Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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. 

So the number of armed people who get shot and die and have their gun taken 
away counts as unarmed people who died? Alright. It also doesn't count the 
number of people who got shot and died and had their knife taken away. So 
I'm not sure how it washes out.

> Without those numbers, its hardly clear how effective it 
> really is. 

Unless the percentage of deadly crimes compared to overall violent crimes is 
fairly low, which I'd think it would be back in the 1980s.

-- 
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