"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>
>> "aem" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I know, but since it's impossible to make any accurate assumption, I
>> chose
>> the best possible outcome.
>
> Thus making yourself sound like an idiot. Talk to your sheriff about the
> number of robberies and attempted robberies... then estimate the
> likelihood of a gun being present in each one.
>
> Lena

Hang on a second! You believe buildings in DC are being hit by mortar fire,
and you're calling ME an idiot???