Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course.. The number "saved" is fairly arbitrary. You have to assume that 
> everyone "saved" couldn't have been without the gun, 

No. You go to, for example, the FBI violent crime reports, and see how many 
times people were mugged who had a knife got hurt. Then how many times 
people were mugged who had a gun and got hurt. Then how many times people 
who were mugged and had no weapon got hurt. Etc.

It turns out, at least for the years I looked up way back in college, that 
it was something like 82% of the people who cooperated were unharmed, 86% of 
the people who had a gun (whether they drew it or fired it or not) were 
unharmed, and the next higher number was mid-70s. So, basically, having a 
gun is the only way when being a victim of a violent crime that's likely to 
get you less hurt than just handing over your wallet.

> ignore the problem, and just proclaim, "A gun was there, so they where 
> saved by one."?

If they were *saved*, they can tell you what happened.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message