The anti-gunners could care less about the real truth in armed self defense. No matter what "proof" is presented to them, they will attack the messenger as 'loony', 'out-of-touch', and 'voodoo scientific study'. Note the uproar made over Prof. John Lott's book 'More Guns, Less Crime'. The criticsm of that book came from a host of people who never read the book and they attacked his funding from the Olin Corporation rather than the data used for the research.
This book Guns Save Lives' is similar to the 'Armed Citizen' put out by the NRA a few years back. Hair-raising stories of people who found the courage and outrage to defend themselves with every means at their disposal. The critics will call it 'over-dramitic','stuff for Hollywood', and 'not the mainstream of reality.'
No, this book is for those who are trying to decide on the manner of self-defense they wish to have. For some the owning of a firearm is a HUGE step in their lives and relationships. This book will give them more examples of 'what can happen' vs. the pie-in-the-sky 'won't happen to me.'
No, Pistolshot, I did not say that this was an article that would make the anti-gunners change their minds, I said it was a good "counter to the gun grabbers." One can use this to "counter" the arguments presented by the gun grabbers TO the uninformed undecided person... those very people you allude to in your final paragraph when you say:
"...this book is for those who are trying to decide on the manner of self-defense they wish to have. For some the owning of a firearm is a HUGE step in their lives and relationships. This book will give them more examples of 'what can happen' vs. the pie-in-the-sky 'won't happen to me.'
To which I say, YOU ARE RIGHT!
The gun-grabbers will say "But everyone knows that you are 46 times more likely to be hurt if you use a gun, despite what these extremely rare examples of using a gun show. Besides, we can't allow people to take the law into their own hands. That would be a greater danger than the very remote chance that you might find yourself in such a situation".
First, their use of the word "allow" (used in other situations, like "we can't allow you to impeach klinton") signifies that they feel they have powers over and above everyone else's. And since "feelings" are important to a liberal, if they feel they can't allow something, than, by golly, that power must really exist.
Second, they love spouting statistics, real or imaginary. Even if 99% of the population never faces a life-or-death situation, the other 1% still does. It does them little good to realize "well, I guess I'm in the 1%, and not the 99% that they told me I was" when they have to make a split-second decision.
Long before having to use a gun for protection, a person had to think long and hard about his situation, and how he would respond. It's this mental preparation that makes his armed defense effective.
The last things liberals want is for people to think on their own. If they do, they see the transparent falsities behind liberalism and its gun-grabbing ways.