There is a reason that the rate of US households with guns has held steady for two decades with owners amassing an increasing number of guns such that the total civilian stock has risen to some 265 million firearms (Souce: Nature News).

It is not about whether the gun will protect us or not, it is about a freedom as an individual to take steps in order to protect us from potential dangers. Tomorrow if a study says that carrying pepper spray or having a phone handy does not guarantee protection of women on streets, will women stop undertaking these precautions to protect themselves? Therefore, guns are not “home wreckers” but home protectors. Furthermore, hand guns are the safest option that best serve this purpose.

Yes, I agree, that there have been incidents wherein guns in home have been proven hazardous like when children accidentally shoot themselves but we have to remember that this is not the result of possession of a gun but irresponsible handling of it.
Having a gun for protection comes with huge responsibility and if some of them are unable to carry it why should the rest of us pay the price of it?

Moreover, as I have repeatedly said, instead of introducing “stricter gun law” we should be regulating gun ownership. A thorough background check can be done before gun ownership is done. There have been countless incidents wherein a person not fit to handle a gun has caused havoc by killing people. In these scenarios, only the good guys with guns are capable of stopping them so why does a certain section of society is against this?