>>The fact that criminals will still acquire them, legal or not.
>
>That is true here as well, still normal citizens do not feel threathened, as its quite unlikely here that a robber will use a gun for anything other than threatening (Yes, there are incidents otherwise). Gun related deaths are rare here: About 20 times lower incidence than in the US.
>
>>Having a close relative who was forced to shoot an intruder (who shot at her first when he gained access to her home after her repeatedly yelling she was calling the police and she had a gun). I have a few other friends who needed (and some used and some did not) a weapon at home for protection. But that is just one example. I have read thousands of police reports. Home security is just one reason, but it is a real reason.
>
>I've been informed that some stats conclude that it is 43 times more likely that a gun in the house will kill family friendly people rather than violent intruders. Now lets say that this study is flawed and its only about 2 times in total. Is it still worth it?
>
>The above would mean that your example is either very exceptional or you are not telling me of the cases you know where the gun in the house was lethal to anyone other than violent intruders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

My guess is only a small fraction of the "homicide" numbers were "justified", and of those only a portion were against violent intruders. So the ratio of

( suicide + unintentional ) / ( justified homicide )

is likely pretty high.