That would make sense, because most of the time, they would not 'see' the gun used to prevent a crime, but probably gets called to most every instance of a child discharging a firearm.
Also, which Sherriff said that? It was definately not the Sheriff where I live. He strongly favors private citizens who own guns, stating that they have 'helped' nim on more than one occasion, and he has yet to see an incidence of a child or family member in good standing harmed by a gun in their house. He does know of a couple incidences, of a wife beating husband, who was held at gunpoint for the police, and one that was shot by his wife, when he went through a restraining order, and was kicking in her door, but he doesn't consider that a 'member of the family' being shot, because of the circumstances.
However, from what I can gather, when you read the statistics of a 'family member' or 'someone you know' being shot by a gun you own, these sort of incidents are counted. While technically it may be correct, does that REALLY mean that the gun made the household less safe? Or does it mean, that maybe the wife, or ex-wife knew what her spouse or ex-spouse was capable of, and wanted a way to protect herself?
Also, how are crime/gunshot statistics, part of 'disease prevention'?
