There have been some very heated debates on guns, not that I've ever been involved but you might want to rethink your gun owning after reading here. It is a fact a gun will be more likely used to injure a family member or friend than be used against a robber.
Not exactly.
This is true
only if suicides by members of the household are counted among the 'injured family members or friends' and only if 'used against an intruder' is defined as 'shot dead'. Which means, its not true if you have to 'cook' the definitions in a way that is designed to produce a desired outcome.
There are a number of material problems with the now-infamous study from which this 'fact' came, which has time and time again been discredited, the author of this study even going as far as admitting that he knew the methodology used was bogus, but decided to publish it anyway because 'he agreed with its conclusions' (A. Kellermann).
First, it presumes all guns kept in homes are kept for personal protection, when a substantial percentage of firearms are kept for sporting, recreational, or collecting purposes and not for personal protection. A study which purports to measure the protective value of firearms kept for personal protection should try to narrow its sample down to firearms kept for personal protection.
Second, it was no accident that the author counted suicides to arrive at his number of 'injured family members or friends'. There are more suicides in the US annually than murders from all causes of death and accidental firearm deaths
combined. Suicide is rather preventable no matter how many firearms a home may contain - don't put a gun to your head, or in your mouth, then the trigger. Simple.
Moreoever, it is highly flawed to reason that, because a suicidal person may not have access to a firearm, no suicide will occur. Wrong. "Gun free" Europe and Japan have some of the highest suicide rates in the industrialized world, as high or higher than the US, which means they seem to get along with the business of killing themselves just fine without guns, as do thousands of people who commit or attempt suicide in the US without the benefit of a firearm.
Third, more than a dozen studies, a few sponsored by the US Department of Justice, have found that the vast majority of protective or defensive gun uses (PGU/DGU) do not result in injury or death to the alleged 'criminal' (be it an intruder, mugger, rapist, etc.). Brandishing or displaying a firearm, or firing a warning shot (not advisable), proves more than sufficient to put a criminal to flight in the majority of protective gun uses.
Yet the study from which this 'fact' came only counted 'intruders shot dead' as its measure of protective gun use, deliberately failing to include 'intruders scared away' or even 'intruders wounded but not killed'. This is a bit like measuring the effectiveness of your local police department by counting only the number of 'criminals shot dead' by police, failing to consider arrests and convictions as valid measures of police effectiveness.
In fact, the author acknowledged as a caveat in the study that his analysis of firearm protective uses
should have included the many police reports of attackers or intruders being wounded or scared away by a home owner with a gun that he had encountered during his research, but he decided to disinclude them and submitted the study for publication, anyway, which was enthusiastically published by the New England Journal of Medicine without peer review.