The answer is quite illusive actually. Yes, it is true that guns are used against family members/friends more than against criminals. But this isn't a simple if A=B and B=C than A=C formula. The odds of a gun owner confronting a criminal in the home is exponentially lower than confronting a family member or friend. Obviously, you see/meet family members and friends every day. But the stats that show "Friendly Fire" (Lack of a better term) with a weapon also includes accidents. Obviously, if you have 0 guns in the house, the chance of an accident or shooting a family member/friend is 0%. So, having a gun in the house OBVIOUSLY makes the chances go up. And because the chances of seeing/meeting a family member/friend are exponentially higher that running into a criminal; that percentage also goes up.
Here's where the stats get misleading. A gun is simply a tool. If there is a history or potential for domestic violence; then whatever tool is available can/will be used. If there was no gun in the house, the abuser would more than likely use their fist, knife, blunt object, etc... The problem is that a gun is somewhat permanent. The chance of death is much greater. This is also the argument many use with suicide. A gun in the house increases the chance of suicide. Granted, without a gun, a person may try committing suicide with drugs, slit wrist, etc... But in those cases, the chance of death are much lower. With a gun, the chance of death is much greater. So, while I hate to admit it; for some people; a gun definitely increases the chance of death in a home with "Friendly Fire". (Any gun shot not directed in self defense of person or property).
However; there is also more to this than just that. A community that is Known or more likely to be gun friendly and have citizens with guns, presents a variable that criminals take into consideration PRIOR to breaking into the house. They realize that there's a good chance that if anyone is home, they could get shot while committing their crime. Whereby; if guns were outlawed and NO Law Abiding citizen had a gun; then criminals would be much more willing to break into a home because they would know that there is little for them to fear from the victim.
There are also many other scenarios where positive results come about by having a gun for self defense. So while the anti-gun folks make be technically correct about the claim of no guns in the house would mean no "Friendly Fire" deaths; they aren't considering the potential deaths, rape, etc... by having victims that can't defend themselves. Also, the deaths by "Friendly Fire" would not go to 0. There would still be some deaths domestically; they just wouldn't be by a gun.
But these deaths, suicide, accidents, etc... are the corner stone by which MOST anti-gun advocates argue their point. It would be a great argument if it was a simple action-reaction scenario. But that's like saying we need to end ALL fossil fuel use in our country. It sounds good, but that creates a chain of events from workers in the USA losing their jobs in the drilling, transport, refining, etc... It affects the importers/exporters. It affects countries that ONLY have oil and similar as their main stay of their GDP; e.g. Saudi Arabia. Then those countries go into total recession/depression because they have no other source of income. They have civil war because of poverty/economics. They use WAR as a means to obtaining what they need/want. Which then involves other countries. etc.... Very little that changes 1 thing is an island unto itself. Something as simple, and to many seem obvious, such as banning all guns in the country (Assuming there's no need to protect ourselves from a dictatorship government); has an effect on human life, crime, economics, etc... As FACT, we know that we can build a car that is 100% capable of keeping it's occupants 100% safe and unharmed during an accident; which more people die in cars than from guns. HOWEVER; that car would cost approximately $100,000 to produce. Would people be willing to pay for such a gun? No, they wouldn't. When it comes to safety, many speak of how a "Human Life" is PRICELESS!!! Sorry, but it isn't priceless. We are a very cheap commodity. We can make more, quite easily. If we were priceless, we'd pay $100,000 for the perfect safe car; $1 Million for the AVERAGE home that was ACCIDENT proof; etc... So obviously, we do have a price on our lives. You have to look at the big picture when determining the cost of something. Some communities, it's probably very unlikely that a gun at home would EVER be needed. There are places where such crime is almost non-existent. But part of that reason is probably because of the guns being there. I.e. If a town has a 0.5% crime rate per year; and someone says "WE DON'T NEED GUNS, WE DON'T HAVE CRIME"; they could ban guns, but then the community's crime rate could jump to 5-10% because criminals know there won't be any resistance. It's a catch-22.
