Are you really more likely to kill a family member than you are a criminal if you’ve got a gun in the house?
Don’t know; of course you’re much more likely to find a family member in your house than a criminal 
Seriously, the whole point of home defense guns is to deter, scare off or apprehend intruders, not to be a Clint Eastwood wannabee.
I doubt the question can be answered definitively, because of the meaning of “you” in your sentence.
It might well be that more family members are killed nationwide than criminals. (Or might not, my point isn’t to answer the question, but to deconstruct it). I suspect this is a proposition which actually has a discoverable & relatively uncontroversial factual answer.
But whatever the statistical reality is, that says nothing about the reality at YOUR house. So it does nothing to answer the question the OP asks.
Further, the definition of “more likely” is a different thing from the answer to the question “are more family members killed than criminals?”. So even if my proposition has a dicoverable uncontroversial factual answer that too does nothing to answer the question the OP asks.
My thought: Decide what question you really want to ask, and ask it. If you really mean what you said, “Are you really more likely to kill a family member than you are a criminal if you’ve got a gun in the house?” then we need to know all about your habits, personal skills, family, associates and location. From all that we might get close to a likelihood figure for YOU.
No. That is based a false statistic which does not limit the deaths to “family members” it included evryone that is not a stranger and thus included members of your gang, other gangs you might know, criminal associates and so forth.
If this was true, think of how many dead family members we’d have from the ranks of the police!
Not really, but maybe kinda if you count drugged up punks raiding their grandparents house for crack money, abusive men violating restraining orders, gang shootings and the like. The statistic I’ve seen usually has some wording in it like “relatives and friends of the family” to include that guy that the son hangs around with or even that guy that the first guy knows.
No, I don’t have cites on me right now, most of which are going to be on either anti or pro gun sites and so not persuasive anyway.
From the feds accidental death table (for some year like '96) more children under 5 drowned in plastic buckets than children under 10 were killed by guns. What can you get out of this statistic? Not very much, IMNSHO.
Also, if I may, used to be one would see startling statistic on how many children were killed every year by guns. The tables these data came from had age groups 0-8, 9-14, 15-24 (I’m going off of memory, I haven’t looked at the raw numbers since 01 sometime). So, “children” in the HCi definition, included 24 years old (or maybe it was 22). And oddly enough, when you separated the 15-24 year group out, the conclusion was much less terrible (although still non-zero and thus a tragedy).
I doubt if there is anyone that doesn’t know my bias, so take everything I say with that in mind. 
Having a gun in your house doesn’t mean you’re actually going to use it to kill someone, so there’s a bit of a logical leap in saying you’re more likely to kill a family member by just having it in the house.
I’ve read that you are more likely to kill someone you know than a random stranger/burglar - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/427198
There were 219 justifiable homicides in 2004, and 649* accidental firearm deaths. All of those deaths aren’t a person accidentally shooting another, but it shows that your firearm is more likely to be involved in an accidental death a criminal’s.
The question posed by the OP has arisen, I think, from the Kellerman study of '86, and his “43 times more likely…” findings. Dr. Kellerman’s research methodology is disputed.
Check out Guns in the Medical Literature – A Failure of Peer Review.
treis: don’t confuse justifiable homicides and legal interventions with defensive gun uses. One needn’t kill a would-be burglar or rapist with a firearm to deter them, drive them off, or hold them at bay until police arrive.
Several surveys and studies have been conducted over the years concerning defensive gun uses, with different methodologies and varying results; the NCVS study alluded to by Gentle Robot came in around 110,000 DGU per year. Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist with Florida State Univ. put the high-end estimate around 2.5 million DGUs per year.
All of the studies, to my knowledge, are over a decade out-of-date; all have also been disputed by various pro-gun and pro-control groups.
I think LSLGuy really nails this question nicely with this:
I’ve had firearms in my various homes, with a few exceptions, going back to when I was 5 y/o. No one in any of my homes has ever come close to being injured with a firearm, except for that time when my Dad accidentally caught the soft skin of his hand (between thumb and forefinger) between the slide and barrel of his .45 ACP one time after he was done cleaning it. YMMV.
There are lots of guns in our house. Lots.
No one has received injury from a firearm. Including our three young children.
I dont; think that knowing thr result from one of the hundred million households in the US is terribly helpful. Can we have some meaningful statistics on the OP’s question?
He didn’t ask about DGUs. He asked if you were more likely to kill a family member or a criminal.
And as LSLGuy mentioned, that depends who “you” are. I just looked up statistics on shark attacks, and I learned that the average North American is about 15,000 times more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than in a shark attack. Notice that it didn’t say that “you” are 15,000 times more likely to be killed in an automobile accident, because that likelihood would significantly change if you are a beach bum who never travels or a traveling salesman who can’t swim.
I would bet statistics that show that people were shot and killed by a family member don’t exclude those who specifically bought a firearm to kill that family member and also don’t include intruders that weren’t killed (the threat of household guns or a non-lethal injury was successful in stopping the assailants).
Yes they do. Only unintentional deaths are counted in the statistic I provided.
No kidding because the OP asked about the liklihood of killing a criminal.
Did you even bother to look at the trends you linked to? They’re not statistics of people who were shot and killed by family members.
Well then the OP as phrased isn’t really significantly important, is it? What’s important is how often household guns are successful in preventing harm to one and one’s family, whether or not the intruder is killed.
You are more likely to hurt YOURSELF then a criminal if you don’t know what your doing with a gun.
I do not own a gun simply because there’s simply no need for me to own one. My city, in central Florida, has, for the past 20 years, a declining crime rate and a very effective police force.
Also, I am personally and morally against guns.
Yes, and if you don’t know what you’re doing with weed whackers, chain saws, kitchen knives, and automobiles, you are quite likely to hurt yourself as well. Perhaps we should get rid of all dangerous things in the world, eh?
So you have no problem leaving it up to your city’s police force to protect you in all situations in which you may find yourself in your life? While you may be fine with this, others prefer to ensure their own security. You do realize that police rarely stop a crime in progress–instead, they react after the fact.
And I am personally and morally against kitchen knives. :rolleyes:
Scratch that. Make it automobiles that I’m personally and morally against. Because automobiles, of course, kill far more people in this country than do either kitchen knives or guns.
Before you jump in to say how useful automobiles are to society, I would ask you to weigh this against the more than 50,000 lives lost to vehicular accidents every year. My goodness, your typical automobile is a two-ton plus hunk of metal filled with 20 gallons of highly explosive liquid being piloted by someone as young as 16! Won’t somebody think of the children? :rolleyes:
Seriously, I don’t understand how anyone can be “morally against” an inanimate object.
You know, there are some 60 million people in this country who collectively own more than 200 million firearms. The percentage of these weapons that are used to hurt anybody, intentionally or willfully, is infinitesimally small. Just like kitchen knives.
Interesting. 20 years, huh?
And,…um,…what year did Florida addopt a “shall issue” concealed carry law?
That was supposed to be “…unintentionally or willfully…” in this sentence.
I believe it was 1987. Purely a coincidence I’m sure.
You sure you want to open up that debate can of worms here?