The Shot

If there was a disease running rampant, and there were a shot available which would save 2 million people from that disease would you ban that shot? What if the side effects of that shot killed .000001% of the population in the course of saving those 2 million lives? Would you ignore the lives it would save and outlaw that medicine? I’m going to bet…based on the last couple of years…that most would concede that while regrettable, a fatal side effect affecting a fraction of a percent would be a small price to pay in order to save 2 million lives.

Now what if that disease was not a virus, but criminal violence? What if the shot came not from a syringe, but from a defensive firearm?

With the shot, she’s protected from the pandemic of violent crime.

I am not saying that a Constitutionally-protected right should be subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Rights are rights, period. But if you’re the type who thinks that such numbers are important, there’s no denying the benefit. Get the shot.