> and used it You couldn't get more biased than this kind of selection for that sort of study. It's like saying that the chance of spending time in a holding c

> and used it You couldn't get more biased than this kind of selection for that sort of study. It's like saying that the chance of spending time in a holding cell is very high, if you only look at subjects who have just been arrested that day. And it's symptomatic of how Kleck is used - he does a study that is heavily specific to the conditions, and then it's quoted free of context from day 1 and generalised to things it shouldn't be generalised to. Similarly, 'carrying a gun' is very different to 'carrying a gun and using it' - you have to be able to access and use the gun at the right time, and you don't always have the drop on your attacker. I once did a bouncer certificate course, and the instructor said that in a study in Sydney, the most use of a gun in an encounter with an armed security guard was the guard's own gun used against them - people were getting the drop on security guards and turning their guns on them. And one place where women tend to meet their rapists - bars and clubs - is a place where guns are usually restricted even in US states where gun freedom is common. Texas, for example, has a 51% law, meaning if a business makes 51%+ of it's income from alcohol, you can't carry a gun there. Women in these higher-risk places can't legally carry this supposed magical defense item. Specifying "and using it" ignores all the issues around actually getting the gun into play at the right time, which aren't trivial. Ultimately, "carry guns" is a bad argument to make for personal safety, because it's treating the symptom, not the cure, and short-circuits discussion to actually cut social problems off at the source, I find. Re: the nationality thing - I never suggested you were American, but that's the place in the modern Western world that is doing the "guns as defence for normal citizens" thing (and it's where Kleck does his stuff). That's why it's a US-centric counter-argument. :)