Come one, come all: Gun Control revisited, revisited

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz *
From this might we infer you’ve never spoken to a person with knowledge when you were asked a question you didn’t have an answer to right away?

I’ve certainly asked others to help me come up with answers to questions, and that’s not the tactic to which I was referring. I have NEVER asked someone else to do my debating FOR me, which, by all appearances, is what you’ve done.

It does, however, demonstrate that guns aren’t effective at preventing homicide, at least in the home.

ARGH. How many times am I going to have to repeat this…the study indicated the frequency with which people who were murdered in the home owned guns, not whether gun ownership was a contributing factor of the murder. Can you not admit that? Christ, the very first page of Kellermann’s paper says “Any death ruled a homicide was included, regardless of the method used.” How does owning a gun make me more likely to kill Mr. Boddy in the study with the candlestick?

Study didn’t control for “was he an asshole?” or “how long before the body was found,” I would assume. Otherwise, it seems like this is something that merits more study, rather than pointing to how there’s something wrong with the study.

Absolutely, more study is needed. I’d hate to think we’re going to let the inquiry rest on what Kellermann’s already produced.

Why? Kellerman controlled for the factors he controlled for. Variables can’t just emerge from thin air, Max.

Kellermann designed the surveys. It was well within his power to design the surveys to measure for what he believed to be significant factors. Had he believed (or known) that access to medical facilities was a risk factor, he could have included questions to measure that factor. I still fail to see a causal connection between renting, in itself, and being murdered. If there were such a connection (and a stronger connection than gun ownership according to the study, mind you), why have banks not latched onto this study with the same tenacity as anti-gun persons as a means to sell home loans? “Don’t unnecessarily risk your life! Buy a new home today!”

Even without neighborhood controls, the subjects are matched by age, race, sex, income, prior criminality, drug use, and domestic violence, which are also good predictors of crime risk. I suppose it might be that crime rates change dramatically within a block or two, but it now devolves to the person making an extraordinary claim, you, to show that this is often the case. Then, you have to show Kellerman cherry picked his cases- they certainly present a large enough sample of the available data that he would’ve have to be very selective indeed.

Incorrect. Controls were matched according to “sex, race, age range (15-24, 25-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-), and neighborhood” starting outside the one-block “avoidance zone”. That’s it. The other factors were “accounted for” statistically, as I understand them; I’m going to have to go over them more closely.

You found a page on the website where someone fudges things and makes things up so he can say research about guns is flawed or biased without really demonstrating anything because he doesn’t like what it strongly implies? If you’re going to claim Kellerman doesn’t release his data, a claim I saw at various pro-gun and anti-innoculation and libertarian agitprop cites, please describe the NEJM or CDC process of peer review, so we know you’re not accepting an extraordinary claim without proof. Go ahead, I’m waiting. I won’t even think less of you if you contact someone you’re sure knows the answer. Use a lifeline, as it were.

I have a better idea: if Kellerman is willing to reveal his data (that is, the individual survey results), produce the data! Why, that would settle this whole thing, wouldn’t it?

**As with the present study, the greatest flaw is that Kellermann decided to count only encounters where a death occurred. As such, his studies don’t give a reliable measure of actual defensive gun uses.

Here’s a reference I found to another Kellerman study.

"Case control methods permit the detection of protective benefits as readily as risk effects. I did a study of the ratio of “self-defense” killings to home suicides, accidents and homicides. It was 43:1. A later study that examined both fatal and non-fatal self-defense shootings versus fatal and non-fatal suicide attempts, assaults and accidental shootings in the home yielded a somewhat lower number - 22:1 (J. Trauma, 1998;45:263-267.) "**

<snip>

Note well that the other study to which Kellermann refers, like every study he’s done, fails to include cases where a gun is shown but not fired. You yourself promoted shotguns as a home defense weapon; I’ll wager you believe that the sound of a pump-action shotgun chambering a shell (and the associated fear such a sound would place in the heart of an intruder) is a large part of that reason, am I right? You did say in an earlier post that shotguns have a better “brandishing factor”…

There are some very interesting tidbits on the very page you link to. I was very interested in the posts by Dr. Jim Cowan, who tells us that “the CDC is now forbidden to participate or fund health research involving firearms…because the handwringers on their staff produced a study [Kellermann’s 1986 study] that was shown to be “questionable”…they then refused to release the data used for the study and the people who pay the bills at the CDC took exception to that.” Quite a credit to Kellermann’s work, that. I’m poking around Lexis to see if I can find a transcript of the committee hearing.

