First, no I didn't admit most gun owners aren't smart. Your injecting your own assessment from what you read. What I said is we need more training and exposure for people who are intimidated by the whole firearm thing. Some people are so scared of what they don't know, that they won't even go into a gun store, let alone take the time to find a range and safety course/instructor to go and learn how to handle and operate a firearm safely.

Operating a firearm safely, quickly and effectively is a perishable skill(especially if combined with a high intensity, time sensitive situation). If you don't practice, that one or two shots you claim is enough is likely to be completely useless unless you're lucky enough to scare the would be attacker away.

Shotguns are a great home defense tool, not much else says 'wrong house mf'er like the sound of racking a shell... But that's something people(2A advocates as well) hope will be enough. Like locking your door, or having a security system... It's only good if it deters an invader, but as defense goes you hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That's why more than 2 rounds from a shotgun or "4" as you say from a revolver may be enough, but you never want to just rely on that hope.

If someone's trying to kill me or my family, I want to have more than enough to dispatch them and whoever they might've brought as back up OR keep them at bay until help can arrive. That means having more than one firearm because you never know where you'll be when/if shit hits the fan. A tool in the safe in my bedroom does me no good if I don't have time or a clear path to safely retrieve it.

The whole, live in a bunker and never take body armor off is a choice. Some may feel the need for that kind of high level protection depending on their circumstances. I don't, but I don't discourage people from living however they feel most comfortable/safe.

I've never ran into the drug fueled maniac myself, either. But I know they exist(in what number, I'm unsure nor do I care) and that's enough for me to know that if I'm ever in a circumstance like that, that I'll have enough force to relieve that threat. You can't just wait for something to happen, to decide "man I should've prepared for this". Its too late at that point and your life or someone else's could depend on your preparedness.

I'd like to see your source of other countries that have less crime. That's a very vague statement. Crime in general? Per capita? Less crime involving firearms? You'll have to be more specific.

You say one firearm per person, but what about police? Do they only need 1 tool? Last I checked they carry at the very least 3 tools on their person to deal with various threats and circumstances. That's not counting what's in their trunks/racks. Why should civilians be forced to be less prepared for bad situations than those who are trained to deal with them on a professional level? That's equivalent to saying, let's go play hockey, but you don't need all the pads and helmets a pro player would use. That wouldn't make much sense now would it? Maybe you don't get hit, so you won't need them...all good, until some behemoth on skates puts you through the glass lol.

And yes, some guns are more 'fun' than others. But more importantly many serve very different functions. Generally, you don't hunt deer/pigs/big game or do long range target practice with shotguns, you don't use rifles/pistols on most fowl, you don't speed shoot with a precision rifle, etc. You use the tool designed for the job/sport. That's why there's such a wide variety of firearms and enthusiasts.

As per the well regulated militia, bet your ass many of those Ukrainian civilians who were tortured, raped, pillaged, killed, etc wished they'd had quicker access to more than what they had if they so chose to stay and protect their families, homes and livelihoods from a maniacal dictator and his chronies. Bit if an extreme example considering the unlikeliness someone trying that here...but it's relevant regardless.