I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective 
self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the
pro-RKBA arguments presented here.

The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a
million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring
criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number
of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However,
it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader
breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare
"All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead, 
it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes
cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and
cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just 
criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which
the victim died.

Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say
that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the
consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that
a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn
into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate
gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who
were deterred would have committed more crime or more
serious crimes had they not been deterred.

-Case Kim