I used to own guns for hunting and did so with friends. But for whatever reason I don't hunt anymore. But none of us ever owned or wanted a handgun to protect us from some imagined boogeyman. If you have a handgun in the house it is statistically more likely to kill a relative, friend, or kid than anyone kicking down your door. No thanks.
And bless their hearts, in America no one would ever try to take away your right to not own a gun. It must be nice to have the freedom to decide how to do your own cost benefit analysis and decide which actions to take.
And as other posters have pointed out, we see again this idea that if there is a 1 in 10 chance of something happening, that means there is a 1 in 10 chance of it happening to YOU. Which is not true.
Suppose some study says "A handgun in the home is 14 time more likely to harm a person living there than an intruder." Let's apply this idea to two different extreme cases.
Case #1, Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith have 3 children, ages 4, 8, and 14. Mrs. Smith has bipolar disorder and a history of manic episodes. Mr. Smith has a drinking problem. In their 15 years of marriage, police have been called to their house 4 times on domestic disturbance calls. The 14 year old son is bullied in school, has no friends, and has been in trouble for drawing scenes of his classmates being killed. The Smith family lives in an expensive home in a gated community with private security patrols 24/7.
Mr. Smith buys a handgun. He asks the gun store employee to load it for him, because he does not know how. He takes it home and puts it under his pillow, where it stays.
Case #2, Mr. and Mrs. Yates.
Mr. and Mrs. Yates have been married for 20 years but have no children. Neither of them has any mental illnesses or substance dependencies. They has always had a harmonious marriage. Whenever they do have disagreements, they calmly sort them out. When they have a significant conflict in their marriage, they go to their pastor for counseling. They have only had to do this twice in their 20 years of marriage. They live in an average middle class neighborhood with high crime areas within 10 miles.
Mr. Yates served in the Marine Corps as a firearms instructor in his youth. Mrs. Yates is the daughter of a police officer, and grew up around firearms. They own a large collection of firearms kept mostly in a safe. They carry concealed handguns on a daily basis. Those guns are kept loaded and close at hand in the home. They shoot recreationally and compete once a month in an IDPA league. Once a year they take an advanced firearms training course from a highly respected school taught by former special forces veterans. In the past 5 years they have taken Defensive Pistol, Advanced Defensive Pistol, Defensive Carbine, Advanced Defensive Carbine and a class on how to shoot from in and around vehicles.
Do you think both of these households are equally likely to end up victim to that 14x more likely statistic? No. Bad outcomes with firearms do not happen randomly. They are usually not accidents, they are usually the result of negligence.
Now, most households fall somewhere in between that of the Smiths and the Yates. I used them as two extreme examples, opposite ends of the spectrum. The Smiths are very unlikely to have to use a firearm in defense of their home, but very likely to have a bad outcome within the home. The Yates are the reverse.
My point is, all gun owners can (and most do) do things to get more towards the Yates end of the spectrum. The bad outcomes occur almost always near the Smiths end of the spectrum.
My household is very close to a Yates household. For example, the classes the Yates took are actually classes that my wife and I have taken together. You are not powerless in this. So when someone tells me "your guns are 14 time more likely to kill you than they are a home invader," I LITERALLY laugh at them.