A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them.
This quasi-statistic (which I will take at face value), while interesting from a sociological perspective, does not actually inform individual decisionmaking. It's a thinly veiled way of saying to someone "you can't be trusted to handle a gun/knife/whatever properly" - which, even if true for the majority of humans, is an incredibly offensive and patronizing thing to say to someone. And may just get you punched in the face, which (if it so happens) suggests that you were probably wrong about the individual in question.
That's quite an interesting comment on the tone of the argument you're responding to(http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html), but doesn't actually refute it.
People make mistakes, people are fallible, the /r/talesfromtechsupport subreddit goes to show that quite well. Despite this, you obviously don't want these people to die, and if not having a gun reduces the chance of a gun being turned on them, they may well be better without it.
Having a gun in the scenario inherently raises the stakes to lethal, after all.
This quasi-statistic (which I will take at face value), while interesting from a sociological perspective, does not actually inform individual decisionmaking. It's a thinly veiled way of saying to someone "you can't be trusted to handle a gun/knife/whatever properly" - which, even if true for the majority of humans, is an incredibly offensive and patronizing thing to say to someone. And may just get you punched in the face, which (if it so happens) suggests that you were probably wrong about the individual in question.