
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


       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.)


       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.
