Got into a discussion about firearms/gun control with my liberal teacher

[benEzra]

Secondly, I believe the statistic mentioned, and I first heard it a long time ago, says that a gun kept in the home is (statistically) more likely to be used against someone in the household than used against a criminal intruder.

Kellerman et al didn't say "used against" a criminal intruder. He only counted defensive uses if the criminal died.

Woman pulls gun and rapist runs away---doesn't count.

Woman pulls gun and fires warning shot, rapist runs away---doesn't count.

Woman shoots rapist, rapist is incapacitated but survives---doesn't count.

Woman shoots and kills rapist, turns out rapist is someone she has met before---that may count as "shooting a friend or family member," depending on the methodology.

By that logic, karate is about 1000 times more likely to kill your kids than to defend against an intruder.

FWIW, I do not believe that Kellerman et al found EVEN ONE instance of a criminal turning a homeowner's gun against the homeowner or his/her family.

More info here:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

 

[woad_yurt]

Of course you are more likely to get shot with your own gun if you have a gun. The "statistic" is meaningless. How can your own gun be used against you if there is no gun on hand? It's like saying that you are more likely to have a traffic accident in your own car than someone who doesn't own a car. Or, a standing tree is more likely to fall than is one that is not standing. In Philosophy 101, you'd get an "F" if you presented the above argument.