Sorry then, but that brings me back to my first question. Why would anybody with at least one functioning brain cell not automatically assume (or at least plan for the possibility) that there is a gun in there? I know if I were going to break into a house, my plan A would be based on that assumption.

>The difference is when you are home. There are always those breaking in for reasons other than to steal property. It's for those that you need the gun.
>
>
>>>I think they really think it doesn't matter if no one is home, so they concentrate more on breaking in when no one is there after casing it for a few days.
>>
>>In that case, what difference will it make if people keep guns at home?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why is it that with the plethora of guns in the U.S., criminals don't simply assume beforehand that the house they are about to break into has at least one gun?
>>>>
>>>>>Your opinion and experience certainly differ from mine. I am curious, how many criminals have you known who feel the same way you do? How many would target a home when they knew in advance the owner had a weapon there?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Tracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>we certainly have more gun crime than before Dunblane but the implication that banning handguns contributed is nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Some people seem to think that having guns deters gun crime. Is the US an example of that deterrence ? Would a criminal think "hey I won't steal from that house or mug that person because they might have a gun" I would have thought they are more likely to think "hey they might have a gun I'll take mine just in case and if they have I'll shoot them."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nick