You are being dishonest. You pick and choose what facts to accept acclording to your own agenda.<quoted text>
Do you consider that anecdote relevant to this argument?
It's not. It's irrelevant. It's an anecdote. Basing a conclusion on it is a logical fallacy, or hasty generalization. From
"Anecdotal Fallacy - Anecdotal evidence is basically "This happened to me/someone I know/someone I heard about." Such evidence is largely useless as proof, since it is by nature doubtful in veracity. Furthermore, even if "it" did happen to someone the speaker knows, this does not establish that "it" is common or pervasive, which is the point the speaker is usually trying to argue. Typically used as the basis of a Hasty Generalisation, where a single, anecdotal "proof" is taken to prove or disprove a general rule. As scientists often say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data' "
Also, from "How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results" at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm... :
"we have evolved brains that pay attention to anecdotes because false positives (believing there is a connection between A and B when there is not) are usually harmless, whereas false negatives (believing there is no connection between A and B when there is) may take you out of the gene pool. Our brains are belief engines that employ association learning to seek and find patterns. Superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old."
Let me put it to you like this: Would you like to see an anecdote about a child accidentally killing itself with a gun? Would it convince you if you saw one? Probably not.
If not, aren't you being intellectually dishonest endorsing an argument that you wouldn't accept?
The facts are as follows;
The home was invaded.
The girls mother gave her a gun and told her to hide in the closet.
The girl did as she was told.
When the home invader attempted to get to her she shot him.
By shooting him she prevented harm coming to herslf and to others.
Now whatever you want to call it had she not had that gun and known how to use it things could have gone much worse.
Now as to anecdotes I guess you opted to disregard the earlier post I made that shows the numbers for gun deaths broken down.
Not aproblem I didn't expect anything different.