https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/tpfv9318.pdf
"Victims used a firearm to threaten or attack the offender in 2% (166,900) of all nonfatal violent victimizations"
That's from 2014 to 2018, so divide by 4 for a yearly number. Either way tens of thousands of people successfully defend themselves with a firearm every year. I'd wager they'd argue our "barbaric" policies have some benefits.
* https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gu...
And while defensive gun use (DGU) has been recorded as happening, what other things happen when a gun is around? At least one study found you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively:
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
And that doesn't count things awful things happening to kids:
* https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-acce...
Having a gun around has a 'cost' that may not be worth the purported benefits.
The Philadelphia study is interesting, but I'd note that the discussion and study limitations sections somewhat undermines the attention-grabbing headline, as well as the Conceptual Frameworks and Variables Section:
"Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property. Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street)"
So yeah, if you knowingly engage in violent, armed confrontation or an armed attacker has the jump on you and you escalate because you have a firearm, you're more likely to get shot. That's just common sense, a gun a not a force-field. Also 82.21% of the assaults with a chance to resist took place outdoors, so this data is bias against incidents that happen in the home.
I'd say this study doesn't really support the broad assertion that "you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively". The devil is as always in the details of the situation.
Many of these statistical studies fall into the trap of being technically correct but broadly inapplicable. Technically speaking you're more likely to drive drunk if you keep alcohol in the house and own a car. But on an individual level one can keep alcohol in the house, own a car and have near-zero chance of driving drunk.
As for the third article, I'm all for safe ownership requirements. Quick access gun safes are readily available and even the cheap, easiest to break-open ones will do the job of keeping clueless children away. As a gun owner with a young child myself all my guns are locked up, and the only loaded gun is in a quick-access safe and cable-locked to furniture. If you can afford a $100+ handgun, there's no excuse for not affording a $50+ quick access safe.