Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up ki

Statistically your worse off owning a gun. The odds of a member of the general public using it for defense are lower than the odds a gun they own will end up killing them. Nope, that can't be the statistic you're thinking of, since the "in defense" is well over a million annually (first survey, by gun grabbers, did not count how many times per year) to well over 2 million (later studies focusing on this). Obviously a bare, bare fraction of gun owners are killing themselves with their own guns (you only get large numbers including suicides, and guns clearly aren't significant in that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...), let alone by losing them to criminals in combat, which is very rare. You're probably thinking of the Kellerman study, which scored successful self-defense uses only as killing the criminal. Which is not even a legal objective, lethal force to stop is, to kill is reserved to the judiciary. The vast majority of gun self-defense instances (like > 80%, maybe 90%) don't even involve a gun being fired. Getting back to our topic, I get the strong impression that the statistics produced by the RIAA et. al. are as bad as those produced by the gun grabbers. Except they don't get published as Revealed Truth in the NEJM, JAMA, etc.