I am a gun owner but the self-defense thing is a red herring IMO. You are far more likely to shoot yourself or be shot while owning a gun than you are successfully defending yourself. You can make the argument that they are fun to own and a constitutional right, but the self defense argument cant be taken seriously when the statistics show the exact opposite.
This "far more likely" is a form of pseudo-logic: you find a common trait (gun ownership, hair color, anything), discover a correlation and proudly declare that hair color has something to do with odds of being shot. If the US declared Somalia its 51st state today, our odds of getting shot by AK-47 would supposedly increase.
And the stats, if only you bothered to look it up without prejudice, would show that self defense cases are counted by millions, while murders are under 20 thousand (and hardly more than 5 if you subtract inter-gang disputes).
First off it's not "pseudo-logic" to state that gun owners are more likely to be killed or injured in gun-related deaths or injuries. How are you going to kill or injure yourself with a gun if you don't own one? 66% of gun deaths are suicides. There is a causal relationship between owning a gun and committing suicide with a gun.
As for the stats, the only source I can find on that "millions" comment is from a conservative think tank citing a single 1995 study. The actual number of reported cases in the article is 67,000-- of which, most are actually not true self-defense cases.
"4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective." -- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
The 1995 study is such an insane outlier that it's safe to say that the methodology was likely flawed. If any news source is using that as a legitimate number it's not because they're actually interested in the truth. It's because they have an agenda to peddle to you.
Finally, to claim that the number of homicides is "hardly more than 5" is hyperbolic and dishonest. Especially considering the fact that just the MOST RECENT mass shooting event has left 18 dead. If you think guns are cool just say that, don't be intellectually dishonest.
Burglaries are not self-defense cases. According to that website about 12% of burglars are armed, and in states without "stand your ground laws" you're only going to be able to justify your self-defense case if they presented a clear threat, you attempted to flee first, and then you found yourself without an exit before firing. So of the 3.8m burglaries, one third of which have a person present, one eighth of those have an armed intruder. Which leaves 160,000 potential cases for self-defense. Which is certainly not the "millions" initially claimed.
Well, using your own words, 1/3 of the 3.8m burglaries happen with a homeowner present. It's a lot better to have a gun in such situations. Whether the intruder is armed is irrelevant: being sliced with a knife, beaten with a shovel or raped by a unarmed dude isn't a great outcome. As for those laws that protect the burglars from homeowners, they have to be changed. But even if you lived in such a state, first you defend yourself and your family with a gun, shooting the intruder if necessary, and then find a lawyer, in that order. Regardless of the laws, I find it appalling that some people embrace this submissive attitude to "burglar's rights in your house" and try to impose this attitude onto others.
