Considering how gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by a firearm, I'd say yes, it's very rational to not own one.

The largest threat to gun owners is their own gun.

Considering how car ownership makes you more likely to be killed by a car, I'd say yes, it's very rational to not own one.

Why isn't Japan famous for rudeness then? Don't introduce new arguments in your response.

Unsure how this whataboutism has anything to do w/ what I said.

No you're not. Japan is famously not a 'well armed society', but does have a reputation for politeness. This is directly at variance with your evidence-free claim.

I did not claim a polite society can't exist without weapons.

I could equally ask why any of many heavily armed societies are not oases of peace and tranquility. The USA should be the most polite nation on earth, by your metric. It obviously isn't, though.

The Nanjing Massacre and Bataan Death March are pretty famous examples of rudeness. Couldn't it be argued that the USSR declaring war on them at the same time as the US dropped two atomic bombs on them are examples of arms curtailing rudeness?

Also TIL about the massacres of Korean civilians after the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1923_Great_Kantō_earthquake#En...

> A well armed society is a polite society.

That slogan has always been bullshit. Plenty of road rage and similar impulsive shootings happen in the most heavily armed states. A well armed society has more guns is really the only takeaway.

Texas has considerably more gun violence than, for example, Chicago. You may want to reconsider.

By what metric? It looks like the per capita murder rate in Chicago is almost 5x higher

I would suspect an area of 250,000 sq miles and 30,000,000 people would have considerably more gun violence than one with 230 sq miles and 3,000,000 people. Now do per capita.

sadly yeah