Reply #116: Let's restrict ourselves to the claims that were made, shall we?

[Euromutt]

As opposed to tactic so common among Republican presidential candidates of answering the question you wanted the moderator to ask rather than the question he actually asked.

In the OP, ileus asserted that "If you carry a loaded gun - you are ready, willing and able to save someone with it."
Bowens43 asserted in response that it's "more likely someone you love will die from that gun."
In other words, bowens43 asserts that, if you carry a loaded gun, it's more likely that that gun will be used--intentionally or otherwise--to kill a loved one than to "save someone."

Or, are you saying that the gun owner is more likely to save the life of another than lose the life of a loved one by that gun?

See, there you're assuming that "to save someone" only means "to save the life of another." However, we could just as readily include instances in which a person was saved from being the victim of a completed physical assault, robbery, or sexual assault/rape, all of which are classed as violent crimes. Even if none of these incidents, if successfully completed, need have resulted in the victim's death, they would result in material harm to the victim, and we should treat any such result being averted as a positive outcome.

While it's impossible to definitely know the number of successful DGUs against violent crimes that occur annually, all the available data indicate that that number is higher in the US than the total number of people killed due to GSWs. Even if you buy the NCVS numbers, which are almost certainly way too low, there are at least seven times as many people "saved" by guns than die from GSWs. Thus, bowens43's claim must be false.