On 1/28/2011 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Interestingly, this statistic doesn't *necessarily* say anything about 
how many get shot *first* because the mugger also had a gun, and decided 
it was worth robbing you, possibly just for the gun, anyway. This is 
likely to be a bit less clear, since, well.. You obviously are not going 
to have the gun on you anymore, if they shoot, then rob you, and it 
might be years before someone else gets caught using it to commit 
another crime. Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it 
really is. Even less so when, like someplace like Arizona, the laws 
pretty much allow any damn person that wants one, to have one, *any 
place they want*, unless the building/business owner says flat out, "No 
way in hell on my premises."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message