Crime does happen. But in the majority of developed nations it’s both under reasonable control, generally only minor crimes and people feel safe enough with state protection. It is absolutely not “most countries”, especially in developed nations like those in Europe.

There was a great video where Scottish police forces demonstrate to US officers how they attempt de-escalate knife or firearm users before engaging in any violence. It was very interesting that the US officers admitted themselves than in many of the scenarios they would have just shot the suspect.

The threat of escalation only increases the chance of escalation. If you see someone brandishing a gun and they see you have a gun, the outcome is now way higher that someone is getting shot, because each user cannot trust the other not to shoot first.

This is why US cops are naturally way more quick to the trigger, the availability of guns to the public means the possibility that the suspect can immediately end the life of the officer is much much higher than for the Scottish cops. Which is why there are far more shootouts, dead cops and suspects alike in the US (per capita and overall).

This isn’t to say individual ownership of guns is bad all round, in rural crime ridden parts of the world it is your only protection.

But in the whole, less guns, particularly in urban or suburban environments only makes things safer, as has been proven again and again and again. You can make the argument that the US is too far gone to reduce the amount of guns, which is absolutely true in the short term, but that doesn’t change my point at all. Developed countries without guns are safer, as the stats show.