Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Jesus, I can't type today.

When I say guns save lives that is not meant to say they don't also cause accident and kill people inadvertantly. I also didn't say the hill incident SHOWS that guns save lives.
You can not deny that there have been instances in which a gun has saved someones life, despite the fact that i can't cite a specific case in a very small town with an incredibly low crime rate. It happens all the time. This doesn't mean lots of accidents don't happen with guns also. There are a lot of morons out there who probably should not have guns. I know how to safely handle firearms and choose to keep them mostly for recreation, but also on the off chance someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night. Maybe I have a different perspective as I was raised in Atlanta where carjackings and homicide were a daily occurance. Things like that are not as likely here, yet I still lock my doors at night. Statistically, someone is more likely to be harmed by their own gun, but we know that there are a lot of people who don't practice safe gun practices. That does nto mean I will shoot myself.

So does being careful and keeping your guns locked up.

The article I refer to is the home invasion on the hill. Admittadly, we do not know if this saved their lives as we do not know the details.
Guns do in fact save lives, but that does not conflict with the fact that many conflicts are resolved without guns. In fact, that is how any conflict should be resolved if it is within one's power to do so. If I have a gun in my car I am not going to resort to using it to settle a traffic argument. Sure there are a few idiots who will but that is no reason to limit my right to protect my self. I was a boy scout so i just believe in being prepared. I am a peaceful person and would never hurt anyone, but I would also not want to be in a situation where having a gun could save my or someone else's life and not have one just because it is unlikely. I'm not paranoid and I am nto looking for a fight. But I'll be damned if I am going to live in my house with my wife and 6 month old have have no way to protect them if they unthinkable happened. And it happens more than you would like to admit. Idiots like the guy talking about his 44 magnum don't represent the kind of gun owner I am.

No, but it certainly makes it harder for a drunk kid to stumble in. If you lock your doors ad you shoot an intruder you can feel a little more certain you didn't just shoot an innocent kid.

So what is the point of this comparison? Is it to shock peole so that we ban guns? To those who oppose guns I imagine this "study" subconcously equates to homicide. How many are suicides? You have places like Colorado and Alaska where there is a ton of hunting. How many are hunting accidents?

I find it interesting that the Camera posts this right on the heals of the home invasion article as if to remind us that, while sometimes guns save lives, they cost a lot more.

She invaded their home. What is incendiary about that?

I think you completely mist Just a Thought's point. If you lock your doors and windows and you end up shooting someone who is in your house, then more than likely you didn't just shoot a drunk and confused college kid. If you leave youor doors and windows unlocked and you try to defend yourself it becomes much more complicated.

....or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry