So you're advocating we all wear full medieval suits of body armor 24/7 as opposed to a simple, small, and easily carried and concealed firearm that usually doesn't even have to be fired to be a deterrent?
Well, can't argue with that logic.
Not medieval, Kevlar torso protection is life saving enough. THAT's protection. If a goon already has a gun pointed at you, are you going to fire before he does?
Possibly, yes. What's to say you are fully exposed and/or directly in front of this goon? And the better question, I think, is what were you doing or not doing that put you in that particular situation? Surely you didn't wake up from a dead sleep to find this goon and gun in your face. There is a very good chance that you had a moment to have reacted BEFORE that gun found its way to your face. That is, IF YOU HAD YOUR OWN GUN!
Let's face it dude: shit happens. But the plain and simple fact is that shit has much less chance of happening if you are prepared for shit in the first place. The idea is to be prepared to have a chance to survive; there are no guarantees in life but one... YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE IF YOU REFUSE OR ARE NOT PERMITTED TO TRY!
Oh, and before I forget, what good is your "kevlar torso protection" if your goon has a gun in your face? It's been awhile since I took biology, but I seem to remember that your torso is a little south of your face. (Nevermind the cost)
@anthracite And if the goon has a bat or a knife or three other similarly armed goons? Kevlar or ceramic doesn't do much for your chances of survival then. An armed assailant doesn't necessarily mean a firearm.
A bullet proof vest is HEAVY. Even if it was comfortable to move aound in, you still have to put in metal bulletproof plates to protect yourself from any firearm worth a damn, and then all your fancy vest leaves you open to is being clobbered in the head or shanked in the gut where the plate isn't covering. Bullet proof vests are good, but they only last a couple of shots. You won't be able to a magazine of any weapon without the plates taking serious strain and being in danger of shattering. I wonder what the human body looks like with several large shards of sharp metal shoved through it. Bullet proof plates have to regularly replaced if they take any shots, otherwise it becomes too dangerous to wear. I won't deny my country has a fascination with firearms, but I'll be damned if we don't have a very good reason to protect ourselves with just as much power as those who would harm us.
The vest I wore when I was a cop wasn't heavy but was a bit stiff and difficult to move in and hot as hell. It was only Kevlar with no metal or ceramic backing plates but it was still far from comfortable. And let me tell you: without any plates or padding I felt it when I got shot.
What you Americans have with firearms is WAY beyond fascination. Non-Americans drop their jaws at how you go on and on, about how much firepower you have on you, or in your safes, to protect yourselves FROM YOUR OWN PEOPLE. You're the odd ones out here, not us. Guns do not lower crime rates, as has been reported in extensive research. Meanwhile, dozens of schoolkids, even kindergarten kids, are getting shot. Your president called out to you, 9/10 of the people agreed, nothing happened whatsoever. That's mental!
Obviously your country has no education because common sense should tell you that law-abiding gun owners DO NOT SHOOT SCHOOL CHILDREN!
And that same common sense should be enough to inform you that criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OBEY LAWS!
Restricting or outlawing guns only takes them from those who respect the law and do not use them to commit crimes.
Criminals, on the other hand, don't care what the law says they can't do because THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!
And what country does your self righteous ass call home, so that I can criticize you based on my own standards? I don't expect an answer from you though because you haven't answered one of my questions yet. You seem content to criticize and berate and avoid real debate.
My statement still stands anthracite. If you live in world where someone will attack you with intent of inflicting harm on you or someone close to you, you deserve to wield equal or greater power to defend yourself.
Because our military personnel are not allowed to carry weapons.
PC bullshit from the Clinton administration.
Our military installations are some of the least protected places on earth.
The data set is incomplete; some of the occupations are missing locations, one of the pictures has no description, and one states openly that it is a disaster preparedness kit. "What people carry" is a misrepresentation of saying "Shit people have", Which could be anything. Not saying this isn't interesting, just that it is irrelevant listing. Potato.
I have 2 guns, 2 knives, handcuffs, pepper spray, various lady stuff, a small medical kit, keys, 2 phones, lots of hand sanitizer/wipes, 2 disguised handcuff keys, etc. I have a lot of shit.