Right, apparently the number goes down to 22:1 when you take into account discharging a weapon without killing a burglar or whoever versus attempted suicide, attempted homicide, etc. I suppose you could argue that a successful defense without killing is a strong positive, and an unsuccessful negative use is about a wash. Only an actual suicide or murder balances driving a criminal away. Well, maybe so. If you’re going to advance that position you can compare kellermans first data set with his second. That might even be statistically valid. No, probably not, unless you had really good demographic controls. Huh. Oh, well, I think that’s on you either way.

Again from the link you provided: “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected – not the burglar or rapist body count.”

A suicide would certainly be a negative gun use, excluding some tiny fraction of people no one cares about…how do you suppose we control for those? Other studies I can cite show again, people who own guns are more likely to commit suicide than non-gun owners, to die in their attempts, etc.

By all means, show me the studies. I have no doubt that those who attempt suicide with a firearm have a higher success rate, but I have trouble believing that someone who is already not suicidal will become so simply by virtue of his gun purchase. Do your studies control for “gun owners” who purchased the weapon for the planned and sole purpose of suicide?

**Disregarding the suicide numbers alone, Kellermann’s famous “43:1” ratio drops to about 6:1.

From now on I would like you to cite all factual claims, or at least as often as I do.**

I was using Kellermann’s own numbers. From “Protection or Peril?”, NEJM, v314n24 (1986) p 1558, I quote: “Of those 398 firearm deaths [the size of Kellermann’s sample], 333 were suicides, 50 were homicides, and 12 were accidental gunshot deaths. The precise manner of death was undetermined in three additional cases involving self-inflicted gunshot wounds.” Later paragraphs reveal that Kellermann counted nine of the 398 deaths as jusifiable homicides. Now, let’s do some simple math: 398 deaths minus 9 justifiable homicides gives us 389 deaths that were not justifiable homicides. 389 deaths compared to 9 justifiable homicides reduces to approximately 43:1, the ratio for which Kellermann is famous. Now, let’s remove the suicides: 398 deaths minus 9 justifiable homicides and minus 333 suicides equals 56 deaths, which, when compared to the 9 justifiable homicides reduces to 6.22:1, which I rounded to “about 6:1”.

I hope that simple subtraction and division are not beyond your capabilities.

"using the analysis in ways it isn’t designed, and making up datasets, especially in the hands of a person actively interested in debunking, proves that appropriate uses of these methods on real numbers produces phony results, or so I read on the internet."

Hope you got a handle on that math, because we’re moving up to percentages.

Again according to Kellermann’s article, guns were used in 49% of all homicides in the county during the study period (same page as above). 333 firearm suicides divided by .49 equals 680 suicides. 680 suicides minus 333 firearm suicides equals 347 non-firearm suicides.

Same page as above, firearms were involved in 45% of all homicides for the study period. 41 firearm homicides (same page, once again) divided by .45 equals 91 homicides. 91 homicides minus 41 firearm homicides equals 50 non-firearm homicides.

According to the FBI’s uniform crime reports, non-gun justifiable homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides nationwide. Let’s be generous and give you 30%. That would make our figure of 9 justifiable firearm homicides 70% of the total, so 9 divided by .7 equals 13 justifiable homicides. 13 justifiable homicides minus 9 justifiable firearm homicides equals 4 non-gun justifiable homicides.

So, rather than Kellermann’s 398:9 ratio for firearm homicides, for non-gun homicides we have a ratio of 397:4, or about 99 unlawful deaths for every 1 justifiable homicide.

