More to the point - statistically, car drivers are more likely to be killed by an airbag than motorcycle riders. Can you imagine the laugh we'd be having if someone posted a thread about an airbag death, and then said "well, I'm getting that bike licence for sure now!"
The gun will do you well for other things, but it's silly to relate itntodefense from wolves.
BTW, where in the post did anyone, who doesn't already own a gun, discuss acquiring one solely for the purpose of protection from wolves? Which is, by the way, the gun equivalent of your car/motorcycle example.
And, again, you are not comparing apples to apples. You can't, with any
useful meaning statistically, compare the risks of mere "ownership of a gun" for any and all purposes with "risk of death in animal attacks". That comparison, made that way, invalidates any risk placed in the second position as the likelihood for the majority of gun owners of any even experiencing any given individual threat one might be armed against, much less die from, even combined, are statistically infinitesmal.
Try this hypothesis, controlling for other variables, car drivers in accidents where airbags could have made a difference are statistically less likely to die in that collision than drivers of cars
without airbags in the exact same situation.
For animal attacks it would be, controlling for other variables (such as hunting, during which the hunter is typically not armed solely for the purpose of animal protection, and, once the prey animal is down, has changed the circumstances and likelihood of a large predator encounter) those who enter areas where large predators exist and are armed for the purpose of defense against such animal attacks are less likely to be killed in such an attack than those not armed in the same situation.
Those are statistically meaningful comparisons to make and test.
