>Please try to keep in mind that you, or your culture, don't get the privilege of defining what is "rational" for the whole world, or specifically in someone else's culture. "Rational" is defined by the culture it is being considered within.
Errr no. Rationality, be definition, is not determined by culture, religion or anything other than two things: facts and numbers. The things you cite are such perfect examples of irrational arguments that they are recognized as a fallacyh ("appeal to tradition"). They are not valid rational arguments.
More importantly - there isn't a single situation in the USA. There is a world of difference in what gun ownership even MEANS depending on where you live. In the country-side, a gun is a way to feed your family, in the worst-case (rare) scenario of a crime it may actually be an effective defense - but even if it's a bad defense it's better than nothing, which is the alternative, and the risk FROM the guns are low because you're isolated - if you miss your target you hit a tree. Big deal.
In a city - the facts are entirely different. Here - guns are used PRIMARILY to blow heads off, and hardly ever for things like hunting. Here - their extremely inefficient nature as a defense tool has much more serious consequences than "I missed and the bad guy got me" - here when you miss, you kill an innocent bystander. There isn't any empty space around you for the bullet to go. There aren't any trees to hit - your backstop is innocent people.
And never over-estimate the effectiveness of guns as a self-defense device, in all human history we have not invented a LESS effective tool for that job (with the possible exception of the bow and arrow). Guns only fire straight if your breathing is right, and your hands are steady. When your life is at risk - staying calm is very hard, and when your not calm your hands get sweaty and shaky, and your breathing becomes rapid - that makes it virtually impossible to hit what you intend to shoot at - and, in a city, that almost guarantees hitting somebody who has nothing to do with the event. I love guns, I grew up with them in a rural area - and I'm an excellent shot. But I refuse ot own one, I refuse ot have one in my house - because this is a city I live in now, and a gun is a terrible idea. The risk of my toddler getting her hands on it is BIGGER than the risk of us being attacked. The odds of it helping if we ARE attacked is so low that it's now worth the risks. There's a reason why the number one performance enhancing drug for Olympic shots is Prozac... what good is a self-defense device that only WORKS if you are perfectly calm ? A good self defense device should work well even if you are panicking. Guns are terrible at the job. Hell a bat gives you better odds - you can swing accurately enough to hit your target even if you're panicking (and the adrenaline rush would probably make you swing HARDER than you otherwise could) - and if you DO miss the odds of killing your own kid or the neighbor's kids are practically zero. You can just swing again.