Arguments Against Gun Ownership

Gun ownership has the capability to positively assist a home occupant during a burglary. A burglar can be convinced to leave the home in the presence of a gun-wielding occupant, or a gun-owner can exercise his right to self-defence and harm the intruder, effectively ending the home invasion. With this in mind, it can appear to be a good idea to own a gun in the event of home invasion. But does this really mean that owning a gun will protect from home invasion? Or that having a gun at the time of the invasion will guarantee a positive outcome? And, in the event there is no home invasion, but a presence of a gun in the home, is the home owner really protected? The research in this area is limited and gun control studies are lacking in this area that focuses immediately on gun ownership and its relationship to positive outcomes in home invasions.
WHAT STUDIES SAY
For example, in terms of using owning guns in the home, studies have shown that persons who keep a firearm in the home are at a greater risk for a non-intentional shooting accident, may injure or kill their family during self-defence, or may be at a greater risk of committing suicide with the presence of an in-home gun (Kellermann et al., 1998). One study concluded that state-supported gun restrictions in the home were associated with a decrease in firearm related suicide and home homicides (Fleegler et al., 2013) while another study showed that 2/3 of homicides that were committed by spouses and ex-spouses were done with the use of firearms (Fox and Zawitz, 2007). Yet another study concluded that “Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellermann et al.,