>>I'm not sure that answers my concern. I keep hearing that criminals would be less likely to break into someplace if they think the owner owns a gun. This was Tracy's point and Mike's. I think in the U.S., with the huge proliferation of homes with guns, any criminal is probably already working with a worst case scenario assumption that the home has a gun. Given that coupled with the logic of nobody wanting to break into a place where there is a gun, then why are there any break-ins at all?
>>
>>I guess my point is that it seems to me that the number and likelihood of break-ins is in no way related to whether or not people have guns at home. So it's really a bogus argument as far as it goes.
>>
>>Now, maybe, and I say maybe a homeowner with a gun would shoot a criminal breaking in, as long as he/she becomes aware of the break-in in time to get the gun (or do they carry it around with them every waking moment?), and they are good enough to hot what they aim at, and have the ability to shoot another human being without hesitation. I know there are those who will jump in and yell that they'd shoot an invader without compunction, but I kind of doubt that it's that easy for someone who has never shot at another human being, and hesitation can get you killed.
>>
>>Bottom line: I think that for the average person, owning a gun may make him/her feel safer, but I question whether it actually does make them safer in most cases.
>>
>
>Most burglars try to find out when people are not at home and noone is around. They do not want to interact. Many times, they will knock on your door and ask if (insert name here) is there. Many times they call the house if the number is listed to see if anyone will answer. They are checking to see if anyone will answer the door. If they think there is something really valuable in the house and there is an alarm system, they might even do something to force the alarm to go off, but not leave any evidence. This is so they can see how long it will take for police,security, or others to respond. This type burglar is the most dangerous, because they are smart.
>
>When people, especially women, ask me about arming themselves, I have a question I pose: is this for your home or in the streets? If it is for home protection, there is nothing better than a shotgun. I prefer the Remington 870 pump and the load doesn't really matter. At close range, number 7 birdshot will kill. The reason I like the pump is because I have used it many times for crowd control. Step out of the car and rack a round into the chamber. People pay attention or leave immediately. For the streets, obviously, you can't tote a shotgun around, so I recommend something like the Glock model 27 which will fit nicely into a purse, or in my front pocket. Mine is a .40 caliber with a 10 round capacity.
>
>As to being safer, if a person has a weapon, but lacks the training and the will to use it, you are correct, it is better that they don't have it.

Ok, see, now I'm more confused. Everybody keeps telling me that criminals haven't the brains to know what they're doing. Now you seem to be telling me that they do. We're going in a loop here. If having a gun is supposed to make the criminal less likely to break into your home, I still see no evidence that makes me agree that this is the case. First of all, they need to know you have a gun, and then they have to decide that the risk is too great. If they are nothing but brainless idiots, then it won't make a difference to them, and if they aren't then they will proceed, as I suggested, as if there probably is a gun in the home. If criminals don't break into homes where there is a gun, then there should theoretically be no break-ins in the U.S.

Having a gun may or may not give you an edge, but I've heard nothing that convinces me it makes any difference as to whether or not the criminal will break into your house.