The author says that a gun in a household is twelve times as likely to be used on a household member as an intruder.
Leaving aside the definition of “used” (shot, fired at, threatened by), I might point out that women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by anyone else.
That doesn’t mean that I, personally, or any woman in particular, is more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than by a stranger. If a woman has an excellent marriage but lives or works in a dangerous environment, she is more likely to be killed by someone other than her husband.
And it certainly doesn’t mean that women should forego marriage or intimate relationships, as a matter of public health. (Non-marital sexual relationships have higher rates of violence and murder.)
It means a woman should choose her partner carefully, and conduct herself with care. If she always seems to pick bad and dangerous men, maybe she SHOULD forego relationships.
Something similar holds with guns. If someone in the household is short-tempered, impulsive, suicidal, if there is a history of domestic violence, MAYBE the household should be without guns. On the other hand, if someone in the household needs protection from someone who is violent, maybe that person should have a gun.
I would rather make that call for myself, than have the government, or a collection of academics, or a public relations person/lobbyist like Mr./Ms. Franklin make it for me.
For the husband, or for the firearms.
Forgetting that an intruder needn’t be shot to be helped on his way out of the premises by the sight of a gun; also that hunting uses aren’t counted (the gun might shoot far more deer and game than people and they wouldn’t care).
Come to think of it, don’t more auto accidents harm the people in the auto than people outside the auto? Why not ban automobiles?