Thank you for the reference. I am in the process of reading every word. (It was on a pro-gun site, but I'm gonna read it and see what it has to say, as it was published in a Northwestern journal.)

Back to the article. I've gotten this far, and it's interesting;

(Actual quote from the article) Thus, many scholars routinely assumed that a large share of violent inter-actions are "mutual combat" involving two blameworthy parties who each may be regarded as both offender and victim. The notion that much violence is one-sided and that many victims of violence are largely blameless is dismissed as naive. Interesting. I do respect some scholars, as I respect people who did the work to get a higher education, although I think the article may be somehow mocking people with large amounts of education. Although the article has not, yet far, told us who these "scholars" are, where they were educated and WHOM the author decides IS a "scholar."

I'm not really impressed with the article so far (it isn't really a "study") but, I'll keep reading.

Realized after I posted I should have include that is an estimated 2.5 million extrapolated from a survey. Details matter.

Thanks, but the... article was extremely biased. The article didn't like the evidence that previous studies had found, one of which was that The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use, so the authors simply said, "This can't be valid."

You don't invalidate research because you don't like the results. More propaganda, even if the study DIDN'T say that 2.5 million people 'defended' themselves with guns. (A number I found not only laughable, but propaganda based when I first saw it. Plus I didn't believe it for a minute, as most people logically wouldn't believe it either. As it is, the statement was completely untrue.

PLUS, NO ONE is saying here, "Ban all guns." The main complain is the easy access to automatic and semiautomatic weapons, which people simply don't carry around with them unless they intend some sort of serious mayhem. Anything which is actually a "study" (which this was not, it was a "review of the literature" which is different, as one can draw one's own conclusions, as the authors surely did, and they were extremely pro-gun) does it's own research. Which I didn't see with this article. Plus the place where the article was obtained from was a fairly conservative minded pro-gun website, so I'm not all that impressed.

The site "gunsite.com" seems to spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the well done National Crime Victimization Survey. The site doesn't like what the NCVS says, so they simply dismiss it. THAT isn't logical, scientific, nor what well educated researchers do. The site also seems to take particular issue with what they refer to as "scholars" without defining what "scholar" means to them, and inferring that people with an education shouldn't be listened to. They also seem to like attacking President Obama, so the source of their bias is crystal clear.

But, even THIS review didn't say anywhere near "2.5 million people" prevented their own deaths by carrying firearms, which isn't even the argument is about.

Gun Control doesn't mean NO GUNS. It means "Control over guns and who gets them and Control over what types of guns are readily available." In that case, this part of the argument is moot, as no one is advocating "taking guns out of cold dead hands" in any way.

^This.

And during that same year, the US death rate from drunk driving was 3.5/100,000. We should heavily restrict cars.