Ronald Reagan was guv of California when the Black Panthers showed up at the capital with guns, it didn't take long for new gun control. I was responding to this: "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession." What details did I leave out making my question irrelevant? People in more dangerous situations are more likely to be armed. The relative number of people in both groups (armed and unarmed) depends on how much danger they face, true? If you're in the Mafia or on the police force, you have guns because your line of work requires them. The regular Joe Schmo doesn't face that danger and dont need guns nearly as much. So there are proportionally more armed people facing danger than unarmed people. The stat compared Pennsylvanians, your point compared them to people in some other society where cops dont need to be armed because its safer. That was my point - people in safer environments dont need guns as much. People facing increased danger do need guns more and that means they have a better chance of being shot. How many armed people get shot on a battlefield compared to unarmed people watching the battle from afar?