"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On 3 May 2006 19:17:06 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:mjrh525e3uintiqkfk8di80b8lcoop6mtr@
4ax.com:

5,000 (may be high)/154 = 32.5 odds against you.

You really suck at math. 5,000/number of firearms = the odds against you
being shot by accident.

That was not the number of firearms, sorry.
Nor was it entirely about accidents ... it was
about outcomes & safety.

The number of justifiable homicides has zip to do with any of it.

You &/or you guns that make you "safer" on average have really,
really bad odds of being legally "safer" it seems.

How many "events" ended without a shot fired?

How many involved no guns?

IOW, the criminal

The guy that has the drop on you while trying to steal those
attractive guns you are running to find & load?

gives up when the legally owned gun is drawn.

Hence there should be few, if any, gun deaths, right? And
those few are all "justifiable homicides" ....

Follow the logic he If you have the fewest gun deaths when
everyone is armed then you have the most when nobody has any
guns.

Hey Cliff, you blew it this time, with a non sequitur. Your logic is correct
but your conclusion is not and it contradicts the point you are trying to
make, which means your argument is a weak one. If you have the least gun
deaths when everyone is armed then that is the condition of safety that is
best for everyone. If you would have the most gun deaths when nobody has any
guns that would be a good condition but one that is not possible to achieve.
According to your logic the safest one can be is in a condition where
everyone is armed. It doesn't get better than that. Right?

Hawke