This argument always goes the same way. Someone like East will pull a bunch of articles showing examples of home owners who protected their house against various numbers of intruders and the circle jerk continues. Then the onus is on you to show that things did not happen. Nearly impossible to do. How do you show how many homes were not robbed? How do you show how many people were not killed and why? Has your family just been lucky for 121 years or have there been mitigating factors such as not placing your self in harms way and making ones residence an undesirable target? Who knows. How do you show how many people have not been murdered and why? Did some of them have a gun on them when someone might have been considering cause harm to them? Who knows.
I was robbed at gun point (two people and two guns). I was caught from behind at a shopping mall. Had I been carrying a concealed or exposed weapon would I have still been robbed? Who knows. No way to play the scenario over to see what an alternate out come would have been. I do not own a gun and see no point in it. Statistically I am unlikely to ever need it. And given my wife’s proclivity to being startled at the slightest noise I think it is best to keep it that way even though she has asked a few times about how I feel about getting a gun.
I do agree with the gun rights advocates that banning guns won't work. I like the idea but I know it will not work. Too many guns, too many people and it is just unrealistic. I have been arguing for universal background checks, no P2P sales without BC, all future gun's must be titled and all owners must be liable for their weapons. This does not infringe upon the 2nd and it will help reduce the number of guns accessible to people who should not own them.
