I’ll make a guess: It means that an average person with a gun is more likely to hurt themselves than to hurt the criminal. Yet, knowledge that given person is likely to have a gun at home, will make the criminal less likely to attack.
So the gun is harmful to its owner during the act of self-defense, but increases the owner’s over-all safety anyway.
The one I usually hear is deterrence. Even if guns have negative self-defense value, they may discourage certain types of attacks.
Can you elaborate? I am not sure if I understand what actually is the argument.
For example, I’m less likely to attempt to brake into a house if I think there’s a reasonable chance of it having armed defenders.
But would you then say that the gun has “negative self-defense value”? That’s the part by which I am confused.
I’ll make a guess: It means that an average person with a gun is more likely to hurt themselves than to hurt the criminal. Yet, knowledge that given person is likely to have a gun at home, will make the criminal less likely to attack.
So the gun is harmful to its owner during the act of self-defense, but increases the owner’s over-all safety anyway.
That makes sense, thanks.