Originally Posted by mjw16

Bottom line: you only increase your chances of firearm violance when you introduce a gun into a situation that may not have otherwise had one. Another fact: it's hard to be a victim of gun violance in the absence of guns. I'm reminded of a friend who went out and bought a gun after the birth of their second child. It was for "protection". I thought, "congratulations, you've just introduced a lethal weapon into a house that had previously had none, you did this knowing that your own children may gain access to it and no one has any training." Not smart. His money would have been better spent on: an alarm system, a dog, exterior lighting (regarded as the most effective crime deterrent in history-not guns, thank you very much), improved locks, window bars, self-defense classes, getting in better shape, etc. This is the fallacy of logic that many fall prey to when considering the purchase of a handgun. They don't realize that personnel gun ownership places them at exponentially increased risk of a multitude of consequences such as: their own injury/death, injury/death of a loved one or friend, suicide, accidental discharges of all kinds, gun theft later used in commission of another crime-to the tune of 13 to as much as 53 times (based on a wide range of studies) that on non-gun owners. Owning a gun for self-defense is an incredibly, incredibly risky choice. Although other factors don't seem quite as macho, they are, undeniably, the safer alternative. Don't fool yourself into thinking you'll be the one to safely avoid the pitfalls and legitimately use your gun in your own defense. You won't, you'll end up dead or in legal hot water.

VoodoTiger and Schwinnrider's over-macho fantasies and name calling is just the type of false bravado often inspired by gun ownership, they wouldn't call me a "liberal pansey" if confronted face to face without a gun. They're the ones who's attitude and contribution to gun violance statistics is a big factor in my decision to never carry one.