I choose to accept certain risks. Being hit by a micrometeoroid seems remote enough to me that I don't worry about it. Last week I rode my motorcycle from the garage onto the street without a helmet, then moved my daughter's car into the garage to change the oil without wearing a seatbelt. I choose to take those risks with the knowledge the risk was non-zero.
Just because you are willing to accept the risk of not being able to defend against violent attack does not mean others should, nor do you have the right to tell others they must accept risks.
But really you are in denial that any real risk to you exists. You simply deny that you or your family are at risk because you haven't ever been the victim of violence. That does not make the violent crime rate zero!
At what level of violent crime do you believe it is justified for a person to carry a defensive weapon, where below that level you would prohibit it?
1. It was YOUR point that unless the risk was 0.00000... etc that meant I should carry a gun. So, by direct analogy, why don't you wear that helmet or seatbelt, since your risk is at least as high of an incident. In my case, I am MUCH more likely to be in a car accident than involved in gun violence, so I wear my seatbelt.
2. I never said our crime rate was zero. You are concocting an argument from a false premise I never raised. This is poor argumentation. It IS pretty low, however, especially compared to many places in the US.
3. Are we discussing defensive weapons in general or guns? Please specify. I have a defensive weapon -- a high level in a martial art. I do not require a gun, as they are very rare in our society since they are illegal except for specific uses like hunting. People do not carry publicly in my country and so, if we saw someone who was, we would immediately know to call police. You do not have this "early warning" equivalent. I saw a woman a few weeks ago at the shopping mall who was carrying a gun in a side holster -- I knew immediately she was plainclothes RCMP (our police). It was still unusual and a bit unnerving, it's just that rare. You can bet that if SHE saw someone with a sidearm that person was immediately being questioned. That's how things work (and it does WORK) here in Canada.
Since casual access to firearms is limited, we also have much less gun violence in Canada. We have been over those numbers, and they have been validated from many sources. Our gun violence -- and our overall violent crime -- is less. When we do have mass violence, fewer people die because it doesn't involve firearms.
Are you claiming you do NOT live in a jungle? If you don't then why do you carry a gun?