OK, I'll bite. I have no dog in this fight. I don't have a position on the gun debate. I'm just participating because I'm finding this line of debate annoying on both sides.

It looks like this.

"Inflammatory statement"

Side A - Show me yours and I'll show you mine

Side B - lol, I don't care enough. Insult.

johnnyfive, I'm going to try to force your hand. Maybe I will learn something in this "debate". Hopefully, it might even be about the gun debate.

Cite (several studies hosted on the Harvard website)

Claims from that cite. Each of these claims are backed by a study.

"Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal"

"Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense"

"Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime"

"Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense"

" Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens"

"Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions"

I'll go out on a limb and put those studies together to say that owning a gun for self-defense gives more rise to harm than defense.

I'm interested to see your studies that show that gun owners who use their guns for self-defense are safer than those who do not.

Edit: This was simulposted with cgod's "Part Two" response.