I would suggest that data is the best way to explain something, accompanied by examples to illustrate.
I don't know Pelosi. He may be a POS, but the penalty for OWI isn't being beaten nearly to death with a hammer. I would also suggest that knowing that someone broke into his house and assaulted him is enough details for the public. What more would we need to know?
Even if he had a gun, why would he be carrying it around with him in the house? Data would also show that the mere presence of a gun in a house increases the odds that a member of the household will be injured or killed by a gun.
We don't really know DePape's motivation for the attack. The media have reported several possible reasons and the White House issued a statement that has since been retracted, but has some very odd details.
Most people don't carry inside of their home unless they think they'll need it or they just want to act like some kind of cowboy. The accidental gunfire and injuries to gun owners is usually from carelessness or inexperience and while that shouldn't happen, it will if people aren't required to be trained and I think this should be required of all gun owners. Hell, even officers who practice regularly shoot poorly while under stress, so there's no reason to think that someone who almost never touches their gun would be a deadeye when the time comes for them to use it.
My comment had a typo, which I have corrected to say "DePape would probably be dead if he'd had a gun."- since I mentioned DePape, he'd refers to Depape, not Pelosi.
I was saying that if DePape had been there with a gun, he'd probably be dead because the Police arrived while he and Pelosi struggled to take control of the hammer and they witnessed the attack. If he had been holding a gun and aiming at Pelosi, the Police would have shot him.
I never meant that Pelosi deserved any kind of attack- why would you guys think I did?
The reason I mentioned Pelosi at all is because people are reacting to his arrest and the attack emotionally. How is crime scene data collected? Often by interviewing witnesses, right? If that's the case, the witnesses are offering statements that are usually clouded by emotion, so the accuracy isn't always 100% correct.