In today's Roanoke Times is a column worth reading by anyone who weighs the costs and benefits of gun ownership, depending on their circumstances. What the writer calls a "personal risk assessment."

(It's also, in part, a reflection on how afraid one feels, and the reasons why someone might feel compelled to keep a gun):

Fresh out of medical training I made the mistake of asking patients if they owned guns. I quickly learned either to skip the question or explain my intentions beforehand. In a good-hearted attempt to promote gun safety, I found myself accused of colluding with the "government gun grabbers."

The question was useless anyway. Most every family in this area has guns: rifles and shotguns in racks; handguns in the car and next to the bed.

It made me wonder if I needed one.

The NRA, scores of bloggers and many who wrote this paper about Seung-Hui Cho's rampage suggest that it is not just in my best interest to carry a gun, but that it is in the best interest of society.

Not so, say gun control advocates. Gun crime rises and falls with the number of available guns. The key, they say, is to restrict guns.

The problem with that, reply gun rights advocates, is enforcement. Gun bans everywhere -- Scotland, Australia, Washington D.C. -- have failed to curb gun violence and, in some cases, have increased gun violence. Gun bans, they say, deprive only the innocent of weapons.

That is a myth, reply gun control advocates. Careful review of the data shows that gun control laws work. Countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths and crimes.

Maybe, respond gun rights advocates, but America is not just another country. We have the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms.

Really? ask gun control advocates. Are you part of a militia? Are you stockpiling an arsenal to protect your state against the U.S. Army?

Don't have to be, reply gun advocates. It's an individual right. Read the Constitution. It's plain as day.

Phew.

What is the right way look at this? ...

[more]