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?
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.
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.
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.
That’s a pretty definitive statement about a study that you admit you haven’t read.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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
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.
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.
Shodan nailed this one.
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.
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
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.
Low in comparison to the US, high in comparison to rest of the western industrialized world.
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?
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?