Mike Lorrey wrote:
> ... given the statistics of risk of being killed during a rape, robbery, etc,
> there is a significant probability of deadly harm in such events, and given
> that its been proven that you are at least 30% more likely to survive such a
> crime if you are armed with a gun, then not carrying one is simply stupid.
I checked US crime statistics at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm,
and I find that in the most recent year shown, 1998:
Violent Crimes: 1,531,044
Murder: 16,914
Only 1% of all violent crimes lead to murder. Also, I believe I've read
elsewhere that a substantial fraction of murders do not occur in the
context of a robbery, but rather are crimes of passion committed by people
who know the victim. This would further lower the chances that a mugging
or similar violent encounter with a criminal could lead to your death.
If you're prepared to kill in response to robberies and other violent
crimes against yourself (as I believe Mike and others advocate) then you
must accept that there is a 99% chance that you are NOT defending your
life, you are rather applying the death penalty to a sub-lethal crime.
I am curious, do people who advocate using guns against robbers also
support the death penalty? And would they support expanding the range
of crimes which deserve death, since they are personally willing to kill
in response to sub-lethal crimes? Would they even go to the point that
they would support the death penalty for robbery?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:49 MDT