>>Of course not. I don't know about the US, but the cases of home invasion in Canada is pretty low. I'm pretty sure that the risks that pose a loaded gun in a house is much higher than the risk of being rapped/killed/tortured/etc. in a house invasion.
>
>How many houses in the US have a loaded gun in them. 500,000? More (I'd bet).
>
>What is the rate of gun accidents/homes with guns vs the rate of being robbed/raped/tortured/killed in homes that are invaded? I'd bet it is REALLY low.
>
>But your point is just to sit there and take being 'rapped/killed/tortured/etc' and be happy to not have a gun accident and be in a minority of occurances when it happens - correct?

What is the chance (realistically) that a gun in the house is going to help in such situation. If you open up the door and being faced with a criminal that takes you by surprise? These kind of arguments truly are misleading. Only in a very few circumstance a gun might help (You notice the criminal before he notices you), and even then the adverse effect is that every criminal takes a gun with him when invade a house. They are far more triggerhappy if they suspect the home owner could draw a gun. Then in effect the gun makes things really unsafe, esspecially if the homeowner is not really comfortable handling guns.

Up here most robbers up here do not carry a gun and therefore are seldomly lethal. It is simply not an issue here at all.

You're just being fooled by the gun lobby, selling you on guns.