And I think you're American ;)
> When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law.
I disagree. if the above was true the mailbox baseball (remember, a federal offense) to mass murderer pipeline would be much better documented. Also, the vast majority of burglars are non-violent offenders, not blood thirsty home invading rapists.
> A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society.
I think it's more that they're willing to bend the rules of civil society to meet a personal want or need, and they would most likely evaluate that as a risk/reward proposition like any other person does when entering into a risky activity.
>Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives?
>I'm not.
Interestingly this is the exact conclusion that was presented to me the last time I had this discussion. And my response is the same now as it was then.
Statistically speaking you are much more likely to have a family member die from that firearm in your home you claim is there for protection when compared to the threat of the hypothetical burglar you are protecting your family against.
