Why make such blanket statements and logically loose arguments? You might as well advise the commenter to refrain from buying knives and baseball bats, too. Because, statistically, you're much more likely to be killed with a knife or a baseball bat in the commission of a crime.
A gun is a tool with a high(er) degree of lethality. Just like any other tool in the house, if one is not trained and practiced in its use, one is far more likely to make an error when using it in an emergency situation.
If you want to make blanket advice statements, at least qualify them. The responsible thing to say, in this situation, is, "Please don't buy a gun without undergoing proper training." Guns are a force multiplier/equalizer and we live in a society where guns are easily obtained by criminals. Telling law abiding citizens to strictly avoid force-multipliers like firearms, in our society, benefits the criminals and anti-gun lobby -- but it doesn't benefit the person to whom you've replied.
In fact, you've only perpetuated the cycle of fear by trying to instill more fear in your argument to avoid guns (lest they kill a family member, murder an innocent person or be shot with the firearm).
I gave sources. You're making an argument that isn't supported by data. There's an excellent overview of the data on the Science Vs. podcast[1], which you'd probably find interesting. It explains why arguments like yours may apply to a few people, but not to the vast majority.
While it's true that training makes you less likely to be killed by a firearm, it has no effect on suicides of family members, someone stealing the gun and using it, someone in the family using it improperly, etc.
> you've only perpetuated the cycle of fear by trying to instill more fear
That was exactly my intention. Guns are dangerous. People should be afraid of them.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
That analogy doesn't make sense. Jet engines weren't invented to kill things quickly with as little proximity and mass as possible. People can avoid jet engines and people who operate them without any difficulty.
Furthermore, jet engines aren't marketed as devices to make people safer in their homes, nor are they stored in homes, nor are they considered to be useful to a layperson.
Kleck's science is terrible. There's an entertaining overview of it on the Science Vs. podcast[1]. His rebuttal is basically debunked at the bottom of the rebuttal itself.
Does it actually make you... or is it a correlation vs causation? Neither of those sources are ones I would trust for being able to tell apart correlation and causation.
Having a car means you are more likely to die in a car accident. The question is if the risk is worth the benefit. If you follow simple gun safety techniques and don't have any mental health issues, your odds of harming yourself or an innocent with a gun is greatly reduced.
Owning a gun makes the people in your household statistically more likely to be killed both inside and outside the household[1].
It also makes you more likely to murder an innocent person or have the gun used against a family member[2].
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suic...
2. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun...