[lit-ideas] Re: Didn't I tell you so?

  • From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 00:30:39 +0100

"...on the practical level if your enemy has one and may very well use it on 
you, you'd be foolish not to get one too, if you could..."

Which is roughly equivalent to what I said though it depends on whether the 
gun-bearing criminal is in sufficient numbers to make it likely that you'll be 
targetted. 

Interestingly, here in the country, it's more than likely that gun ownership 
(measured per thousand) is higher than it was in the suburbs - mostly shot guns 
I assume. Yet I feel a whole lot safer even though I don't own a weapon. Not 
because my neighbours might be gun-owners, but rather because the level of 
violent crime appears to be minimal. 

It seems to me that legal firearms - guns designed to be used against people - 
create a vicious circle where even the criminal feels that he has to upgrade 
because of the weapon he is likely to face. 

It makes me wonder whether there are any stats in the US for crime against gun 
owners and crime against non-gun owners.

Simon

Other related posts: