I would think that the criminal doesn't know if one owns a handgun or not. But if a person does, he should keep the gun in a safe place or have an alarm in their house that will scare the criminals away. People could also get a permit to carry the weapon on their person when not at home.
The fact that removing guns from citizens will lower crimes is a fallacy. Outlawing something doesn't make it disappear. Criminals will still find access to weapons. Murder, assault, robbery, rape, and suicide often involve the use of handguns. However, it is not the gun that causes these crimes. Most murderers have a history of violence against enemies, acquaintances, and family. However, not all the violence is committed with a gun. Obviously these criminals will be violent with, or without, a gun. Is it likely that if criminals don't have a handgun they will not commit any crimes? This is a myth, which is difficult to believe. It is held true that using handguns to kill a person is easier than using other small weapons, but determined criminals, with the help of other criminals, can catch people in closed or narrow areas where they can't run anywhere. They can use knives, ropes, drugs or even cars. Criminals can kill other people if they are motivated to do so. Therefore, the government would soon find it necessary to ban kitchen knives, ropes, over the counter drugs, and cars which can be used as lethal weapons. It is clear that the slogan "Guns don't kill people-criminals do," is true. The mishandling or improper use of the gun will cause death, not the gun itself. .
Desuka argues that victims of handguns know their assailants well: jealous husbands, women's lovers, drinking buddies, and angry employees. Well, if criminals know their potential victims well, I suppose they have knowledge of each other at the very least. Those types of crimes show more physical and exhaustive forms of violence.
