Originally published on this site June 28, 2000

In response to: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/gun0618.htm

To The Editor:

Mr. Murray raises some good questions. However, statistical analysis is the science of taking a large number of individual events and finding the relationships, if any, between them. It is fine to suggest we might all be safer as a whole if the bad people were not inclined to have guns; we will all be drier if it doesn't rain as much, too. Unfortunately, one can not always insure they are not in the storm's path. The problem occurs if you happen to be the individual "event" where the bad guy has a gun, or a pipe, or just big fists, and you have nothing but the average chance of safety to quote to him. One hopes the quoting of large statistical studies will render him senseless, otherwise, you might wish for the liberty to decide for yourself whether to be armed and prepared or not.

Guns are inanimate objects, and in my experience (admittedly, a statistically insignificant number when compared to all guns), none of mine have ever done a thing without my hands on them. Limiting guns without limiting the number of criminals, or tyrants, is no better than limiting knives or fists and wondering why the violence doesn't stop. Remember, every victim is an individual, not some statistical abstraction. After all, the six million Jews who died at Hitler's hands represented a mere 4% of the total estimated killed in WWII, and a much smaller number of all humans alive then. Ask yourself if this percentage is acceptable. If you are the one being herded to the gas chamber, or being assaulted by a thug, will you feel better now knowing that you are just a small fraction of those who are statistically "safe".

Scott Harmon