Per the National Fire Protection Association, there averages 355,400 house fires a year in the United States. Of that, the majority end without injury, although 11,670 people are injured annually as a result of house fires.
Per the Bureau of Justice statistics, there averages 3,713,000 home break-ins each year. In these incidents, 7.2% involved the victimization of a household member, equaling an annual number of 266,560 people being victimized by the home invader each year.
So, I want you to ponder those figures for a moment: As an American, you are 22.8 times more likely to be the victim of violence from a home invader than you are to be the victim of a dangerous house fire. Yet, if you don’t have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in the home society agrees that you are negligent. What kind of parent are you if you don’t have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers?
However, if you have no gun in your house, our society of sheep applauds you. After all, almost 200 children are accidentally killed each year when they access an unsecured firearm, don’t ya know! Well, three times as many children drown each year, but I see no campaign to ban swimming pools.
So, what gives? Why is having fire extinguishers a must but having the life-saving device that is the firearm, which you are more likely to need in your home, frowned upon? Because, the firearm is also a means of maintaining personal liberty and self-reliance; fire extinguishers do no such thing. Therefore, the mainstream media will continue to convince you that fire prevention is a must for diligent parents (I agree, it is) but guns in the home are bad.
It is this simple; if you have no means of protecting your home then you are negligent, even more so than if you have no smoke detectors or fire extinguishers. Don’t take my word for it, the numbers don’t lie. Will that convince the antis? Nope. Because they will not embrace anything that requires self-reliance, they will just keep worrying about house fires.
Reflex Handgun 
Perfectly stated!
LikeLike