Recently, my girlfriend and I debated moving from Florida to Chicago. One of the reasons I did not want to go was Chicago's ban on handguns, a city where criminals are often armed.

My girlfriend stands only 5 feet tall and weighs roughly 100 pounds. She is virtually defenseless against even very small men. At 5 feet, 10 inches and about 200 pounds and a weightlifting regular, I stand a little bit better chance against most men.

However, by carrying a concealed weapon, we are both protected from attack, especially against an armed attacker. That is why I am happy that Florida is a "must" carry state (which refers to the type of concealed weapon permitting).

While Brian Price, in his letter Wednesday, points out that guns allow much more damage than bats, banning them would not solve the problem of school shootings. This is a case of the toothpaste being out of the tube, meaning there are millions of guns in existence and they cannot all be confiscated. By disarming law-abiding citizens of their handguns, the only handguns remaining would be in the hands of criminals.

For evidence of this reality, look at England where the criminals are armed and the people are not. The result is a growing problem of gun violence, not a diminishing one. Despite some of the strictest gun control in the world, British cops are armed for the first time in history.

While space limits my arguments here, I suggest that before advocating banning handguns, one read Professor John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."

• Outsiders will not dictate ad policy
  
• Shallowness and bias tarnish personal image
  
• Having a Kentucky fried spring break
  
• Banning guns leaves us vulnerable to criminals