I just love it when liberals ask questions like this. The implication is that "if your gun hasn't been used to stop crime, then you don't actually need guns." How come we don't get to ask the question in reverse? "How has the fact that I own guns ever increased crime?" If I own guns and that doesn't make crime go UP, then there is no valid reason not to allow them.
Basically something I use when discussing CCW state laws all the time. People will argue with the whole "more guns, less crimes" idea. They will try VERY hard to argue that crime either didn't go down in states that passed the laws or that it was statistically insignificant. They never seem to think about the fact that not one of them is trying to argue that passing those laws made gun crime go UP. Like they said it would. So if it either has zero effect or a slight positive effect, they have no valid reason to restrict people's right to carry.
I've never had to file a property claim on my homeowner's insurance. I still pay it every month. I've never had a car accident that was even slightly my fault. I still have insurance. I've never shot somebody who broke into my house and tried to rape my wife. But I'm ready. And the fact that I'm ready doesn't make crime rates go up!
Gregg
