One of the reasons a lot of people own a firearm is because they’re worried about home invasion.

For most people, that worry never becomes a reality, which is a very good thing, but it’s still a strong motivator for many gun owners.

Yet it seems someone at the Philadelphia Tribune figures that you don’t need one.

Did you know that 100 Americans die every day from gun violence and tens of thousands more suffer non-fatal gun injuries? Does that mean that you need to get a gun to protect yourself and your family? Has society become so violent that everyone should arm himself or herself for protection? Do guns really protect a family? What does the data say?

The issue of owning a gun for protection is a complex and contentious one. Advocates of gun ownership often argue that having a firearm in your home can act as a deterrent to potential criminals and provide a means of self-defense. Some say a firearm can deter burglars and intruders. It’s been argued that having a gun is your best way of protecting your family. The data on outcomes of gun ownership does not support such claims.

Research has shown that having guns in the home increases your risk of accidents and incidents of violence. Studies have indicated that a gun in your home is more likely to be used in a domestic dispute, accidental shooting or suicide attempt than in self-defense against an intruder. The presence of guns can escalate conflicts and lead to tragic outcomes, especially in emotional charged situations.

Except that those of us who actually follow this topic rather than pontificating on “being fit” by including topics they don’t understand know that this research is particularly problematic. It’s not because we don’t like the findings but because most of this research is absolute garbage.

Take the claims that having a gun in the house makes you more likely to be shot.

That particular study did nothing to differentiate between lawful gun ownership and unlawful gun possession. That’s an important distinction, though, because criminals engage in a lifestyle that is far more likely to result in them being shot.

Further, that same study failed to make any distinction between being shot with their own gun or by another party’s gun. If I happen to have a gun and get shot by another person, my owning the gun isn’t necessarily why I got shot.

Why is this a problem, though? Well, our supposed expert is going to tell us.

The idea that guns effectively protect homeowners from crime does not always align with real-world scenarios. In most cases your gun is not easily accessible during a home invasion and you may not have the training or the presence of mind to use a gun safely and effectively under stress.

And yet, he later tells people to not just lock their guns up at all times but to use an alarm safe that will make noise should anyone access the firearm.

Now, I’m a big proponent of securing guns when not in use, but if it’s within my immediate proximity, it’s in use. Mandatory storage requirements do more to make them inaccessible than anything else.

“But you may not have the training or presence of mind to use a gun safely under stress.”

Well, that may be, but that’s a training issue, not a problem with owning a gun.

And make no mistake, in addition to proclaiming gun violence a public health problem, the author in question also explicitly tells people, “Don’t buy a gun.”

He does seem to acknowledge that some will, so to those who will do so anyway, he says to get training, which is the only good advice in this entire screed.

The hilarious part to me? This is a very anti-gun piece, yet they have a picture of Colion Noir sitting on a sofa with an AR-15.

Pretty sure he’s not on board with what this twit wrote here.