Thirsty Viking wrote:

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the
guns weren't of much use.


On the contrary, the only studies done show a much higher
incidence of not being seriously injured.

I'll believe that when they pry my sanity from my cold, dead brain.

Here in Philadelphia, as in most major cities, violent crimes like
armed robbery are an everyday occurance. And, when reported on the 11
o' clock news, they're one of our favorite spectator sports. I don't
actually keep score; but I'm absolutely certain that this year's crop of
armed, dead shop owners outnumber dead or wounded robbers by a huge margin.

In one case last summer, and man whose store had been robbed more
than a dozen times finally decided to buy a gun, and to keep it near the
cash register. After surviving the twelve robberies during which he was
completely unarmed, he was shot to death during his very first attempt
to "defend himself". In another case, reported just recently, the owner
of a small store was shot to death by robbers when he exhanged fire with
them. This by itself wasn't real remarkable, except for the fact that
this young mand had stood in the very same store and watched, four years
ago, when EXACTLY the same thing happened to his father.

If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.