I know it has been pointed out, but maybe bears repeating. Kleck's study counted reports where the responder claimed to be threatened with bodily harm and deterred it by brandishing, or in some cases, firing a gun. There's no way to know in how many of those cases, the responder would have actually been killed had they not had a firearm for deterrance. Maybe they would just have been mugged with no physical harm. Maybe they would have been bruised. Maybe the responder exagerrrated their story. I have no doubt there are cases where a potential victim has saved their life with their gun, but there's no way to tease out a number of lives saved. In the end, Kleck's study is juat a guess based on multiple anecdotes.
On the face of it though; 300,000 lifes saved because of guns in one year, even in the USA, is an absurd number that should not be believed without better evidence.
On the face of it though; 300,000 lifes saved because of guns in one year, even in the USA, is an absurd number that should not be believed without better evidence.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
