Victim by Choice?

Would it be fair to say that someone without a gun who gets hurt or killed by criminals is a "victim by choice"?

I just heard someone say that today, and while it sounds pretty harsh, I can't actually find a flaw in the logic.

Would it be fair to say that someone without fire insurance whose house burns down is a "victim by choice"?

We're probably more likely to be a victim of crime than a house fire. Yet a lot of people with fire insurance don't have guns.

Would you rather be without fire insurance and have your house burn down, or be without a gun in the face of a criminal shooter and be shot down?

Is this a hard question?

Why is this so hard for so many to figure out?

The Gunslinger