I like to collect knives. It's only a hobby, but it's enough of one that it comes up in conversation fairly often. What are your hobbies, what do you like to do for fun, etc. or even if someone is just at my house and sees the ones I have. Because of this, I'm shocked that literally every picture here aside from 2 (and they may just not be visible in the photo or I missed them) has a knife in it. I've lived in a few states and in all sorts of areas both urban and rural, and I've lived in nice neighborhoods and shitty ones. There are plenty of people who carry knives with them, but I honestly thought as I scrolled that this was going to end up being some sort of ad for pocket knives. I've talked to plenty of people about owning them and whatnot, and so many people both guys and girls have never owned a knife that isn't made for the kitchen or if they do own one, never carry it with them.
I'm not trying to call BS or anything and accuse the photos of being fake or biased or whatever, but as someone who has had many conversations with people about this, I'm just really surprised. If these are items that these people take with them day to day or even just to and from work, that's 90% of them have knives and the rest have a gun or a taser or whatever else. If it's true and it's like "oh you're a fool, everyone and their grandma keeps on at all times on their body" then that's wild. Also it means the people I know should be more prepared for the "just in case". Maybe I'll give them some of my knives.
I carry this one. https://www.knivesplus.com/sog-twitch-knife-sg-twi8.html It's pretty popular. I collect firearms and used to shoot competitively. Laws changed in our state in 2013 making competitive shooting very expensive and more difficult, I don't do it much anymore.
He's a sentry for when the roving bands of looters come calling after the complete societal collapse that follows any sort of disruptive event these days.
Notice the guns for dispatching said looters, the knives for butchering said dispatched looters, and the Louisiana hot sauce for seasoning said butchered looters (for when the food supply inevitably dries up).
Box cutter, pen(multitool, ruler, screwdriver, level, stylus), flashlight, keychain, phone, lighter, wallet. That's about my entire daily kit and thats just for work, home time usually includes a dagger around my shin or waist and maybe a small pistol if I'm outside after dark for any length of time.
My wife carries a CRKT pocket knife always and sometimes a pistol. My sister in law carries a pistol. My other sister in law carries a sheathed blade. My sister carries a blade that looks like a pen (she used to carry mace but our ifinitely wise state outlawed many defensive sprays). My other sister in law carries a throwing knife (not real practical) and significant fitness and martial arts training. One sister in law finds it objectionable that anybody carry a weapon in public at all and carries only a whistle. Last sister in law carries knife outside work but teaches so cannot defend herself at work.
Do you have armed government agents at every corner of your town? Do you have Sheriff's deputies guarding your livestock enclosures from predators for you? When you go to buy metals or used tools with cash do you have an armed policeman with you? Supreme Court said the police are NOT there to protect you but to enforce the laws. If somebody robs, rapes or murders you it is their job to seek justice after the fact.
^what he said.
Unless you are rich enough to have personal guards, no one can be everywhere you are at all times to protect you.
And quite frankly I do not want any sort of authority watching me that closely.
We don't need that sort of surveillance, because our government passes laws and regulations that keeps crime under control, and thus I am not under a constant threat of death. What good is your government if it can't even provide a safe country to live in? I don't know what your image is of Northern Europe, but I can assure you things are very different here. Have you considered moving to another country where you do not constantly feel unsafe?
I don't trust any government. I feel better knowing that the last line of defense is in my own hands. Does your government guarantee your livestock? A rape free city? No bath salt zombies? Laws and regulations are just words on paper.
It's not the government's, any government, place to monitor and "protect" the people. That's a totalitarian regime. Or worse.
The government's duty is to protect the nation at-large from foreign threats. No one, not family, not friends, not a small understaffed and overtaxed local constabulary, and certainly not an overgrown government with already too much on its plate, can shadow and shield every single resident every single minute of every single day in every single place. If you go out alone, you take responsibility for yourself and if you go unprepared you take responsibility for your fate. Most people will never find themselves in such a dire predicament as to have occasion to defend themselves, even those living in "rough neighborhoods", but if things do go sideways some of us prefer to be prepared. Furthermore, very few instances of citizens defending themselves ever result in a single shot being fired; just knowing you are not defenseless scares most goons away.
@pokethebear even though the Netherlands is very safe, there is obviously no guarentee that I will be 100% safe. But this largely comes down to common sense. Objective Safety is largely based on numbers, but the feeling of being safe is a subjective one. Instead of seeing a potential rapist in men I pass late at night, I prefer to refer to the facts, knowing that the chances of being raped by a stranger are very slim. I think it would be very emotionally exhausting for anyone to constantly look for danger everywhere. When a nation writes a constitution, it sets standards for itself with regards to safety and well-being. If you are looking for a dependable nation when it comes to safety, I would recommend Japan.
