Can anyone explain why Hillary Clinton is the better choice?

That's a myth as far as handguns are concerned. You may find instances of that occurring but to say a victim of violent crime is MORE likely to be injured if he has a gun is simply not true. That may be true with knives but to say the concept holds equally true with guns is, like I said, simply not true. There is a world of difference between a knife fight and a gun fight.
If someone walks up to you and sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your money and your stupid enough to go for your gun then you deserve a bullet. When the assailant retreats and nobody is around then you can draw your gun and shoot the creep if you want to but your just inviting a lot of legal trouble.
Many robberies are committed with knives or by "strong arm". In these cases a firearm comes in handy.
Also, what you described is more likely to happen if the person is not comfortable with a gun and doesn't shoot regularly.
I would like someone to respond to my earlier comments

So why did the elite vote Trump, if she is for the elite?

<50k income voters voted for Hillary by a large margin.

every group above 50k voted, more narrowly, for Trump.

I would agree the socially elite voted trump.

I appreciate that your facts are accurate but but you've manipulated the stats Exit polls (the same exit polls that saw a Clinton victory) showed that 41% of people earning under $50k voted trump and 52% Clinton, I believe looking deeper into this will show a strong correlation between immigration and POC which may have been a bigger determining factor.
49% of people earning over $50k voted trump and 47% Hilary, only a 2 point difference, the stats you'd really need are those earning $200k or more. Again the stats were from exit polls, as far as public support and endorsements go, Clintons are all from eliteist groups.

All the firearm stats released in the USA showed, that guns ownership makes you more likely to be shot and killed in the event of being a victim of crime than an individual who does not have a gun on them.

It is the same logic as knife crime. It's not so much the weapon being turned against the victim. More as the attacker is likely to have such a weapon anyway, if they see the victim holding such a weapon they are more likely to use their own weapon to prevent the victim drawing their own.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955

NRA claims that gun ownership makes individuals safer is not supported by any reliable data.

she got the vast majority of black votes. i wouldn't call that an elite group (sure there will be those elite under them but I mean as a whole) for starters.

I can't remember but Trump also won every other group, not just 50k-100k but also 100-250 and 250+

Elites make up a small population of America, they're primarily in NY and California. I've not seen those stats so I can't argue that, if that's the case this election has been far more complex but thought, bottom line still remains that the American elites found in Washington, NY, and California were all Clinton backers and the secret meetings she held with banks not to mention how blatant it was her policies were shaped for their benefit. Compare her policies to bernie for example, what's stopping her from being at least half as radical? I'll tell you, the elitists that control her. Don't take my word, don't take trumps word, just look at all the things fellow democrat Bernie said.

So she is influenced by lobbyism. What politician isn't?

Do you think that if we had knowledge in the same way we do about her campaign through Wikileaks of every candidate in the last 100 years, that she really was the "worst"? No what happened is that Trump created this "Crooked Hillary" persona and repeated it so much, and of course with social media others repeated it for him, too, that it got stuck in the minds of the entire nation. And voila, she became the most hated candidate, ever probably, even more so than the guy where factcheckers showed even in the TV debates he mostly talked bullcrap.

The article you linked deals with number of guns in a country and the number of gun deaths. If there are more guns there will be more gun deaths. WOW!! Now there's a bold statistic that has nothing to do with the silly claim you were making. Does it. I could have told them that.

Your misrepresentation of the facts is a common occurrence in the gun debate.

So she is influenced by lobbyism. What politician isn't?

Do you think that if we had knowledge in the same way we do about her campaign through Wikileaks of every candidate in the last 100 years, that she really was the "worst"? No what happened is that Trump created this "Crooked Hillary" persona and repeated it so much, and of course with social media others repeated it for him, too, that it got stuck in the minds of the entire nation. And voila, she became the most hated candidate, ever probably, even more so than the guy where factcheckers showed even in the TV debates he mostly talked bullcrap.

Millions knew hillaty was crooked way before the primaries. To think Trump convinced the nation she was crooked by giving a nickname is not realistic.

If there are more guns there will be more gun deaths. WOW!! Now there's a bold statistic that has nothing to do with the silly claim you were making. Does it. I could have told them that.

Care to explain why Hillary Clinton is the better choice for POTUS, WITHOUT mentioning Trump at all?

This should be interesting...

Also please make it an easy to read list so we don't have walls of text covering half a page or more, thank you.

You are naive.

Doesn't mean I don't know a crook when I see one.

So you agree that reducing gun possession would cut down on deaths then. That's a step forward.

What do you think of the inconvenient truth that the USA's gun laws have allowed more of its citizens to die from gunshots than its wars.

The only correlation in the US between guns and homicide is that when major gun control legislation has been enacted, homicide has increased, and vice versa.

The UK showed similar trends in recent years.

It is matter of degree, not detail. If the US had the UK's gun laws, and enforced them, there seems little doubt that gun deaths would fall hugely.

So you agree that reducing gun possession would cut down on deaths then. That's a step forward.

What do you think of the inconvenient truth that the USA's gun laws have allowed more of its citizens to die from gunshots than its wars.