>I don't need to lock my doors where I live and I certainly don't live in fear. If all the world was like where I live guns would serve no purpose. Most Americans and Canadians probably live this way. We have at least a statistical illusion of safety. (Virginia Tech is absolutely bucolic) But there are places in the US and Canada ( and a lot of the rest of the world ) where I would not feel safe in my own home.
>

yes, you're right of course. I was having a bad day on Friday and pressed the send button in too much of a hurry. National stereotypes, sweeping generalisations and gross over-simplifications.

My apologies.

Reading Tracey's post i was just struck by how recurrent a theme is the need to defend one's family ; i don't ever remember it coming up in conversation in Canada, Britain, Spain, France, Netherlands....


>But the point is not one's personal security evaluation - that's risk assessment - you make your own choices and live with the consequences. But as to social policy, what reason do you have to believe that any kind of gun ban has an impact on those who want to use guns for criminal purposes. To you think violent criminals ( not thieves, but armed robbers ) in Toronto or Quebec or Ottawa don't have all the guns they want or feel they need? How about in Britain?
>Don't you think they are comforted by the idea that their victims don't?

I don't know. Believing that a potential victim had a gun would probably just make me more likely to want a gun in the first place and then to be sure and use mine first if challenged.

Again these numbers are off the top of my head but i seem to remember hearing that 50% of guns used in violent crime in Canada were stolen from within Canada. The other 50% were smuggled across the border from the US - I assume that a sizable proportion of those were stolen from licenced gun owners in the US.
It just seems obvious to me that the more guns there are in general circulation the more guns fall into the wrong hands.

n