Courtney, I understand that, however I think you missed my point.
My point was, and completely disregarding all of the politics and the need to remove the enemy, shouldn't the gun be there in the interests of the pilot's safety?
I'm not going to teach Granny to suck eggs, you served as a fighter pilot so you know this already, but I am adding this for my point to make sense: Aircraft can only carry a limited number of missiles, and depending on the mission (lets use the Typhoon FGR2's as an example), there may be even more limited space for missiles, due to the requirement of LGBs. So if the aircraft has no missiles left because they have used them all, then shouldn't the requirement of the gun be obvious to those calling the shots? Extra cost in adding and operating the gun seems like a tidy investment (speaking purely from the general public's perspective) compared to a destroyed aircraft which costs tens of millions, and possibly a deceased pilot who costs several million (correct me if I'm wrong on that) to train, not to mention the heartbreak his/her friends, family and colleagues will have to suffer.
Basically, my point is.... shouldn't the safety and welfare of the personnel be paramount? If so, then why is the rights and wrongs of cannons in aircraft discussed by those who are in charge?