But all but one of the home invasions reported in the news in our municipality in the last half-dozen-plus years have involved two perps. The police tell us that that's because they want two sets of eyes, and because two people can empty a house of valuables much more quickly than can one. Michael Bane tells us that criminal attacks involving more than one attacker are becoming more and more the norm. GEM reports two incidents involving four persons each--with no shots fired. Yet, many people seem convinced that an incident involving more than one criminal would be a rarity. It is a given that any criminal attack is a rarity, but that's not the question at hand. Perhaps it's a carry-over from the range. At the square range, we shoot at one stationary target at a time. Does that perhaps create a subconscious expectation that our attacker will be alone? I don't know about others, but I am certain that, if I were up to the no-good of criminal violence, I would much rather have with me a second set of eyes, a second gunner, a driver, and someone to help lift the stuff out into the truck. By the way, if I were to stumble into a bad situation in a store, I would not want to make the mistake of believing that the robber whom I saw did not have an accomplice ready to bump me off. Okay, then, there is an oft-stated opinion that even if there are more than one, they are all cowards, and can surely be relied upon to flee rather than to.... That one could really stand some critical thinking. First, the "other" bad guy is not standing seven yards down range where he can see his buddy next to him get shot. He is likely already fully engaged in the attack. The sound of gunfire may or may not clue him in on the possibility that his accomplice may have been shot. Even if it does, he may perceive that he has no alternative but to continue the attack. Suppose he would really, really like to beat feet. Can he get to his car, or out the door to the street, by heading away from the defender? Dos he need the defender's car to escape? Will he try to outrun bullets? Will his cognitive powers assure him that the rational, law-abiding defender will not shoot a fleeing felon? We cannot know, but with the preceding for food for thought, I am not about to risk my life on the assumption that an attacker's accomplice can be relied upon to flee.