This question is in regard to the Arthur Kellerman study. Is a gun in the house really more likely to kill a family member than an intruder? What if suicides are not counted?
I don’t know who Arthur Kellerman is, but here are a few factors to consider:
whether the gun is locked up
whether there are children or irresponsible/mentally unstable/frequently drunk/etc. people in the family
whether the gun is normally loaded
etc.
There are lots of experts that make wild controversial statements .
Fact is that a gun is most likely to collect dust than anything else.
An inside peek into my situation.
I own 6 guns.
1 shotgun i’ve had for 40 years.
1 22 rifle i’ve had for around 35 years.
1 shotgun I’ve had for around 35 years.
1 rifle I’ve had for around 30 years.
1 handgun I’ve had for 30 years.
1 handgun I’ve had for 25 years.
also
1 shotgun owned by my son stored here 10 years.
1 rifle owned by my son stored here 7 years.
1 shotgun owned by my daughter stored here 3 years.
Thats 215 years that these chunks of metal have had a “chance” to kill someone.
But still they just sit here collecting dust.
Hell they ain’t even been pointed at anyone.
TJdude825, those things would be considered anecdotally, but not in the overall statistics of what has already actually transpired.
My only source for information on these statistics was the former Director of Mental Health for the state that I live in. He said that statistically speaking, a gun in the house is more likely to kill a member of the household than an intruder.
Short answer : No.
The Kellerman study is seriously flawed. Check James Lott’s study through the University of Chicago if you want accurate figures. The short version is that guns obviously have to be in the house to be used against family members, but if you discount suicides, and account for seriously under-reported instances of guns scaring off intruders, with no police follow-up, then the kellerman stats are BS.
Why discount suicides?
Moved to Great Debates.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
The Kellerman study contained < 5% suicides (and ‘murder-suicides’ at that). Hardly enough to negate the study’s conclusion.
And even if suicides were common enough to “bias” the data, are you seriously proposing that suicides somehow don’t matter? That suicide is not a tragedy?
I think the point about suicide is there is more then one way to do something.
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Lott actually conducted a survey. You can read the interesting details of his downfall here:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/survey
And this tends to support the accusations against Lott:
It suggests that quite a bit more than 5% of the deaths examined were suicieds. Can you point to the part of the study where you got the 5% number from KarlGauss?
I’ve heard that as well but I’m curious as to how they arrived at that conclusion. I wonder if the following factors have anything to do with gun deaths within households.
[ul]
[li]1. Drug or alcohol abuse. [/li][li]2. Mental illness or depression. [/li][li]3. History of domestic abuse.[/li][li]4. Members of household convicted felons.[/li][/ul]
If so then I don’t see why my family should be lumped in with those that do.
Marc
This is not a direct answer to your question, pervert, but I do think that the information is pertinent:
http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm
That website also quotes these statistics:
And finally, this:
You can find much more information at these websites. I don’t know of more reliable sources of information in the scientific community than these publications.
But other methods used for suicide are more likely to give a person a fighting chance to stay alive. If she or he uses a gun, they are usually successful in killing themselves. Suicides are very often matters of impulse. Not having a firearm available gives the impulse more of a chance to pass.
I know that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind about the 2nd Amendment with this information. But if you choose to remain armed, at least do it with full knowledge of the facts as acknowledged by the scientific community in its reputable journals.
MGibson, I don’t know about #4 on your list, but certainly the other three are factors in the number of gun deaths.
They arrived at their conclusions by doing a statistical analysis of available data. Their study lists their sources of information. Anyone can double check their sources. The New England Journal of Medicine has very high standards for the studies it publishes.
To the best of my knowledge, your family wasn’t mentioned specifically.
If a study is done that discovers that 9 out of 10 people like chocolate ice cream best and you prefer strawberry, that doesn’t change the truth of the statistic.
How many intruders have you shot?
Lies
Damn lies
Statistics
What’s to argue.
Just say,
“I’m for more or total gun control.”
“I want guns banned completely.”
“I think there are enough gun laws.”
“I think there should be less gun laws”
“I don’t care.”
No one is changing their minds round here anyway.
That has to be one of the dumbest statements of all time (I know you didn’t originally coin the phrase [sounds like Mark Twain but I don’t recall off the top of my head] so I’m not directing the statement at you personally). This has led many people to believe that they can simply disregard statistical data outright.
Or maybe it is actually a clever statement, and like statistics themselves, people see what they want to see in them. I don’t know.
I am not familiar with the study in question, but I suppose that if the % of gun owners who have had a family member killed by one of their guns is greater than the % of gun owners who have used their gun to prevent a crime, then yes, the study is correct.
So what does that mean? Well the most simplistic answer is that a gun gives you a false sense of security. But as already pointed out, there are a number of factors that such a simplistic analysis does not take into account- basically what TJdude825 listed. Unlike an intruder entering your home, these are all controllable factors. So run the analysis again, with a sample population of gun accidents/homicides that could have prevented with the bare minimum of safety precautions and see what you get. Or run an analysis of gun owners who would have been killed if they didn’t have a firearm vs accidents/homicides.
I don’t think that any conclusions can be drawn from such a simple analysis as the Kellerman study.
A figure of 4.5% was given in the first table of the article (for “murder-suicide”). I can’t link to it though.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
You are statistically much more likely to die in a hospital than at home. Ergo, if you are suffering from a heart attack, refuse the ambulance.
Regards,
Shodan
pervert: Here is the relevant table from Kellermann’s article.
Shodan: The study was controlled. The major difference between the cases and controls was the presence of guns in the home. I fail to see how your analogy applies.