We are talking apples and oranges. You are using anecdotes, I'm talking statistics. You will notice that I also did it without insulting you. I'm sorry to hear you think the quality of my posts has declined, but my guess is that it tracks much more with whether or not you agree with me than their actual quality.
I don't think you understand what I said earlier about the surveys. When you have extremely low probability events, the error rate is magnified. Think about it this way: if I have a result that is 50% but my error increases it 1%, I have introduced a 2% (1/50) error in this. If my result is 1% and I have the same 1% fluctuation my error rate is 100%. This is why you have to be careful with small numbers like that. The error becomes even worse when you use that number to generalize to large populations as they did in the defense case as your error becomes hugely magnified. (in America if you go from 1% to 2% we just invented about 3 million annual defensive gun uses). The results you mentioned before fell victim to this, and so they are totally unreliable.
That is also how from those results you can get the fact that people used guns to defend themselves from 200% of the burglaries they were home for. When your stats give you that answer you have made an egregious error.
Deaths are the most concrete data we have, as it is difficult to hide bodies. We know that intruders and other such unwanted people comprise a vanishingly small number of the people killed by guns. The vast majority are household members or friends. If your purpose for owning a gun is to make your family safer, that seems pretty important.
From all the data I have seen, mortality risk for a family goes UP with a gun in the house, not down. That indicates to me that they are quite poor at protecting people.
So you are saying that survey's of prison inmates, and phone calls to gun owners, especially those as members of the NRA, who all answer that they were either stopped (the criminals) or had stopped (law abiding citizens) a criminal act from happening or was happening with a gun as low probability events.
Crime is not a low probability event. Not at all. Much of it IS prevented as it is being started or in the commission of. Much of which is not reported. Even such crimes being stopped and reported do not go into details most of the time on how they were stopped or why. Those statistics simply aren't tracked by law enforcement. Nor can anything not reported be tracked. But when you consider a large sample size of inmates have stated they were stopped by a citizen with a gun on previous occasions and ran, how can you state that these are rare events?
You have the original old Dr Kleck survey done in the 90's and many more since then with more refined techniques.
Not to mention what IS tracked is the regularity of both crime and gun ownership. Typically states that have more gun ownership also have less crime. It's not a direct causation obviously, but it is a good correlation.
Even the Dr Kleck and Gertz study stated in an average year only 1.3% of the entire US population will use a gun in a defensive use to prevent a crime. This is done by brandishing, shooting, or even just mentioning ownership of said gun to deter a potential crime or stop one in action. 1.3% is not really THAT large of a number when you think about it as a percentage. That's that 2.5 million rate that gets bandied about. Still, 2.5mill uses is far in excess of 18,000 suicides or the even lesser number of accidental homicides OR accidental shooting that only lead to injuries.
You are far more likely, given the above numbers, to be involved in an auto accident leading to serious injury or fatality than any of those numbers in the previous paragraph. There is also far more guns in ownership than cars.
Notice I said used to prevent CRIME, and didn't stipulate the type of crime. Crime can be considered trespassing. Here in Texas I have family with lots of ranch land that has to go patrolling every so often. They use guns all the time, EVERYDAY, to prevent crimes such as poaching on their lands. Much of it is never reported even if they shoot at someone (they rarely ever shoot to hit a person just scare them off).
Just because you live in a little corner of America and have never seen how people use firearms defensively to prevent crime every day doesn't mean it's not a valid statistic.
There have been a few other surveys done using various sampling sizes and most tend to corroborate what Kleck and Gertz found. Even Kleck and Gertz adjusted DOWNWARDS from their initial sampling. The original survey done had 222 respondents out of 4799 said they used a gun defensively and that number was adjusted downward to 66 for various reasons such as accounting for possible oversampling for a given region. Areas that don't have a lot of crime aren't going to have a lot of defensive use, nor are areas that have strict gun control.
The NIJ
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/welcome.htm also had similar findings as well as the Clinton Justice Department.
Even law enforcement tracking rape statistics concludes in an average year women stop the process of being raped with their guns on average of 200,000 times a year. This is not a prevention but an actually stoppage of a crime in action.
Calling all these low or rare is intellectually dishonest as harm by accidents or suicides from guns is even FAR more rare of a case every year than defensive uses. Which was the comparison I was initially asserting in the first place.
I actually lost the tip of a finger to a knife 
Facebook
Twitter