Despite that higher levels of legal gun ownership correlates with more gun crimes, do you still think that high levels of gun ownership is preferable?

I quite like guns. Many are marvelous pieces of engineering and as someone who has worked designing weapons systems I have no intrinsic moral objection to them. When I go the USA, I like to have some time in a gun range if I can. However, back home I have no desire to have my own gun. I live in an urban environment and think it extremely unlikely to be a victim of gun crime due to the low level of gun ownership here (even taking into account best estimates of illegal gun ownership). My conclusion is that if I had a gun then I would be the most likely person to shoot myself, or someone else, (accidentally I would think!) and the presence of the gun would, on balance make me, and people around me, less safe than not having a gun around.

When gun ownership is common, are the additional gun crimes worth it in relation to other factors that can be offset against this?

I understand the argument that in non-urban environments guns can be useful tools and I know that a lot of people in the USA say that the constitution allow them to carry guns, but there’s no reason to do a thing just because you can. So, what is the calculation that you do to determine your attitude towards gun ownership?