
       The relevance is that if you've got x homicides and reduce
the number of gun homicides in that group, but x doesn't decrease
by a significant amount, have you made an improvement, and is that
improvement worth what you've paid?


       If a baseball bat is a tenth as likely to kill a victim as a gun,
is that any comfort to that tenth?


       I've faced a knife.  And I was damn annoyed I didn't *have*
a gun.  All the statistics in the world didn't change the fact that
*he* was interested in cutting *me*.


       "Anyone trained in self-defense." 

       Unarmed self-defense isn't for everyone.  What's more, it requires
substantially more training to be safe and effective than a firearm.
It requires physical proximity and thus a greater threat to the victim,
which is a primary problem with stun guns.  You have to actually touch
your assailant.  Unless you're *very* good, a large, stronger assailant
can simply ignore your blows long enough to incapacitate you.
