Taser? Mace? A firearm is certainly the only took that can level the playing field between a man and five victims in the same room.
They do not equalize. Taser and mace will not stop a truly determined threat. Even pistol caliber firearms are questionable in their ability to reliably stop a threat. Here is a good example. Firearms also help equalize civilians against the gov't. The Taliban and AlQaeda are good examples of how even crap tier firearms give people great power.
Statistically speaking, having a firearm when attacked increases the likelihood of being killed or seriously harmed in the attack.
What? The FBI has not furnished such statistic.
Globally speaking, nations with strict firearm laws do not have problems protecting the life, liberty, and property of their populaces.
You must be forgetting what has been happening in Ukraine. Firearm confiscation and strict gun control is the first measure taken to allow for the gov't to abuse the populace. Happenings surrounding WW2 as well as Mao's rise to power are great examples of this.
A firearm is a great equalizer, yes -- and that is what makes it so dangerous. It makes one wacko equal to a lot more than one or two victims.
You are misunderstanding the definition of equal. Every human should be equal, under all circumstances. Firearms are the only tool that allow for such.
The user of a cigarette is harmed by the use of that cigarette, but that harm does not extend further so long as appropriate policies are adopted.
The user of a firearm is not harmed by the use of cigarettes and neither are any other individuals when used without negligence. Even when negligently used liability for such negligent use exists. We also have laws that punish illegal use, such as murder.
States that have prohibited indoor smoking have substantially reduced secondhand smoke exposure.
Still up to the individual to comply with those policies
And with insurance now mandatory
Insurance is not mandatory. Also many insurances are only good enough to cover catastrophic occurrences.
and insurance companies able to force customers to pay extra for smoking, it is possible for providers and insurers to take appropriate precautions to avoid losses due to smokers.
So withholding healthcare to smokers. Sounds reasonable... /s
Prohibiting guns has not failed in the same manner in the nations that have prohibited guns.
No other country had 350,000,000 firearms in circulation within the population and a majority of which unwilling to give them up. Considering the fact that building one in your garage in an afternoon is an incredibly simple endeavor any type of serious gun control is unachievable.
What about the freedom to murder people? To rape people? To pillage?
Those are already crimes. They are not freedoms. Just because something makes committing certain crimes easier does not mean it should be regulated or banned. Pools result in thousands of child drowning deaths per year yet there is no push to ban pools.
Living in an organized society means surrendering all sorts of rights, personal freedoms, and privileges.
It does not. The rights are specifically enumerated to ensure that such things do not happen.
Personal freedom is important, but it must be weighed against societal good.
Personal freedom is more important than society good. It is the basis of this country. It is what has lead the U.S. to become hegemon. Until another country takes that position there is no reason to look to others for advice as their methods have not bred success.