Sadly I ran out of MP conjuring up my debate point earlier.

Although I would have to ask. How serious did they think those 4 armed men were about shooting them. Sounds to me like they were really just thieves that were good at bluffing. If there were less robbers then I might be inclined to think you would need protection but when 4 people not only rob you but manage to destroy any chance of needing to kill you it sounds like they had a plan and got some information on the people living there. Meaning that they were not there to harm anyone. Thus protection was not needed anyways.

You can always tell smart and careful people from wildly violent people when they rob a place. If they come in shooting then yes you get protection. If they come in quietly and accidently wake you up then you would know they wanted no contact with you. They most likely just wanted stuff and there would be a chance that their guns were not loaded or even usable. They were just holding them as a means of keeping you away.

You cannot just use an event like that to deal an absolute. This is no game sadly. So therefore you need to get all of the info on the event. It's not exactly an air tight case on support because for all we know the robbers were not after the people. Meaning they had no intent of assualt or abuse thus what would you protect yourself from? You need to tell people if they were thugs or sneak thieves. Sneak thieves often use their skills at acting to rob when they need to but most of the time they are gone with your stuff before you know it. A thug would be the one that comes in shooting and asks you for where all your stuff is. Thus one would conclude that he never cased the place. Those are the ones that are often caught later on anyways.

Your paragraph on the robbery would have had the opposite effect of what you intended in a case because it's really just proving that you want to own a gun out of fear. Which is not a good thing when trying to help against people who want guns banned.