"if it wasn't my bullets, it probably would have been the police officer's bullets"

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/couple-recount-fatal-fray-at-their-tierra-verde-home/1158689

Another classic example of why firearms are necessary for free people to resist those who would physically assault them.

"She unlocked the door. She said Hill pushed it open.

Hill, a tattooed, bald, 250-pound man, quickly overpowered her. He grabbed her from behind and wrapped his fingers around her nose and mouth, smothering her and snuffing out her screams."

...

Hill had a good 80 pounds on him and was winning.

...

"The way I see it is, the guy was a really bad guy and if it wasn't my bullets, it probably would have been the police officer's bullets. It's not like he was going to turn his life around."

Emphasis mine.

People who want to disarm everyone in their attempt to disarm criminals would have cases like this be left only as contests of physical strength.

Edited to reduce amount of quoted material.

[wtmusic]

1. Probably this, probably that.

He probably wouldn't have turned his life around. He'd been disorderly and intoxicated. His record said he never harmed a flea, but he probably would have.

Let's put that in the "definitely" category now!

[cleanhippie]

4. On that we can agree. He DEFINITELY will not be attacking anyone else ever again.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. What we know definitely:

He probably wouldn't have turned his life around. He'd been disorderly and intoxicated. His record said he never harmed a flea, but he probably would have.

Let's put that in the "definitely" category now!

Here's what we know definitely:

The attacker definitely was 250 pounds and was successfully overpowering both the woman and her fiance in a physical contest of strength.

The attacker definitely had an extensive prior criminal record:

"State records show Hill had been in and out of prison since 1986 for burglary, grand theft, selling cocaine and other crimes. Hill was last arrested in Pinellas County in February for disorderly intoxication."

A firearm definitely was used as an equalizer in a physical contest of strength that the victims were losing.

The attacker definitely won't be attacking anyone else ever again.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. He DID assault her.

Never harmed a flea TILL THEN perhaps.

[VoteProgressive]

2. If disarming every criminal was possible I would jump on board.....but.....

it is not possible so the honest citizens need guns also.

[WatsonT]

3. But I thought the only reasons for getting a gun were to

A) commit a crime, or B) compensate for your small penis. Over and over again we've been reassured that is all guns are good for, that a criminal would haughtily take one away from a victim and use it on them, so it's useless for defense.

Does lack of a penis count as small?

[DWC]

6. It couldn't have been a police officer's bullets

because a police officer was not there. A competent, armed citizen was there and stopped the life threatening attack.

I am confident politics were not discussed during the attack.

Sempere Fi,

[Hoyt]

7. Glad to see she is not one of those who can't walk out of the house without their gun.

Guns in home make some sense -- although, not so sure about the gun caches that some here have or desire. Clearly, packing in public ain't good.

[petronius]

8. Setting aside the complete irrelevance of your conclusion, do you believe that the

now-deceased Mr. Hill was a well-behaved gentleman everywhere except in other people's homes? :shrug:

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Why?

Why is it acceptable to defend yourself from physical assault in your home but not outside of your home?

[rl6214]

17. Juvenile use of the term "packing"

Whether she was carrying a weapon or not has no bearing on this story.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Since it bears mentioning.

This is a single anecdote. Not a 'classic example'. Doesn't really have anything to do with firearms policy.

In fairness, there are also other tools she may have employed such as a knife, or a taser. So it doesn't really prove anything by itself.

AS all anecdotes fail to do.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Yes, it is an anecdote, but...

My point of posting this was not to indicate any sort of trend.

Many people on this forum advocate a complete elimination of firearms. If their worldview came to pass, no law-abiding citizen would have a firearm with which to resist a physical assault on their person. Thus the weak would almost always be at the mercy of the strong. Assaults would all become physical contests of strength.

I posted this example specifically because it had an assault that started out very badly for the victims as a physical contest of strength, and then ended well when one of the victims was able to retrieve and use a firearm to equalize the imbalance of power in the physical contest.

All it takes is one anecdote to disprove an incorrect theory. I post these kinds of anecdotes to disprove the theory that everything would be great if there were no firearms. These kinds examples show what kind of world would result - the weak at the mercy of the strong.

Even if you could eliminate all firearms from the world, and even if such a world had no firearm crimes and no firearm accidents, the consequence would be a world pretty much as it was for all of human history up until a few hundred years ago - every time a victim was assaulted they would be engaged in a physical struggle against their attacker. The weak would be at the mercy of the strong.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Those people are safely marginalized even within our own party.

They can be ignored. They aren't going to get it. Ever. Maybe just don't bother engaging with them.

There is no total confiscation/ban legislation even in the works. No pressure for it. Obama has been hands off on this issue. Congress has been hands off. Concealed Carry expansion continues. The Supreme Court is on the correct side of the issue. We're good.

There is no credible 'total ban' scenario, so rather than posting these anecdotes (Which might be useful to illustrate the failure of a law or absolute policy) I would just ignore them.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I'm not willing to give them a pass.

Every single time someone successfully uses a gun to defend themselves from assault they crow about how if there were no guns it would not be necessary to defend oneself with a gun.

This means they are continuously and frequently advocating that the weak should be at the mercy of the strong.

I'm not going to give that a pass.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. 'They' generally don't, actually.

Even SharesUnited doesn't do that. He accepts when people post self-defense that was not used to counter a firearm.

You give them license to post every dumbass jackalope that has an negligent accident, or intentional dumbass felony. You make it difficult, if not impossible, to point out their anecdotes are meaningless, when you engage in the same behavior.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. The difference should be obvious.

The anti-firearm folks post anecdotes trying to indicate a trend which the data does not support.

I (and most pro-firearm folks) post anecdotes to to refute an incorrect theory, which only requires a single data point to refute.

Anecdotes are useless for indicating trends. But they are quite useful for disproving incorrect theories.