The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2004, 10:23 PM
Pepsi Classic Pepsi Classic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 200
Gun - More Likely to Kill Family Member?

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?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-04-2004, 10:31 PM
TJdude825 TJdude825 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:07 PM
justwannano justwannano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:28 PM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is online now
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 6,884
Yes..

Quote:
... Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:33 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:33 PM
silenus silenus is offline
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 40,607
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:34 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Why discount suicides?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:37 PM
xash xash is offline
Ogministrator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 4,133
Moved to Great Debates.

-xash
General Questions Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:38 PM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is online now
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 6,884
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-04-2004, 11:47 PM
netscape 6 netscape 6 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by KarlGauss
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:04 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
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/...ns/Lott/survey

And this tends to support the accusations against Lott:

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:07 AM
pervert pervert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Well,this site suggests no.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-05-2004, 01:18 AM
Odesio Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Re: Gun - More Likely to Kill Family Member?

Quote:
Originally posted by Pepsi Classic
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'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.
  • 1. Drug or alcohol abuse.
  • 2. Mental illness or depression.
  • 3. History of domestic abuse.
  • 4. Members of household convicted felons.

If so then I don't see why my family should be lumped in with those that do.


Marc
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-05-2004, 01:39 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
This is not a direct answer to your question, pervert, but I do think that the information is pertinent:

Quote:
Homes with guns are 5 times more likely to experience the suicide of a household member than homes without guns.
- Arthur Kellerman, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, and Peter Cummings, American Journal of Public Health, 1997)
http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm

That website also quotes these statistics:

Quote:
The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death --(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

Quote:
But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)
And finally, this:

Quote:
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and [only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified -- (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995). (bold type added)
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.

Quote:
netscape 6: I think the point about suicide is there is more then one way to do something.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-05-2004, 01:54 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
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?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-05-2004, 02:27 AM
GusNSpot GusNSpot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 5,491
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.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-05-2004, 07:52 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by GusNSpot
Lies
Damn lies
Statistics
[/B]
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-05-2004, 08:22 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is online now
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 6,884
Quote:
Originally posted by pervert
Well,this site suggests no.

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?
A figure of 4.5% was given in the first table of the article (for "murder-suicide"). I can't link to it though.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-05-2004, 08:34 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,590
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
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-05-2004, 10:43 AM
KarlGauss KarlGauss is online now
Out of the slimy mud of words
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 6,884
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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:04 PM
pervert pervert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Well, the site I linked to claimed to be quoting part of "Table 3 on p. 1559". Can you see that table? Can you provide a link (or perhaps the date of the published article to look up in the library) that I can access which contains the indicated table?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:18 PM
sghoul sghoul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Sounds to me like this could be true. If I have a gun in the house, sure the chances of me getting shot are greater. Just as if I had a pirrahna in the house I would have a greater chance of being eaten by a pirrahna.

The presence of anything increases the chance of said thing being used.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:22 PM
netscape 6 netscape 6 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoe
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.
No but it changes the relevency.
Say 9/10 people who like ice cream alot are fat, you like it alot, but eat it in moderation.(a closer anology)


I don't think it would be very reasonable to assume a high probality that the ice cream is going to make you fat. The statistic might be accurate but it no longer applies to you very much.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:24 PM
5cents 5cents is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Re: Re: Gun - More Likely to Kill Family Member?

Quote:
Originally posted by MGibson
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.
  • 1. Drug or alcohol abuse.
  • 2. Mental illness or depression.
  • 3. History of domestic abuse.
  • 4. Members of household convicted felons.

If so then I don't see why my family should be lumped in with those that do.
I'm sure the situation in a particular household will affect the associated risk. However, I'll suggest that it is a little smug to say that "#1 and #2 don't (and won't) occur in my family". I've seen first hand how drug/alcohol abuse and (especially) mental illness/depression can seemingly pop up out of nowhere. Of course they don't come out of nowhere, but you can easily miss the signs.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:27 PM
5cents 5cents is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by msmith537
I am not familiar with the study in question
[...]
I don't think that any conclusions can be drawn from such a simple analysis as the Kellerman study.
That's a pretty definitive statement about a study that you admit you haven't read.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-05-2004, 12:27 PM
Susanann Susanann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Shodan
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
Are you talking about the hundreds of thousands of people who die in the hospital from fatal injuries and diseases?

