TexasCHLforum.com

As I opened my Yahoo homepage, my eye caught the following extract from the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090330/ts_csm/ashooting

"Studies have shown over and over again that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder," says Juliet Leftwich, senior counsel for Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco.

Question: What studies have shown that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?

By going back to the source i.e., LCAV, it is clear that they are anti-gun, but the question of what studies remains.

They're in San Francisco which has strict gun laws so it must be a study of local cops and politically connected people.

boomerang wrote:

They're in San Francisco...

Doesn't that about say it all?

The short answer is those studies include suicides and the only instance of using a gun against an intruder is one in which the intruder is killed in order to skew the numbers.

Maybe folks in Texas are different. I've had a handgun or 4 in my home for over 30 years, and I have yet to shoot anyone with any of them, familial or otherwise. Since I live by myself in recent years, it's a safe bet that anyone I see in my home probably does not belong there.

AndyC wrote:Yeah, I think mine are broken too

Gun in home leads to....peace of mind, of course.

Guns in the home lead to less cash in the bank account...and many holes in random in-animate objects, its a proven fact.

Some years back, a distinctly left-leaning colleague at work decided to take me down a notch at the lunch table (where I knew there were several other hunters and shooters) by insisting as "proof" that he'd had several friends who got into trouble "because they had guns."

They included a guy who robbed a bank when he was denied a loan, a guy who got drunk, started a fight & killed someone, a couple (!) of suicides, etc.

In response, I polled the other guys at the table - with well over 100 years of collective experience with guns, NOBODY ELSE had a friend who robbed a bank, NOBODY ELSE had a friend who suicided, NOBODY ELSE had a friend who murdered someone in a drunken brawl, etc.

So I turned to him and said "Pete, your statements say a lot more about the people you choose as friends than they do about guns . . . maybe you should revise your standards on who you hang out with."

He was most unhappy with my response . . . and the laughter of the rest of the lunch bunch.

I seriously don't see anything wrong with this statement. Statistically, most violent crimes happen between family members or people who are acquaintances. Random violent crimes happen far less often. I think it's about 80:20.

Of course a gun at home would be likely to be used against a family member, so does knife, chair, belt etc. Of course, a gun is a better tool for violence than a knife, right?

Making this connection is simply wrong. A good question to ask is, statistically, what the percentage of legally owned firearms were used against their family members.

I tell you this, at my home, the only violence it leads to is heated shouting match on how much money i am allowed to spend on buying more firearms.

The family that sprays and prays together
stays together.

Maybe playing devils advocate here but.....Are they saying that in instances of a gun being used, that it is more likely to be used on a family member than a criminal? I do believe they are obfuscating the issue and making the study and statement seem to say that of ALL guns in homes the most likely use of them is domestic violence which would be an outright lie.