Pretty sure that the previously mentioned "less-lethal" ammo would suffice for self defence. Yeah, they're more expensive but you shouldn't find yourself in a situation where you have to actually shoot someone that often. And if everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have to defend yourself from guns. What terrible threat do you have to defend yourself from other than human beings with guns? Rabid animals don't just stroll into towns that often, and if you happen to be a certified hunter you should be allowed to carry live ammo for bolt-action hunting rifles.
1. If you are going to shoot at someone to defend yourself, even with less-lethal ammunition, it had better be because they intended to cause you death or grievous bodily harm... because otherwise you're going to prison for murder / attempted murder. That said, if I'm going to shoot someone to defend myself from death or grievous bodily harm, it's going to be with ammunition that WILL stop them, not that might stop them. And less-lethal ammunition is still capable of being lethal, and probably will be at short range. Once again, there is literally no purpose to less-lethal ammunition in civilian hands. It's no safer for the majority of ways accidents occur (extreme close range), and it doesn't prevent crime (because criminals don't use less-lethal ammunition, they procure live rounds).
2. "And if everyone didn't have guns, you wouldn't have to defend yourself from guns." If we could live in a world where we could ensure no one would ever die from a gunshot again because everyone got rid of their firearms, I'd be the first to show up at the smelter saying "melt these down and good riddance." Unfortunately, criminals manage to acquire guns even in places where ownership is fully banned. The cat's out of the bag, too - the first 3D-printer-built firearm was made not that long ago. Firearms aren't difficult to make, nor acquire, nor hide. They aren't going away. They haven't gone away in places they are banned because part of the population doesn't care if they are banned. Now, I don't own a gun to defend myself from other people, but I will say that the only practical way to deal with firearms is to regulate them, license the owners, enforce safety laws, and prosecute anyone who breaks them.
3. I don't know where you're from; where I'm from, I have had 300 lb black bears and cougars (mountain lions, to some of you) in my backyard and at the back window of the house. Now, while I have thankfully never needed to shoot one and I do prefer bear spray, having a gun on hand in case of emergency is ideal. I've also seen adult bull moose walk down the front street.... and no, I don't live in the bush or on an acreage. That's IN town. We've had bears get into people's houses. They're generally harmless, but they're everywhere.
4. Certified hunter meaning licensed hunter? I think you need to read up on the laws concerning firearms in places other than where you live. In Canada, to even own a firearm, you need to take a safety course that covers the law, safe handling, safe use, and safe storage. When you pass that course with over 80%, you send that certification along with an application which includes all of your personal information, criminal records information, spouse or ex-spouse/partner information, and three references to the national firearms center, who run background and criminal record checks on you and interview your references. Then, they may issue you a license to possess and acquire non-restricted firearms (most rifles and shotguns). If you want to own restricted firearms - which have severe restrictions on handling, storage, and use beyond those of non-restricted - you have to pass a separate course, and the application is the same. The course is a few hundred dollars, the application is $60-80. Once you get a license you can actually buy a gun or acquire one from friends/family, and you have to renew it every five years. To even have it in your possession you need your license with you. You have to follow all the storage and handling laws, and if you don't there are a number of criminal offences that specifically deal with storage and handling of firearms. Then, if you want to hunt, you need a hunting license, tags for the game animals, and there is yet another stack of laws that deal with how, when, and with what you can hunt. And most hunters use bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles anyway. However, there are a lot of hunters who bow hunt, for which they require no firearms license or safety course. Fact of the matter is, there are a lot more restrictions that are involved in merely owning a firearm than hunting that certify you are safe to have it.
Well, you can clearly see that I don't know jack about rifles apart from the fact that they're bloody dangerous. My dad has a leftover Zastava M72 from the war and that's about the only gun I've ever seen(I've seen a few policemen carrying pistols, but they were hidden in their holsters).
A rather large barrier here is that you appear to have no exposure to firearms, the laws governing them, or the safety/crime/etc statistics concerning them. That's not necessarily a bad thing the majority of the time, but it is a bad thing when you're trying to argue in a discussion on a topic you appear to know nothing about aside from what you've gleaned from popular entertainment and news media... who get it wrong far more often than they get it right.
The problem is not that firearms are dangerous - a firearm is simply a tube that allows expanding gases to force a projectile out the other end at high velocity. It is not fundamentally more dangerous than a bow (and frankly, I can think of several calibers of guns I'd rather be shot with than a bow any day). The problem is not responsible people who follow the firearms laws. The problem is people who don't - the wrong people are dangerous when armed with firearms. And like so many people who don't fully understand the issue, the things you're advocating punish already law-abiding people and do nothing to deter crime or reduce accidental deaths. What does that you ask? First off, strong laws concerning reasonable ownership, use, transport, and storage that promote safety but don't turn the majority of gun owners into criminals without enhancing safety further; second - swift, certain, and severe punishment of law breaking.
Like I said before, I am a passionate advocate for owner/use licensing and mandatory training and sensible, evidence-based firearms controls. I think Canada has a very sensible model that needs to be improved upon, too (though many Canadian gun owners would flog me for saying it as some think it over-bearing). I am ALSO a vocal opponent of proposals based on opinion without evidence or practical application.
