Uummm, okay, lots of people didn't take statistics. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, 24,000. Gun related homicides are about 15,000, but about 2,200 are killed by their spouse. About 500 die of gun related accidents. So 26,700 gun deaths of family members of gun owners per year or about 8 per 100,000 population. Only one third of US households own guns so the risk is 24 per 100,000 in gun owning households.Stoic Spirit wrote: ↑December 18th, 2021, 5:38 pmI also would like to live in a world where no guns are needed, in a totally gun free world, but sadly this is not that world. I do not deny that there may be a problem with the possession of a firearm, just as a kitchen knife or car is responsible for many accidents, but I cannot understand how this could be a bigger problem than that the victims of a crime or terrorist attack do not have an effective means to defend themselves. Of course there are people who shouldn't hold gun, because they are mentally unstable or unfit. But I am not talking about them, but about responsible, innocent law-abiding citizens whose rights to effective self-defense are being violated in many countries, and who would never obtain a weapon from illegal sources like criminals and terrorists do.LuckyR wrote: ↑December 18th, 2021, 4:13 pmWell, you are correct that you only have one life. Thus it is odd you aren't addressing the known risks of firearms in increasing the risk of accidents and suicides. You are also correct that I personally live in a "normal" country as I suspect the vast majority of posters on this Forum do. I mentioned that if your risk of stranger murder and/or terrorism is so high to outweigh the known risk to the owner of gun possession, then (and only then) should you use safety as your reason for gun ownership. Naturally there are numerous non safety reasons, but we're not discussing those here. You are correct that regardless of where you live you "need to be prepared for" the possibility of crime, but it is an error to suppose that the only or best way to prepare is by acquiring an instrument that has a higher statistical chance of harming your family than protecting you.Stoic Spirit wrote: ↑December 18th, 2021, 11:32 amHopefully you are lucky enough and you do not live in such an area at high risk of terror as so many people can't afford to live elsewhere. In Israel passers-by open fire on terrorists as one man. These are not normal conditions, I know, but if the same happens in Europe, well, people will have to wait for the counter-terrorist forces to arrive on the scene, but in the meantime, eighty to a hundred people will die.LuckyR wrote: ↑December 6th, 2021, 3:12 am
First, the majority of murders are by folks the victim knew, not strangers. Therefore the second paragraph goes up in smoke.
Second, the best way to avoid a stranger murder attempt (which do happen on occasion), isn't a weapon, or a law enforcement officer. It is living your life in such a way that you aren't on the radar of murderers, who, BTW are not average citizens.
Because of the first two, the only way a firearm is going to have a greater chance of providing protection than harm to you (since they can do both at known rates), is if you are at so high of a risk of being murdered that you have other problems you should be addressing besides firearms.
I think terrorists and criminals deserve to talk to them in their own language. And the victims would deserve to be able to fight back. If predators are lurking around us we have to be armed. The solution is not to run away. We cannot escape forever.
If you live in 'normal' country the risk is enormously low to be a victim of terrorism and crime, indeed, but the same rules apply. it can happen to anyone that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you need to be prepared for that, because it's technically and infrastructurally possible for the reason mentioned above, and everyone has only one life.
So in order for a gun to have a chance of preventing your death at a higher chance than causing one in your family, you would have to live where the murder rate was higher than 24 per 100,000 assuming you were 100% effective at preventing your murder. Obviously, that would be a gross overestimation of the ability of the abilities of gun owners. Let's be generous and say 25% of murders could be prevented by owning a gun. In that case you would have to live where the murder rate was 96 per 100,000
The US has a murder rate overall of 4.9. It is higher in big cities. St Louis is the highest in the US at 69, so it doesn't even make sense there. Worldwide is different as you pointed out. Tijuana, Mexico has 138 per 100,000, others that qualify would Acapulco and Caracas, Venezuela. I assume you don't live in any of those cities.