The numbers add up, but the methodology of counting bodies is total crap, in either instance. Hope the demonstration was of some use to you.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by Tim Lambert *
You can obtain a pdf of Kellermann’s paper and all of his data from the ICPSR:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/archive.prl?path=ICPSR&num=6898

Just for you, you special guy, I made a trip to the local medical library and got copies of Kellermann’s articles. I’m all set, thanks.

I think it is fairly easy to verify that Kellermann did not just control by matching, but used a multivariate regression to control for factors like family violence.

I’m going to refer you back to the Schaffer article, in particular his demonstrations in parts I and II, too long to quote here, showing “no causal effect in subgroups - spurious harmful association overall” and “protective effect in subgroups - spurious harmful association overall”. How do you respond?

**I’m particularly interested in “living alone” and “being a renter”. … Perhaps, also, living alone means that one is prone to some other risk factor, but then why was that risk factor not listed instead of “living alone”?

Because that other risk factor was not directly measured.**

Do you consider listing only “living alone”, rather than attempting to determine exactly why living alone should be so especially dangerous, a failing of the study? That is, SHOULD Kellermann have attempted to inquire further into why such a factor, with no seeming logical relation (in itself) to a higher homicide rate, should have such a high risk ratio?

And have you actually read Kellermann’s previous work?

Why yes I have. Why, do you need to borrow a copy?

[SPOOFE]

Tim chose, freely and of his own will, to participate.

Really? Max must have gotten a tad confused when Mr. Lambert said (in the very first line of his very first post) that “Hipster Dufuz has asked me to comment on the criticism of Kellermann that has appeared here.”

But it’s alright, Dufuz… you’ve shown your mettle as a trustworthy guy. Selective memory is a problem, ain’t it?

[ianzin]

With regard to guns, there are two possible models for a society which are practical and achievable.

One is “good guys and bad guys can get guns”. This is the prevailing position (with minor deviations) in the United States. I don’t live in the USA, but I’ve spent a lot of time there.

The other is “good guys and bad guys cannot get guns”. This is the prevailing position (with minor deviations) in the UK, where I live.

I appreciate that to one who has lived all his life in a country where guns are available, the notion of a society where guns simply do not exist may seem far-fetched, impractical or even dangerous. It is none of these, and the more rabid NRA propagandists are guilty of perpetrating all manner of falsehoods when they make disparaging references to the British model, which they plainly know little or nothing about - and are not even faintly interested in understanding.

I have heard all of the arguments rehearsed many times, and I’m sure most SD members have too. But the quality of the debate might be raised just a little if people were less swift to rehash inaccurate and juvenile scenarios about the Brit system, and to consider how and why it works as well as it does.

It is not a perfect system, and neither is yours or any other. But it has its merits.

We, like you, want to feel secure in our own homes and property, and we do. I sleep easy at night without a gun in the house. Why? Because the bad guys don’t have them either.

We, like you, do not want to feel at risk of a bad government taking over our lives. We don’t, and we are not.

We, like you, do not want to die as a result of a random shooting by someone abusing a gun’s potential. The chances of this happening to me are truly tiny, statistically bordering on zero for my lifetime, and for everyone I know in this country. I have American friends that I love and care for. I wish I could say the same for them.

I won’t pretend that I have the relevant statistics to hand, because I don’t. Maybe someone else will retrieve them. But I do know the risk of violent injury to myself, as a Brit, expressed per capita, is a very small fraction of the risk I would face in America - a country which I do love and admire, by the way.

99.9% of the British populace will never see, let alone handle or suffer from, a gun or a bullet. The only place we see guns is in movies. That’s the reality. And if you are a parent sending your child to school, or a teenager walking home across the city after a late night, or the wife of a police officer, or an elderly couple renting a country cottage for the weekend, that’s a very comforting reality.

You can play the scenario game forever - “Hey, what do you do if a guy with a gun breaks into your house?”. For every hypothetical, there is an equal and opposite one. This gets nowhere.