So many guns and knives... what even. I don't think I wanna travel to America if that many people need to carry guns with them to feel safe and protect themselves. Not trying to hate or anything but this post really made me not wanna visit the US, is it that unsafe? Do people really feel the need to protect themselves that much? What from?
At county hall here lawyers bypass the metal detectors. The first soldier listed appears to be on active duty in a Afghanistan, probably carries a rifle. The second one looks to be back stateside, has a knife and extensive unarmed combat training. Nice try though.
No, that your gun laws are responsible, as you call them. Which I agree with; we have the same kind of laws in the Netherlands, just like pretty much every country.
There is the problem. Authorities need to earn your respect and remember that they are public servants. The purpose of an armed citizenry is to keep government in check. If a politician or leo fears my arms, they are doing something wrong. If I fear the arms of the leos or gov't, they're doing something wrong. Now Japan, https://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/lifestyle/10-factors-that-make-japan-a-safe-country. Read #6,7 and 10 closely. Another factor in safety, there is very little ethnic diversity in Japan or the Netherlands. You may not think so, but this is a source of a lot of issues here.
Right on the money yet again pokey!
Here's something for non-Americans and ignorant Americans alike to think about:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
And one of my personal favorites:
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
Nowhere in any documented instance did any founder state that the second amendment was to protect the new country from the British, nor did anyone say anything even remotely close to "unless firearm technology advances". They understood that an unarmed populace would not remain free for long.
We do not have to assume what they meant; it is spelled out in plain English.
Not only do we have documented speachs, letters, and comments from the founders as to their motivations and intentions, several of the leaders wrote extensively, as a means of explaining their reasoning, in the Federalist Papers. Try reading them sometime.
The only possible way for any misconception is if you purposely twist their words.
And @lenny; firearm technology had already advanced from simple pipes, held in your hand and fired with a match held in your opposite hand, to what you know as the musket of the day, and from unreliable burning wicks to the flintlock. The founders were also quite aware of rifling, which gave the shooter unprecedented accuracy and killing power over a much greater distance, as well as improvements in the bullets themselves. Oh, and they certainly would have been aware of early attempts and creating a repeating firearm.
This meme that the founders were simply too stupid to write what they actually meant, or were incapable of considering that firearms technology just might change is ludicrous. It only serves to show an almost unfathomable ignorance on the part of those who, by virtue of a lack of facts to back their opinions, have no recourse but a desperate attempt to twist facts and spew outright lies to try to get "their way".
@lenny A significant percentage of the revolutionaries did not fight with muskets, they possessed rifles (some called Kentucky rifles) that gave them superior firepower and accuracy when compared to the redcoats' muskets. Multi shot arms existed prior to the revolution, the first continental congress tried to purchase them but they were quite expensive and therefore not fielded by the revolutionaries unless privately owned. The citizenry is also permitted to own cannon, another weapon not prevalant at the local constabulary. *addendum* Did you mean the British are not a threat now or then?
Jesus Chirst you guys, it was a few comments, no need to start spitting out you constitution. Let's agree to disagree. We prefer to be unarmed and keep our country safe, and you prefer to be armed and keep your country dangerous.
Except that's not the case, is what you're not understanding here. America is not inherently dangerous, but there is potential; in small farming communities and big cities alike. Evil never rests. In fact, the entire world is sketchy. We are generally mature enough to understand this cold, hard fact and prepare for the possibility that our day may not be uneventful. The world is a dangerous place. We law-abiding citizens who choose to carry protection from that danger are not the cause of that danger, but rather we lessen that danger a little bit. It's simply that we refuse to be victims.
The false premise that you seem to be accepting - that you obviously think legal firearms, legally possessed by law-abiding citizens, are the cause of the danger - is no different than blaming flies for the garbage.
I just read an article about how France is losing tourists like crazy because of rampant crime and violence. I don't believe they allow citizens to carry guns, so what's the cause there?
Maybe I'm wrong about Brazil too?
Or Nigeria?
Oh and of course Turkey's constitution allows every citizen to be armed so that explains the terrorist attacks over there.
It's really funny how he calls France unsafe because of gun control, and then explains the recent attacks in Turkey by saying it has a lack of gun control. The fact of the matter is, in the US most guns are bought and sold illegally. But the fact that the US is so accepting of selling arms does not help. Why is it legal to carry an AK-47 around the streets in certain states, as a law abiding citizen? I seriously doubt that makes anyone feel safer.
