Marys decision is a logical one. Owning a gun for protection is not. The "playing field" will never be level. The criminal will always have the advantage. Most sane people dont want to kill other people.

"Lets not limit guns, the criminals will get them anyway". That is about as logical as saying "lets not limit the supply of heroine, the addicts will get it anyway". No worries about the people maimed, killed, crime, being a burden on society etc.

"Guns dont kill people, people do". Right, so why bother trying to regulate anyway. Open the sluices and let anarchy rule?



Do you really think that was the reason Hitler did not invade, or are you just trying to muddle the argument? I'll repeat it for you. Do the US have a gun problem, or do you really think it is a people problem?


I have no idea about the situation in St. Croix, never been there and dont know much about the place. Sounds like the gun control laws was not enforced efficiently and that crime rates soared to me. Want to hold the argument you made here up to the snopes report about australia?

For personal protection, the family have me, cell phones and neighbours/fellow citizens. The odds of somebody entering my home on chance to do me harm is so small that I sleep very well at night. If somebody hold me up with a gun, I have done enough armed closed combat training in the army to not try to pull my own piece or do some funky ****. Good way to get killed or crippeled.