Willravel

In the right situation, the mentality is understandable. The right situation, though, is a situation where the odds of a home invasion are plausible. Let's say you lived in Kosovo in 1992, when the Serbs were invading often and they would routinely invade homes with violent or murderous intent. In this situation arming one's self seems totally reasonable. The odds of needing the gun excuse owning it for just such an occasion.

What are the odds of a home invasion in your area? 1/600,000 like Illinois? 1/1,000,000 like Finland? The "if" in the sentence "If some man breaks into the house and attempts to either rape/and or kill my roommates and I" is a fantastic if.
No, I said that I understood Crompsin, who owns guns for responsible recreation. Not only that, but Crompsin lives near DC, which does have a very high crime rate (11 robberies a day in 2004). I also never mentioned anything like a time bomb. All I suggested is that home defense is not likely a reason for owning a gun, but rather an excuse. This is something I still stand by and that I've seen no evidence to contradict.

The time bomb situation is a separate issue. That has to do with reasonable background checks including mental health history when someone applies to get a gun. That kind of thing could have very easily prevented the Virginia Tech shootings, as well as the shootings in the OP. It's common sense.