The counter argument of course (to self defense) is that it could make gun violence more likely as attackers could increasingly assume their victims are armed
Yes... because we don't want to hinder the goals of someone who wants to attack you. By "Krish's" logic, the assumption an intended victim might be armed is somehow MORE likely to result in violence. Tell that to the family of PVT Rigby, the unarmed British soldier who was beheaded last year on a London street. Did his NOT having a weapon on him lessen the likelihood of violence to anyone other than the muslim swine that killed him?
I noticed none of the examples in the article were about someone protecting themselves or their families with a firearm -
I guess that just never happens.