I think that there is more likelihood of a gun being used if both parties have them

I would stress here Charles that I am not saying you should give up you guns. Thats up to you. But the US does have very high rates of people being shot so as a group your guns aren't doing their job. Whether the shootings are directly related to the level of gun ownership or something cultural is more interesting. There are (I think) other countries with high levels of gun ownership and they don't seem to shoot each other quite as frequently.

Maybe thats what a government should do. As a group the decisions you are making as individuals (keeping your guns) aren't working so the government could make the decision for you based on facts and not on emotional attachment.


>Actually, considering who gets mugged or robbed there is reason to believe criminals do indeed avoid situations where they think there will be an armed response.
>
>Do you think if the bad guy is pretty sure the victim will be unarmed he leaves his gun at home ?
>
>>>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