Or are you talking about the 100,000 otherwise healthy people who die because of malpractice and mistakes made by doctors and nurses?

Either way you are right.

Anyways,

A gun in the home is as dangerous as the family that has it.

My own family have had loaded guns in the house as long as anyone can remember, at least a couple of hundred years, and we never shoot each other. We also have used guns over the many years to prevent lots of crimes/hostilities etc. So they have been big positive benefits with no negatives in our homes.

If everyone in the home is trained to use it(including children) and if everyone in the home is not criminal, not bad tempered, has good judgement, is not reckless and foolish, then it is as safe as a hammer or knife in the house.......... Else, you are just giving your husband a choice of whether to kill you with a hammer or a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-05-2004, 01:11 PM
hypnoboth hypnoboth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Re: Gun - More Likely to Kill Family Member?

Quote:
Originally posted by Pepsi Classic
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?
This is such an old canard. That's not quite what the study says; it says that it is much more likely to kill a family member or someone you know. And so it is: most murders are between gang members and criminals that know each other. Murders between total strangers are actually fairly rare. If there was any connection between the victim and the murderer at all, the police would check the "known" box, and that's what Kellerman went by. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this study debunked. But because it is phrased "family member or someone you know", folks like you read "family member", and get all hot and bothered.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-05-2004, 01:16 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,444
Re: Re: Gun - More Likely to Kill Family Member?

Quote:
Originally posted by MGibson
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.
  • 1. Drug or alcohol abuse.
  • 2. Mental illness or depression.
  • 3. History of domestic abuse.
  • 4. Members of household convicted felons.

If so then I don't see why my family should be lumped in with those that do.


Marc
The abstract that KarlGauss linked to indicates that the Kellerman study controlled for all of those factors except mental illness/depression, and found that gun possession in the house was an independent indicator of potential homicide, even taking those factors into account:
Quote:
As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-05-2004, 01:39 PM
Voyager Voyager is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,503
Does anyone have information on gun-related homicide rates when guns are locked up with the ammunition separated vs. not locked up and loaded?

The pervasive belief that there is more chance of stopping a robbery or home invasion with a gun rather than kill each other with it means that more peopke will keep guns unsafely - increasing the risk of problems. I have a neighbor absolutely convinced that someone is going to break in and attack them, despite the fact that we live in the safest city in the country, and one of the safer parts of the city. My fear is that his young grandson is going to find that gun. Do you gun advocates really think it is safe to keep an unlocked, loaded gun in a house with a five year old?

Another pointless anecdote - one of the the school shooters tried to get his gun from his house - but failed, becausehis father kept his guns locked up. His grandfather didn't hold with such pinko ideas, so the kid was able to steal his gun (borrow, maybe) from there. Susanann, you sure all your friends and relatives are just as stable as your immediate family?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-05-2004, 02:45 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,590
Quote:
Originally posted by KarlGauss
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.
It was addressing the failure to distinguish cause and effect, not the lack of a control group.

All women who obtain restraining orders against their significant others are more at risk for violence than all women who do not. But restraining orders do not cause violence. Blacks tend to be convicted of violent crimes more than whites, but being black does not cause you to be a violent criminal. Correlation is not causality, in other words.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:18 PM
catsix catsix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Zoe asked:
How many intruders have you shot?
None. He ran away before I had to pull the trigger.

That's one instance of defensive gun use that Kellerman would ignore, because there were no shots fired, and nobody was injured or died, but it did happen.

So if you want to figure out whether you are more likely to kill a 'family member' (and an abusive spouse you have obtained a restraining order against, but not a final divorce decree is a 'family member'), or defend your person and home against a criminal, you have to include instances in which the criminal left and no shots were fired, or it's not an honest study.

Kellerman didn't include that in his study, which makes the results of the study flawed. He assumed that only in killing the intruder was that a 'successful defense', thus purposely eliminating nearly 90% of all defensive gun uses, according to information published by John R. Lott, Jr. and the Journal of Criminal Justice.

It took me only a few minutes at Keep and Bear Arms to find six different independent news articles from the first four days of this year in which six different people used firearms defensively somewhere in this country, and those were instances in which there was a news article. Many, like my own, are never in a newspaper or on television or radio because no shots are fired and it is not 'newsworthy'. Some do not even involve the police, because once the would-be perpetrator is scared off, there's no crime to report.