Sorry wrong on all counts @keepsake.
1. I never blamed gun control for anything happening anywhere in the world; I merely pointed out that naughty people are doing naughty things in places that do not have our freedom to defend ourselves. Therefore, legal gun ownership is not the problem.
2. MOST GUNS BOUGHT AND SOLD IN AMERICA ARE DONE SO LEGALLY. You are contradicting your position. You claim that legal gun ownership is our problem, then you claim that most gun ownership is illegal. You sound remarkably ignorant on this topic.
3. Carrying an AK47 is not automatically legal because an AK47 is a fully automatic rifle. Ignorance again. However, owning fully automatic weapons IS legal with a full government rectal exam and paying government fees (if they dein to permit you to). Then you get to know your local government agents on a personal basis because they will visit you regularly and check your "arsenal".
4. Laws do not stop crime. Criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OBEY LAWS. Banning guns only effects those who obey laws and doesn't stop robbers, rapists, and murderers from victimizing unarmed and helpless citizens.
5. And most importantly;
IT IS A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. That's why guns are legal.
6. It's a shame I feel I have to say this since it used to be understood as common sense, but times and education are changing...
When I use the term "ignorance" above it IS NOT AN INSULT. I am not calling you stupid. Ignorance means you do not know the subject. And you apparently have a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. Understandable if you are not an American.
Your country ignores your constitution all the time. The patriot act is a direct violation of the fourth admendment. Here is the result of a study undertaken by an American institution in Chicago : ''In this paper, I present the results of an alternative test for the effects of shall-issue laws on homicide rates that exploits the fact that juveniles are not eligible for concealed-carry permits to control for time-varying unobserved state factors. The results of my analysis suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult
homicide rates.'' http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/IJLE-ConcealedGunLaws-1998.pdf
'Knowing' the subject, and simply having an opinion about it are two entirely different things. Regardsless of what your school taught you when it comes to law, the reality is always different.
Yes politicians do constitutionally illegal shit all the time, unless someone stops them. We gun owners have been able to stop much of the encroachment so far. And we will continue to fight.
And many, if not most people don't. Which is fine. I myself don't usually, but if I'm traveling to a larger city or some such thing it's nice to be able to be able to carry "what if" protection.
Different culture. And, frankly, you were raised with the understanding that your government is the ultimate arbiter of what rights you may or may not have. Not a slight against you at all, but you were never taught that you could defend yourself if you so desired.
I read what I think is probably the best summation of the differences between America and Europe awhile back. I cannot recall exactly where I read it but I think it was one of yours, Daniel Hannan MEP in one of his books who said that (I'm paraphrasing) the biggest difference between America and England is that you are taught to assume everything is illegal until you're told you are allowed to do it, while in America we assume everything is legal until we're told it's not.
If you're a a woman, it's a stupid idea to carry a gun or a knife because statistics say it is far more likely it will be used against you (even if you know how to use it) and you are not the exception
Statistics are often twisted to fit false narratives. In the words of Samuel Clemens: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
OK fine; let's assume your "statistics" are even remotely accurate. Do you really think the attackers had no weapons and just luckily found some on their victims? Or perhaps you just think it's better to go unarmed and be killed by someone else's gun than to have at least a fighting chance but be killed by yours? If I don't have a protective weapon I'm definitely going to have a bad day. If I do the attacker is going to have a bad day. If my attacker manages to get my weapon away from me I'm already having a bad day.
And if nothing else: better a possible surviver than a definite casualty.
You twit.
Weapons are necessary
Just basic things you gotta bring with
Well, can't argue with that logic.
Let's face it dude: shit happens. But the plain and simple fact is that shit has much less chance of happening if you are prepared for shit in the first place. The idea is to be prepared to have a chance to survive; there are no guarantees in life but one... YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE IF YOU REFUSE OR ARE NOT PERMITTED TO TRY!
Oh, and before I forget, what good is your "kevlar torso protection" if your goon has a gun in your face? It's been awhile since I took biology, but I seem to remember that your torso is a little south of your face. (Nevermind the cost)
And that same common sense should be enough to inform you that criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OBEY LAWS!
Restricting or outlawing guns only takes them from those who respect the law and do not use them to commit crimes.
Criminals, on the other hand, don't care what the law says they can't do because THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!
PC bullshit from the Clinton administration.
Our military installations are some of the least protected places on earth.
