(May 15, 2023 at 10:48 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:(May 15, 2023 at 7:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I need to know that Kleck is not full of shit. Whatcha got? Show me how you know his numbers are good. That's your only assignment for your next reply to me.
Because the only way it could be wildly (like, by an order of magnitude) wrong is if almost everybody who thinks that a gun saved his or her life is mistaken. I can see how that could be the case if Gary Kleck hadn't asked "Have you actually seen the attacker." (maybe many people are deluded and think a gun saved them from an attacker that wasn't actually there), but I fail to see how it can be true given that Gary Kleck only counted those who claim to have actually seen the attacker.
Because you STILL can't be sure that the attacker would have killed the respondent if the latter hadn't had a gun. Also, whether one is being 'attacked' is a very subjective matter. In recent news, people have been shot for ringing the wrong doorbell, approach the wrong car, or pulling into the wrong driveway. In each case, I'm sure the shooter felt they were in imminent danger of being harmed or killed, but the circumstances of those cases argue against it.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