So, I think Kellerman's study is incredibly flawed and the only way that conclusion could be reached statistically is by setting out to reach it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:47 PM
Susanann Susanann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Voyager
Susanann, you sure all your friends and relatives are just as stable as your immediate family?
I am 100% sure looking back, since no such thing ever happened.

What I can tell you, is that all the friends and relatives that we ever had, never ever once killed or injured a family member, or any one friendly. But they did kill a few hostile indians, desperados, etc. Not only my family, but all the families and neighbors we knew in Colorado, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, etc all kept loaded guns in the house (an unloaded gun is not much use) and we never even heard of anybody being accidently killed, family member, or some such thing.

Now let me ask you, how many people from history, exactly who? where guns were kept loaded unlocked in the homes as ours were and are, had their children get killed or kill someone else? Did Daniel Boone or Buffalo Bill take his daddy's gun and kill "a friend or close family member"? Did Davy Crockett get mad at Polly and shoot her in rage? or did his kids shoot their playmates? Did Dwight Eisenhower as a child shoot his schoolmates? Did Andy Jackson, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Lee, etc or any of their children shoot or get shot by a family member?

It would be nice if you could give us all some solid known examples of "regular" normal families in American history who killed their wives, children, brothers, playmates, etc.

I would be very interested to see a few well known names(before they were famous) from history where loaded guns were a danger to a family. Surely if guns were dangerous, you should be able to provide us with lots of examples and names.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
hypnoboth is absolutely right when he said:
"This is such an old canard. That's not quite what the study says; it says that it is much more likely to kill a family member or someone you know. And so it is: most murders are between gang members and criminals that know each other. Murders between total strangers are actually fairly rare. If there was any connection between the victim and the murderer at all, the police would check the "known" box, and that's what Kellerman went by. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------


All the police want to know when they check off that box, is if they have any idea on who to look for, if the person shot was known as the local rapist, the local robber, or the person known to do all the drive by shootings in the neighborhood, or the person who killed someones child the year before, etc. then the "known" box is checked off, and another is added to the "family member or someone known".



Dont get me wrong, there are evil , criminal, abusive, reckless, foolish, careless, people in this world who are dangerous to all of us whether they have a gun, knife, automobile, or whatever, and who do not teach nor bring up their kids correctly, who do not teach safety to their children, etc. I never said everyone was good, nor normal, nor not a threat. One of the worst things you can do is get a gun, get some ammunition, and have them in the house(locked, unlocked, no matter) and either not tell your children about it, and not show them how to safely handle it. Anyone who has young children and does not teach/prevent them from getting into the kitchen knives, the car keys, the poisons, the electric outlets, the gun, or whatever else is dangerous, is just looking/asking for trouble.

I do know of one neighbor child, a few miles from our spread, who died accidently.

A 4 year old, in 1890's Nebraska, the little boy drank some horse liniment from the barn, and it took him 2 days to die as his stomach ate away while the doctor stood helplessly next to him. His daddy did teach him about keeping away from the loaded guns in the house, but he forgot to teach the child to not drink horse liniment. A tragic, painful, and horrible death.

Anyone who has guns, poisons, car keys, kitchen knives, hammers, power tools, scissors, electric outlets, electric appliances and bathtubs both in the house, etc. best keep them ALL!!! locked up, else teach your children to respect or handle them safely, or you will be very regretfull the rest of your life.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-05-2004, 03:54 PM
Debaser Debaser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Shodan nailed this one.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-05-2004, 04:57 PM
5cents 5cents is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Shodan
All women who obtain restraining orders against their significant others are more at risk for violence than all women who do not. But restraining orders do not cause violence.
Guns don't cause violence, people cause violence. However, a person holding a gun will have a far easier time perpetrating violence than a person holding a restraining order.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-05-2004, 05:19 PM
Susanann Susanann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by 5cents
Guns don't cause violence, people cause violence. However, a person holding a gun will have a far easier time perpetrating violence than a person holding a restraining order.
After someone (who is known by both you and the courts to want to seriously injure or kill you) has just broke into your house after knocking down your door and is coming staight for you and your child, just what do you want to be holding in your hand 2 seconds before he gets to you?

a piece of paper known as a restraining order?

or a loaded revolver?

