You'd be guessing wrong. This argument is based on the demonstrably flawed premise that the media reports incidents of self defense with the same vigor as incidents of gun-related violence. I submit that even the meekest inquiry into this subject will show the media consistently and systematically underreports or ignores stories about citizens who defend themselves with firearms.
If it's statistics you want, please, don't take my word for any of this, hit google, do some intellectually honest research and I believe you will be enlightened. You may discover, for example, that most self-defense uses of a firearm involve firing not a single round.
Interesting you mention certain places in Africa, the middle-east, and Asia. Where, exactly, do you buy your ice cream? Many of those places outright forbid the ownership of guns by common people, many are lawless war zones, so it doesn't surprise me you got carjacked in one of these places.
Here in the United States, we have the Second Amendment. It's not about the right to hunt, or the right to self defense in the home. It's not about freedom from risk of being shot. It's about freedom from tyranny. This principle was recognized by Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most peaceful, peace-loving men to have ever lived, who declared "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Think about it.
