Propagandists love to disguise themselves as critics of science, when failing to understand good science (actually good statistics — which is a different understanding.)

“They start by completely ignoring incidents in which a firearm is effectively used for self-defense, usually WITHOUT having to shoot anyone.”

The problem with this is two-fold…

One)

Yes, guns have scared off a lot of criminals. However, (statistically) a gun is about as effective as a baseball bat, or just turning on the lights — in this specific category.

This is because, as the police will tell you, the huge majority of home invasions are not assaults but robberies. And the huge majority of “individuals confronting robbers” is because the intruder mistakenly entered the home when they thought the residents were gone (which is the standard MO for robbery.)

So, as a rule (literally, as the rule not the exception) the thief flees at the first sign of life in the house. In fact, assaults from robberies usually result from the thief getting cornered by the homeowner. Had the homeowner simply allowed the thief to flee, the assault would not have happened.

The common assault scenario is when the person enters the house with the specific intent to do harm to a specific person. However, again, in the huge majority of these cases the assailant is known to the victim. Making the availability of the gun generally useless unless the victim is carrying it throughout the entire encounter.

TWO)

No one is actually arguing the large number of potential assaults that were stopped or prevented by guns, even if the gun is not fired.

You’re actively missing the point of this facet of the discussion.

The point is, the number of “gun prevented assaults” is small compared to the approximate 40,000 gun deaths each year (last legitimate numbers I could find placed it at an approximately 10:1 ratio of deaths to prevention.)

If any other product in the U.S. had this record, it would be removed from shelves.