Notice the guns for dispatching said looters, the knives for butchering said dispatched looters, and the Louisiana hot sauce for seasoning said butchered looters (for when the food supply inevitably dries up).
Unless you are rich enough to have personal guards, no one can be everywhere you are at all times to protect you.
And quite frankly I do not want any sort of authority watching me that closely.
The government's duty is to protect the nation at-large from foreign threats. No one, not family, not friends, not a small understaffed and overtaxed local constabulary, and certainly not an overgrown government with already too much on its plate, can shadow and shield every single resident every single minute of every single day in every single place. If you go out alone, you take responsibility for yourself and if you go unprepared you take responsibility for your fate. Most people will never find themselves in such a dire predicament as to have occasion to defend themselves, even those living in "rough neighborhoods", but if things do go sideways some of us prefer to be prepared. Furthermore, very few instances of citizens defending themselves ever result in a single shot being fired; just knowing you are not defenseless scares most goons away.
A bs on the attorney one not like your getting that through a metal detector
B isnt it funny that the ones without guns are soldiers?
I'm meeting a relative tomorrow
Here's something for non-Americans and ignorant Americans alike to think about:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
And one of my personal favorites:
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
We do not have to assume what they meant; it is spelled out in plain English.
Not only do we have documented speachs, letters, and comments from the founders as to their motivations and intentions, several of the leaders wrote extensively, as a means of explaining their reasoning, in the Federalist Papers. Try reading them sometime.
The only possible way for any misconception is if you purposely twist their words.
This meme that the founders were simply too stupid to write what they actually meant, or were incapable of considering that firearms technology just might change is ludicrous. It only serves to show an almost unfathomable ignorance on the part of those who, by virtue of a lack of facts to back their opinions, have no recourse but a desperate attempt to twist facts and spew outright lies to try to get "their way".
The false premise that you seem to be accepting - that you obviously think legal firearms, legally possessed by law-abiding citizens, are the cause of the danger - is no different than blaming flies for the garbage.
Maybe I'm wrong about Brazil too?
Or Nigeria?
Oh and of course Turkey's constitution allows every citizen to be armed so that explains the terrorist attacks over there.
1. I never blamed gun control for anything happening anywhere in the world; I merely pointed out that naughty people are doing naughty things in places that do not have our freedom to defend ourselves. Therefore, legal gun ownership is not the problem.
2. MOST GUNS BOUGHT AND SOLD IN AMERICA ARE DONE SO LEGALLY. You are contradicting your position. You claim that legal gun ownership is our problem, then you claim that most gun ownership is illegal. You sound remarkably ignorant on this topic.
3. Carrying an AK47 is not automatically legal because an AK47 is a fully automatic rifle. Ignorance again. However, owning fully automatic weapons IS legal with a full government rectal exam and paying government fees (if they dein to permit you to). Then you get to know your local government agents on a personal basis because they will visit you regularly and check your "arsenal".
5. And most importantly;
IT IS A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. That's why guns are legal.
6. It's a shame I feel I have to say this since it used to be understood as common sense, but times and education are changing...
When I use the term "ignorance" above it IS NOT AN INSULT. I am not calling you stupid. Ignorance means you do not know the subject. And you apparently have a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. Understandable if you are not an American.
homicide rates.'' http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/IJLE-ConcealedGunLaws-1998.pdf
'Knowing' the subject, and simply having an opinion about it are two entirely different things. Regardsless of what your school taught you when it comes to law, the reality is always different.
Why do parents of infants carry diapers? Because shit happens.
I have never felt the need to carry a weapon.
In all my time in London, I have never felt the need to carry a weapon!
I read what I think is probably the best summation of the differences between America and Europe awhile back. I cannot recall exactly where I read it but I think it was one of yours, Daniel Hannan MEP in one of his books who said that (I'm paraphrasing) the biggest difference between America and England is that you are taught to assume everything is illegal until you're told you are allowed to do it, while in America we assume everything is legal until we're told it's not.
OK fine; let's assume your "statistics" are even remotely accurate. Do you really think the attackers had no weapons and just luckily found some on their victims? Or perhaps you just think it's better to go unarmed and be killed by someone else's gun than to have at least a fighting chance but be killed by yours? If I don't have a protective weapon I'm definitely going to have a bad day. If I do the attacker is going to have a bad day. If my attacker manages to get my weapon away from me I'm already having a bad day.
And if nothing else: better a possible surviver than a definite casualty.
You twit.