I don't agree, in fact it's actually a trick question.
Whether you own a gun is no guarantee whether your house is going to be burglarized or not, it's what type of neighborhood you live in. If you live in an economically depressed area, chances are better you are going to get robbed. If you are a middle class neighborhood to upper class neighborhood, well, the chances go down.
One thing guns have done for sure is put some fourteen year old thug on the same level as the rest of us. Meaning any d*ouchebag having a bad day can take it out on you, me or our friends and family anytime they want. Even if they are still going through puberty! And no, no other d*ouchbag with a gun EVER gets their to pick him off other than the cops.
So sure, go ahead and talk about how great guns are, I sure as hell don't buy it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear up some apparent confusion and misunderstandings.
The intent of my post was to illustrate a point by using two hypothetical and virtually identical municipalities that were different in their gun control laws.
If you are saying that the elimination of guns will eliminate gun related deaths and injuries, then I wholeheartedly agree. And I certainly agree that guns should not be used for criminal activities. Unfortunately, guns
are used by vicious, morally-challenged, psychotic “thugs.”
Gun control discussions typically identify two approaches to the ownership of guns:
• Encourage stricter gun control laws.
o The Result -- This will make it difficult for everyone to buy guns legally. Many law-abiding citizens will not want to go through with the hassle and expense of buying a gun and, thus, will not own a gun. As for those who want guns to be used to commit crimes, these people will almost certainly find a way to get their guns.
• Allow law-abiding citizens to purchase guns.
o The Result -- It would still be difficult for juveniles, felons and such to purchase guns legally. However, it will allow for the much easier purchase of guns by these law-abiding citizens
