. Police also say Miracle reported that she was in fear for her life and that investigators found evidence supporting the statements by her and the witnesses. You must hate it when people successfully defend themselves. It messes up your narrative.
Yes, I have one question, in all your years as a professional firearms Instructor, have you ever seen any proof that this 4.5, 5, 5.5 times as likely to get killed if you resist, Armed, against an Armed attack ? that unarmed, you are less likely to be killed ? Because I have never seen any evidence or or proof of that being true, far from it, the opposite has proved true, inexperienced gun owners often kill their attackers. The unfortunate young lady that was killed, was not armed, so if you are going to quote statistics, you are more likely to get killed in a violent attack, if you are unarmed and do not resist.
I didn't call them stupid because the vast majority of them didn't carry a gun thinking it would save them from their mistakes. The vast majority complied and walked away alive. Those with guns? They died at a rate 4.5 times higher. Those with guns who tried to use them? Died at a 5.5 times higher rate. Make your choice but... No gun will save you from stupid.
You can repeat your false information over and over, it is still false, I am still alive, I am always armed, and I do not behave stupidly.
So, lets answer your question. 1. Glendale has a violent crime rate of 451 per 100k as opposed to the national average of 403 per 100k. Making Glendale a fairly high crime community. 2. It was 1 AM 3. She was a woman who decided to venture out alone at 1:00 AM. 4. She was on foot IF the story was accurate and I preface that with a great big "IF" she got damned lucky because she made no fewer than 4 errors that could have cost her her life. Luck is not self defense and it was not a gun that saved her, it was pure stupid luck and No gun will save you from stupid.
