[marcus_holmes]

Right, but the basic point - that people who have guns are more likely to die by guns is true, right?

The sophistry about whose gun killed them is kinda moot. They don't actually track whether the gun-owners died by their own gun or not, as you say.

But it's likely, isn't it? We're talking about people who either kill themselves, or kill their family members. It's likely using the gun that's already in the house, rather than a new, different gun being brought in from outside.

And if it is a stranger coming in from outside with a different gun, then doesn't that contradict the entire point of owning a gun? That you can protect yourself and your family from strangers with guns?

[abeyer]

They demonstrate a correlation, but not causation. In fact they point out the reverse is likely true, too, that people more likely to die by gun might want to keep a gun at home.

What you call "sophistry" others might consider "not misrepresenting what research says to fit an agenda." There's value in using precise language to communicate what the numbers actually show.

And I don't even understand how the fact that a gun isn't a guarantee in any way contradicts that it _can_ be used in self defense.

[marcus_holmes]

Long ago, I had a friend who served in the Falklands war as a demolitions expert. He kept a few souvenirs, and had a few problems. One of the problems was that he couldn't sleep in houses, he could only sleep outdoors. One of the souvenirs was a claymore mine. His parents asked him to housesit for them while they went on holiday, so he wired up the claymore mine to their front door and slept in the garden. This appeared to him to be a perfectly rational response to the situation.

My point is that a claymore mine _can_ be used for home security. The fact that it would destroy the house that it was securing doesn't contradict this.