Doug Kanter wrote:
[snip]
> Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY)
> as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly
working gun
> of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the
benefit
> of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long
as they
> are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car,
but
> actually in the house.
>
> Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I
don't know
> about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return
for a
> VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin'

> minds", and is asking to be shot. [snip]
>
> I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic
might be
> slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-)

It's your assumptions, not your logic, that are more than rusty. For
your "1 in 3 chance of being shot dead" to be right, you have to assume
that 100% of all intrusions into houses with guns result in a fatal
shooting. No cases of the gun owner not getting the gun, or not
choosing to fire it, or not hitting the target fatally or, etc., etc.

That said, I agree with nearly everything else you've said. Don't
quite see why you keep enabling the ignorant fool to continue spinning
her fantasies, though. She obviously

-aem