"Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91."

After finding the source, I find that it is a random digit dial survey for one, and that their total results include a total of 39 people. 13 said a gun was used against them at home in some way, however this does not list whether the gun was legally purchased or what area these people lived in. Only 2 people reported using one in self defense. 24 people reported using some other weapon in self defense. So, you're saying that having a weapon for self defense is important, but don't use a gun because you're either too stupid or too violent to own one? How nice.

"We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400."

So, they use California residents as an example (California has more barriers in effect to obtain a firearm than most states) and yet here we are with minors that have guns and are threatening each other. This goes against the claim that more gun control means everyone is safer.

This is the kind of stuff I mean. You say that the Harvard page debunks all these pro-gun arguments off hand. The difference is I'm actually explaining why they don't while you continue to say that the single link you posted is irrefutable and do not explain why. I don't know if I'll even be surprised if your reply to this is the same it has been the entire time. "Nope, your claims are debunked because Harvard."