On page 306, we read an account of a home invasion. In it, the criminal locates the home owner's handgun and holds he and his family at gunpoint before finally releasing them. Mr. de Becker writes (emphasis mine):
"The intruder not only left, but he left the CD player. He did the family another favor too: he took the gun, which now won't be available to some more dangerous invader in the future (Bill is not replacing it)."
I see a few problems with this statement. Without knowing any details other than those given by the author, I think Bill (the home owner) should have had the gun in a location more accessible to him and less accessible to the criminal. Secondly, how was the theft of Bill's gun doing him a favor? Any time someone breaks into my home and attempts to take my property (or potentially worse), I don't consider it a favor. Additionally, if that gun is subsequently used in a crime and traced back to Bill, I don't think he'll be sending the burglar a "Thank You" card. How is it better to have that gun owned by a criminal (someone who would invade a home and attempt to steal property) than by a law-abiding citizen? And where is the guarantee that this gun will not be sold or given to "some more dangerous invader"? Or that the initial invader may not become more dangerous or emboldened upon acquiring a firearm?
More examples to come!
