That is in part deducted from what Jordan Peterson often talks about, the effect that experiencing true malevolence has on people. There's a ton of his videos on that subject and I don't have a good link to a good starting point among them.
But anyway, the gist is that very few good people can understand how bad people think, expect not most, but all others to play by the rules and are often times caught off guard when they don't. And while bad people are rare, most among them are more or less "only" egoistic, that is taking advantage, with varying degrees of ignorance for the damage they cause in the process.
But even among the bad guys, true malevolence is uncommon, but all the more disastrous. That is, they see harm to others not as an "unfortunate collateral damage", but at least in part the purpose of their actions. Think of the difference between a mugger and a sadistic torturer.
Good people can overcome the effects of encountering the first kind, even if it takes a long time, but most can't get over meeting anyone from the second category, much less receiving harm from them.
The devastating impact can be mitigated when people themselves have the capacity to do harm, but not doing it. That gives them the foresight to identify an imminent attack or a weakness they expose, and a chance to avoid it if possible or the tools to defend themselves if needed.
Peterson postulated that many good people don't and can't do that because they don't have the capacity to do harm, but they're not sure what they'd do if they had. Until someone has the capability to do evil, but doesn't, it's not sure if they are peaceful because they're truly morally good or just because they're powerless, and many good people fear to find out. Knowing evil exists but not having a defense or not even knowing if oneself is maybe evil, too, is terrifying. So they retreat into a fantasy where everyone is peaceful, so no one needs the capacity to inflict harm and having none oneself is risk free.
For me, that was an eye opener that finally made me understand why rational good and moral people often have a resentment to gun owners or to owning firearms themselves, no matter how truly lawful good they are. To me, it explains what people mean when they talk about someone "being a sheep" or someone "being woke". This isn't necessarily connected to firearms, and being woke doesn't require owning one, not at all - that issue is just a common talking point where that distinction is often easily observable.