Toad,
Curval is right in the issue of collateral damage. It is always a concern, or should be. I worry about it in my home when I drill the possibilites. I don't wish to harm the innocent or my loved ones in the process of neutralising a perp.
Many countries now deny citizens the opportunity to save their lives from violent encounters sighting this as one of the reasons. When you look at the cold statistics, the governments and some citizens can justify this direction based on the "real" numbers. After all they aren't dropping in the hundreds of thousands. Small populations will have smaller numbers of violent deaths and violent crimes in apperance to the U.S. as a whole.
If you take your statistics against a state by state basis and compaire only one of the 50 states at a time, the deaths and acts of violence per 100,000 are about the same, and some states less for a given population.
But back to the original topic...I think... What do you do for those persons who "will" become a violent death or violence victem statistic, who for the lack of a means of self defence other wise would not have been?
Curval's argument, of what I can infer, argues the "WHAT IF" that the possibility exists that collateral damage "MAY" happen. The preponderance of the government statistices are people "will die from violence" and "be violently accosted" every year. So far Ive only really heard a great silence on this board concerning what to do for these people we know will be statistics each year. Under other circumstances the silence can be infered as a tacit approval.
