There is so much wrong in the way you present your argument for guns in every home (or most homes, or whatever), that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
You misuse statistics and use anecdotal tales (as does your citation) as if these personal tales held any merit in a discussion on national gun policy: they don't.
You say, or imply, that there are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses each year. Your link shows only 100,000: The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that around 100,000 defensive gun uses occur each year
. Your site, Real Clear Investigations, alludes to more, but only provides a link to a book with a clearly biased POV. In the end, your link accepts the DOJ survey and so do I.
Here are more facts from a reputable source.
There are approximately 115,000 non-fatal firearm injuries in the U.S. each year.
Those are the numbers to be used in a discussion about gun policy. The 20,000 number your site tries to pass off only deals with murders, not total gun deaths.
Real Clear Investigations headlined: There are far more defensive gun uses than murders
, as if that's startling information; simply put, that's to be expected.
Then your site goes on to provide anecdotal stories about gun use in the same argument that it provides statistical information. As mentioned anecdotal vignettes are meaningless in this discussion. So if you want to actually discuss gun policy you'll need to come up with better sources/arguments than those found at the Real Clear investigations site.
To repeat from above.
I can personally attest to how our firearm likely saved my wife's life during our home invasion. Of course, each person has to weigh the pros and cons and come to their own decision.
Your personal attestations are just another anecdotal story; thus, are meaningless in a discussion of national gun policy.
Last edited by Vintage
on Wed May 25, 2022 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.