Your choice. I dont care which one you feel safer with.

To each his own, some women feel safer with the piece of paper in her hands, others feel safer with a gun.

In the United States of America, every woman can make her own decision on what she wants in her hand.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-05-2004, 05:41 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,590
Keep in mind that by law, able-bodied Swiss males are required to possess automatic weapons, and their gun murder rate is quite low. Cultural and demographic factors, of course, account for most of this, but it is clear that the mere presence of guns in a home does not necessarily lead to a higher gun murder rate.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-05-2004, 06:45 PM
alibey alibey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
here are some more articles about how guns have saved lives from intruders
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107274,00.html
we don't need more laws, just teach the children to respect the guns.
__________________
"Florida Cracker
Endangered Species."
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-05-2004, 07:20 PM
5cents 5cents is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Shodan
Keep in mind that by law, able-bodied Swiss males are required to possess automatic weapons, and their gun murder rate is quite low.
Low in comparison to the US, high in comparison to rest of the western industrialized world.

cite: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-05-2004, 07:44 PM
John Harrison John Harrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Isn't this the study that found a stronger correlation between living alone and renting a residence and being killed than owning a firearm and being killed?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-05-2004, 09:32 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Shodan, your point about causation is understood.

Inspite of that, you might find this link to the Harvard Firearms Research Center interesting reading:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm

(Don't anyone else peek.)

Catsix, I posted a link earlier that shows how much Lott has been discredited.

If you frightened away an intruder, you certainly could have reported trespassing to the police.

Have any of you been held at gunpoint? Knifepoint? Hammerstump?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-05-2004, 10:14 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Susanann: Did Dwight Eisenhower as a child shoot his schoolmates?
Not that I am aware of. But the man who ran against him for the Presidency in 1952 and 1956, Adalai Stevenson, did. When he was 12 he accidently shot a little girl in the head with a rifle he found in his father's attic.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-05-2004, 10:47 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Sorry, his first name was spelled Adlai.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-05-2004, 11:28 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Shodan
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.
On a related note, statistical analysis of life expectancy clearly shows that no-one has ever died at or above the age of 135.

Therefore, if you can make it to 135, all evidence indicates you are immortal.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:01 AM
pervert pervert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Oh, for crying out loud. I just realized, KarlGauss that we are talking about different studies. The link I posted to describes problems with a study done by Kellerman in 1986.

This link, however, talks about the subject at length and includes a small mention of the Kellerman study you linked to.

Quote:
Also, while guns are involved in about 60% of suicides,[5] a causal impact of gun availability on the occurrence of suicides (as distinct from its impact on the choice of shooting over other suicide methods) seems to be either too small to be detected in the aggregate or confined to adolescents, who account for only 7% of US suicides.[5] Only 2 case-control studies of adults claim that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of suicide,[6,7] while a third study found no increase in suicide risk.[8]
Reference 6 is that study you linked to.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:16 AM
Doc Nickel Doc Nickel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
On the topic of statistics, sheer boredom during a long drive (I was a rider, obviously) I cracked open Sunday's Parade magazine, something I'm usually loathe to do if there's so much as a nearby sugar packet to read instead.

Anyway, Ms. Savant's column had an unusually interesting blurb on statistics.

The question was, given the example of "crimes with weapons" rising from 5% to 10%, statistically, did the crime rate double or did it rise five percent?

The answer, of course, is that both are true.

Thus, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. The NRA might say "crime only went up a mere 5%" while Handgun Control would invaribly say "the crime rate doubled!"

As I recall from reading the Kellermann study many years ago- and I'll fully admit to not being perfectly clear on it anymore- Kellermann used only actual shootings. Meaning 100% of his sample base involved situations where the gun was fired.

The study, boiled down (again, correct me if I'm wrong) basically said that, of those shootings, forty-six times more were situations where the shooter and shootee knew each other, than where they were not.

But, it made little or no comparison to non-shootings, non-brandishings or homes that contained guns which had never been used against anyone.

In other words, out of the people who actually shot somebody, chances are they knew the person they shot.

