Gun Control & RKBA

You ask:

That question, while having the patina of reasonableness (i.e., what can be more "reasonable" that cost vs. benefit when it comes to human life <<< a debatable premise, BUT one I am willing to accept for the purposes of this discussion), is rendered nothing more than flotsam by the hypothetical you offer to support it.

You claim that there are about 15,000 shooting deaths each year. Again, I'll accept that figure. It isn't the problem.

What is the problem is this:


That number is total bull puckey. In fact, you practically admit it with the phrase "who MAY . . . have lost their lives." The term "defensive gun uses" as you use it encompasses incidents where a gun is used in defense of property as well as when it is used in response to a non-lethal threat. Moreover, it includes incidents where the gun was not used, or even brandished (e.g., incidents where the alleged "victim" claims that their assailant would have proceeded further had not the assailant "known" they were armed.)

This means that your question really isn't "How many net lives saved would it take for people to embrace "the Second Amendment?" but, rather, "How many saved lives, saved big screen TV's, saved BBQ pits, saved moments of insecurity/fear, etc. would it take before people are willing to accepts 15,000 dead human beings?"

If you want to talk about "lives saved" you need to limit your "defensive gun uses" to ONLY incidents where the victim faced an imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death (the common law definition of when deadly force -- such as the use of a deadly weapon -- could be used in self-defense). An inflated version of that number (I say "inflated" because we have in a number of states where the common law definition of self defense has been legislatively modified to allow deadly force to be used even where no such risk is present) can be determined by counting the number of police reports indicating that a weapon was USED in self-defense, that its use was investigated, and that a determination was made not to charge the victim and/or the victim was charged, but was acquitted.

NOW, take that number and compare it to 15,000. Better yet (just so we don't have to listen to the old "well, a criminal will just find another way to kill you" canard), take that number and compare it to ONLY those incidents involving accidental/negligent/self-inflicted deaths. Either way, the number of GENUINE, common law, self-defense incidents are a mere fraction of lives sacrificed on the altar of the meme that non-urban residents (who are the ones scarfing up firearms like they were Skittles) face a substantial risk of becoming the victim of violent crime, much less a risk that outweighs the risk that their weapon will end up killing their child, their spouse, and/or their depressed selves.