1. This is the outcome I would expect for the following reasons:
a. Not every non-criminal is armed
b. Non-criminals that are armed will probably never need to kill someone to defend themselves
c. Criminals who are armed are inevitably going to put themselves in the situation where they will end up shooting someone.
edit - Are they counting criminals who kill other criminals? Do they go in the first number, or the second number?
d. Non-criminals who are armed may use their firearm for self-defense by simply showing it and not having to actually pull the trigger. (something the article doesn't care to mention)
2. The article ignores the fact that the number one cause of suicide is untreated depression, not guns.
3. What is supposed to be the takeaway from this? We need "less" guns? What does that do to this statistic? Would that make it go from 34-1 to 100-1?
Sorry if this comment sounds a little on the snarky sound, but if there's one thing I detest, it's statistics trotted out as news.
1. This is the outcome I would expect for the following reasons:
a. Not every non-criminal is armed
b. Non-criminals that are armed will probably never need to kill someone to defend themselves
c. Criminals who are armed are inevitably going to put themselves in the situation where they will end up shooting someone. edit - Are they counting criminals who kill other criminals? Do they go in the first number, or the second number?
d. Non-criminals who are armed may use their firearm for self-defense by simply showing it and not having to actually pull the trigger. (something the article doesn't care to mention)
2. The article ignores the fact that the number one cause of suicide is untreated depression, not guns.
3. What is supposed to be the takeaway from this? We need "less" guns? What does that do to this statistic? Would that make it go from 34-1 to 100-1?
Sorry if this comment sounds a little on the snarky sound, but if there's one thing I detest, it's statistics trotted out as news.