And due to the sampling method, that's about all that could be extrapolated from the data- since it was not compared to non-shootings or non-uses of firearms, spin-doctoring the results to say that having a gun in the house is "46% more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" is a gross misrepresentation and largely factually incorrect.

I'm not being facetious with the "non uses"- as I recall, again, he only used actual shootings, with no comparison to the number of households that contain firearms (over 150 million, I'm told) or the number of privately-owned firearms in general (pushing 250 million.)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-06-2004, 12:53 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Doc Nickel: ... spin-doctoring the results to say that having a gun in the house is "46% more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" is a gross misrepresentation and largely factually incorrect.
You are misinterpreting the statistics. They are far worse than that. As I said earlier, the Kellerman study in The New England Journal of Medicine said that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or a friend that it is to kill an intruder. For every intruder killed, there are 43 deaths of family members or friends. (43 times more likely does not mean 43% more likely.)

According to the FBI, that is not "a gross misrepresentation" nor is it "largely factually incorrect." I have provided reputable and reliable sources for my information. In addition to The New England Journal of Medicine and Scientific American, I suggest that you might want to read the link that I provided for Shodan. It is about research done at the Harvard Firearms Research Center. The information will be published in book form later this year.

I am not allowed to cite it here, only to link to it:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm

I can name a lot of people who have been killed by guns or who have killed someone with guns. I cannot name anyone who has killed an intruder.

I do know indirectly someone who shot and killed a trespasser in his yard. He was tried for murder.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-06-2004, 06:07 AM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Re: Gun - More Likely to Kill Family Member?

Quote:
Originally posted by Pepsi Classic
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 think this statement is easily supportable. Compare the number of intruders killed by guns nationally with the number of 'family members' killed by guns nationally, and you get the idea.

Of course, the statement in and of itself is pretty much meaningless. A baseball bat in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. A carving knife in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Why? Because we kill family members far more often than we kill intruders, regardless of the weapon used.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-06-2004, 06:44 AM
Weird_AL_Einstein Weird_AL_Einstein is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Pepsi Classic, if you are genuinely interested in learning more about the Kellerman study, I strongly suggest you check out this link, and this one.

From the first link:

Quote:
Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-06-2004, 08:22 AM
Susanann Susanann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoe
Not that I am aware of. But the man who ran against him for the Presidency in 1952 and 1956, Adalai Stevenson, did. When he was 12 he accidently shot a little girl in the head with a rifle he found in his father's attic.

Exactly!!

It is almost impossible to find any examples of accidents or children being shot or shooting anyone when children are raised with guns, with loaded guns in the house, and when children are taught safety. It may occur, but is extremely rare.

Most accidents and tragedies occur because children are not taught safety, parents hide them, and never show children how to safely handle them.

I too know someone who killed his best friend when he was 18, he shot his best friends head off with buckshot from a 12 guage shotgun - his parents not once ever showed him how to safely handle guns and did not teach him to respect the danger of guns.

Most accidents and child tradedies occur because children "find" or pick up a dangerous tool that they have not been trained to handle. I wouldnt trust Adlai Stevenson, or any 12 year old who was not taught safety by his parents, not even if he picked up a chain saw or grabbed the family car keys!

AS I said before , anyone who has guns, poisons, car keys, kitchen knives, hammers, power tools, scissors, electric outlets, electric appliances and bathtubs both in the house, etc. best keep them ALL!!! locked up, else teach your children to respect or handle them safely, or you will be very regretfull the rest of your life.

There is no excuse for ANYONE letting a 12 year old have access to any dangerous tool kept in the home that he was not properly taught to leave alone or how to handle it - even if they are the parents of Adlai Stevenson.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-06-2004, 10:10 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Your answer seems a little disingenuous, Susanann. Nevertheless...

Quote:
Susanann: AS I said before , anyone who has guns, poisons, car keys, kitchen knives, hammers, power tools, scissors, electric outlets, electric appliances and bathtubs both in the house, etc. best keep them ALL!!! locked up, else teach your children to respect or handle them safely, or you will be very regretfull the rest of your life.
And out of that long list, only one item is produced for the purpose of killing or wounding people.

I asked earlier if anyone else had ever had a gun held on them. I have -- three times.

And I have had students removed from my classroom with loaded handguns twice. I have taught murders -- I lost count after 8. All of them murdered with handguns.

Don't have any use for them, myself.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.