In article <1qmuv8INNl8s@dns1.NMSU.Edu> loki@acca.nmsu.edu (Entropic Destroyer) writes:  >The following is quoted from the tail end of a (rather condescending) >article about Paxton Quigley, that appeared in US Snooze and World Lies, >(sorry... i think it was in the wall street journal...) >and was repeated in the Colorado (people's) Daily, a student newspaper >at the University of Colorado at Boulder. > >"A study of residential gunsot deaths in King County, Wash., found that >a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner,                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  >spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder.           The "used to kill" is the heart of the misinformation.  It's one of those technically accurate phrasings that conveys the wrong impression. What Mr. Quiqley is more than aware of, I'm sure, is that when people read this they think violent arguments where one member of the family grabs a gun and shoots another, thereby creating a tragic situation which could easily have been avoided had the gun not been there, or a tragic accident, especially involving a child.         Unfortunately, that's not the way things stack up.  The majority of that 43 "times" (37 I believe) are suicides.  That is, someone  intentionally took a firearm and shot themselves intending to kill  themselves.  And why it's popular to try and blame suicides on guns, the evidence doesn't support this.  Internal studies, as well as comparative studies with other countries, indicate that cultural factors far outweigh whether a person will kill themselves or not. (Japan, for instance, has a slightly higher rate than the U.S.  There people jump off buildings.)         According to the National Crime Survey, 40% of violent crime is commited by "non-strangers," which mistakenly has been generalized regarding the King County study to mean, "Friends and family."  That is, Mr. Quigley, and others who quote this statistic, are banking on the mental image that a "Friend, family member, or child," equates to a loving relationship, and that it was cut short in a moment of anger.  Unfortunately, all too often husbands beat and kill wives, children assault parents, or vice-versa.  Most rapes are commited by  someone known to the victim, for instance.  Essentially, that a gun was used against a "friend" or family member doesn't mean they weren't trying to hurt the other person.  Crime is highest among poor urban families, and those are also the areas most "at risk" for family problems, especially violent ones.  A son in a gang may not be as loving toward his parents if they disapprove than a suburban kid might.         Finally, it hinges on the fallacy that a dead intruder is the only value of a self-defense firearm.  Using the minimum figures I worked out using the NCS I got about an 80:1 ratio between deadly self-defenses (justifiable homicides) and with-gun self-defenses. Between the FBI Uniform Crime report and the NCS there's an enormous amount of data and anybody with the calculator can crunch the numbers. As such it is incorrect to assume that a dead body is the only valid means of determining the success of such a defense, since according to the NCS (which has been considered by many to seriously under-report defenses) there were far more successful with-gun defenses than intruders killed.         Not it also confines itself to the home, where attack by a "friend or family member" is far, far more likely, and excludes any defense which occurs outside the home.  (I believe a large number occur in businesses.)  >Studies by the  >Western Psychiatric Institute, in Pittsburgh, found that the mere presence >of a gun in the home sharply incresases the likelihood a family member >will commit suicide, even in the absence of psychiatric illness."         I have not seen the exact data for this, so I can't comment.  I will point out Canada's and Japan's suicide rate as indications that culture far more than firearm availability affect suicide rates.         There was also a comparative study between Canada (for what it's worth, considering the difficulty of comparing across cultural lines) published in the New England Journal of Medicine (I can get the exact cite if you need it) that concluded that restrictive firearm laws  would not significantly impact the over-all suicide rate.