The question is: why are so many of these guns being sold? It cannot be because most people face even a reasonably high probability of being put in a situation where they could legally use a handgun to defend themselves.
Nor do most people face "even a reasonably high" probability of needing to use or benefit from the presence of a lightning rod, smoke or carbon monoxide detector, fire extinguisher, poison antidote, emergency generator, surge protector, or auto airbag, but many people purchase these things, some impact insurance rates, and some are legally required.
The question is not one of probability alone. In any risk management strategy, one must take into account both the likelihood of a risk occurring and the severity of the potential consequences. Being killed by carbon monoxide from a faulty furnace is extremely unlikely, but should it occur, it would be extremely serious. Most people judge that one cannot reasonably afford to ignore that risk.
Same thing regarding defensive strategy, in my mind.
Crime statistics suggest that violent crime is less of a problem today than it has been in decades.
True. The decline coincided with the advent of mandatory sentencing. By the way, a lot of the VCAs who have been sequestered are going to be getting out soon. Any predictions?
Most of that crime is concentrated in communities that the vast majority of us don't live in or seldom visit.
And that happens to be where the population is concentrated. What about per capita stats? And by the way, VCAs are very mobile these days. Yah can't get away from it.
I won't hazard a guess as to whether any individual's likelihood of being put in a situation where he or she could legally justify using a handgun for self defense is less than or greater than that same person's chance of being struck by lightning, but the odds of it happening to any individual are assuredly very, very small.
Well, an analysis of twenty years of data compiled a decade ago indicated an annual murder death total of 16,000 for the U.S., vs. 90 people killed per year by lightning. Does that help?
But the real question, I think, may not lie in how many people are killed, but in how many deaths or serious injuries might be prevented by the presence of legally owned weapons. And that cannot be realiably estimated.
Why? Take deterrence, as one aspect alone. There are, as I understand it, over half a million people licensed to carry concealed in Florida alone. How many violent crimes are not even attempted because the intended victim may be armed cannot be measured from crime statistics because there are too many other variables. Interviews of incarcerated felons do indicate that many fear the armed citizen more than the police, however.
With the exception of some SD training, every shot I have fired since 1956 was associated entirely with recreation: plinking, target, skeet, trap, and a small amount of hunting.
On three occasions, I have legally used a handgun to defend myself and others from home invaders, two of them very violent. I did not have to shoot. Had I not been armed, the consequences would almost certainly include my not being here to post this note.
I've never been struck by lightning, but I've known three families whose houses were struck.
It is also posted by Beentown71 here.