Rolled Out On: 1/26/2007 11:36 PM

Normally I would dismiss this stuff as anecdotal evidence--interesting, but not particularly relevant (even though it does reinforce my own beliefs).

But when we're talking hundreds of cases, anecdotal evidence starts turning into real empyrical proof. What a great blog!

Rolled Out On: 2/21/2007 1:55 PM

Actually it's still anecdotal evidence unless there is some scientific rigor and blinding to the data. I'm not saying they are wrong, but a pro-gun person collecting stories does not prove anything more than the power of self-selection bias.

Rolled Out On: 2/21/2007 2:14 PM

Luckily for me, Colin, self-selection runs both ways. My point is that we're constantly being told that guns do not keep you safe (using the same self-selection bias in the media) and that no one needs to own a firearm. Nobody does rigor & blinding when they say that.

And the stories stand on their own regardless. Each story (assuming they are true) indicates an instance that, had the victim not been armed, would have more than likely ended up adding yet another crime statistic. You don't need a double-blind taste test to validate the outcome of each of those situations.