As I have pointed out, these statistics are selective and in some cases meaningless without further information about the research conducted.

You won't find that information of the Dept Justice website - or at least, I couldn't. But the original work was done, as denuseri points out, in a research paper by F Southwark, published in 2000 in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 8, Issue 5. I do not intend to pay $31-50 just to download this article in order to set those figures in context, but if anyone who does subscribe wants to email me a copy, I would read it with interest.

My point remains unanswered by this article (sofar as I understand it), however. Because 2 out of 3 rape attempts fail (see denuseri's statistics), a gun seems to be "extra" insurance. Thus, carrying one around "just in case" seems to be unnecessary in most everyday situations. Even if you are attacked, you are more likely than not to escape: twice as likely, in fact.

A gun (or any other weapon) should only be used for self-defence if that is the minimum amount of force necessary to remove a threat to your own life. If you use it when it is not necessary, you are committing a crime yourself. Maximum force for maximum protection is not an option, and it is not for you to make an example of someone: that it the job of the courts.

I do not consider the statistics quoted justify the possession of guns, and to use it as "proof" of their effectiveness is misleading and reckless because of the possible consequences. It is likely to be excessive force in most cases to kill an intending rapist, which is what this research seems to advocate.