I think reality carries more weight.

[justwannano]

Just a minor point Ianzin
Do you consider northern Ireland?

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by ianzin *
The other is “good guys and bad guys cannot get guns”. This is the prevailing position (with minor deviations) in the UK, where I live.

Incorrect. The UK model is “the bad guys have guns and the good guys buy bulletproof jackets”. Spending one’s life as a target might work for YOU…

I have heard all of the arguments rehearsed many times, and I’m sure most SD members have too. But the quality of the debate might be raised just a little if people were less swift to rehash inaccurate and juvenile scenarios about the Brit system, and to consider how and why it works as well as it does.

I haven’t seen any references to Britain in a good long while. Could you be more specific?

We, like you, want to feel secure in our own homes and property, and we do. I sleep easy at night without a gun in the house. Why? Because the bad guys don’t have them either.

See above article. Survey says: one in three British criminals under the age of 25 owns or has access to a gun.

I won’t pretend that I have the relevant statistics to hand, because I don’t. Maybe someone else will retrieve them. But I do know the risk of violent injury to myself, as a Brit, expressed per capita, is a very small fraction of the risk I would face in America - a country which I do love and admire, by the way.

Certainly your chance of being shot is lower. Your chance of being murdered in general is lower, as well. Do you believe that this is due entirely to American gun laws, or is the difference due to some significant cultural differences?

**I think reality carries more weight. **

Indeed it does. Take a good strong dose and come back to chat sometime, y’hear?

[SPOOFE]

Aw, Max, go easy on the new guy…

ianzin, you speak of reality. Here’s reality for you:

IN AMERICA… guns are quite widespread throughout the populace. In Britain, they never achieved the level of saturation here in the states. It would take many, many decades simply to remove the cultural aspects of “gunhood”. Thus, a direct comparison cannot be made 'tween the US and the UK.

If the “Doomsday” legislation (instant banning of all private ownership of firearms… admittedly, few advocate this) were enacted, there’d be a huge imbalance of the equation… lots of nogoodniks with guns, and few dogooders with 'em. Also, them nogoodniks would be well aware that few homeowners would be defended… imagine the crime spree… imagine the hundreds, thousands, millions who would be put at immediate risk.

(As I press the “Reply” button, I’m waiting for Dufuz to compare gun ownership with Confederate America or to claim that it’s all made up…)

[The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz]

(As I press the “Reply” button, I’m waiting for Dufuz to compare gun ownership with Confederate America

Oh, that was just to show you how well an armed insurrection goes against a determined foe that isn’t an ocean or two away. Hey, see if you can guess which side Hamilton envisioned the militia taking in the average armed insurrection! Go on, I dare you, cause you know I can, but you better answer or I’ll hammer you over and over on this point.

Really? Max must have gotten a tad confused when Mr. Lambert said (in the very first line of his very first post) that “Hipster Dufuz has asked me to comment on the criticism of Kellermann that has appeared here.”

I asked Tim for information, although it could be inferred from my request a certain invitation was offered, and in any case it hardly surprises me Tim decided to participate in a web-based discussion of gun control. Here’s the actual text of me E-mail, Tim’s replies snipped, cause it’s not totally cool to post other people’s emails. You can judge for yourselves what I was asking for.

" Hope this finds you well, etc.

Hi, Tim, remember me from Alt. Fan. Cecil-Adams? You know, Dutch? I’m
involved in a gun control debate at the straight dope web board
(www.straightdope.com) where I cite your archive pretty extensively.

A question has come up about Kellerman’s study associating gun ownership
with an increased risk of homicide. I was wondering if you had any
information on his neighborhood control methodology, or why renting and
living alone were so strongly correlated with homicide, and if those are
coincidental, why not guns?"

this is my reply to his response to the above, after which he appeared here.

" Kellerman’s methodology in selecting neighborhood controls is presented here: http://www.yadda.edu. Then I can hit them with “At this point, at least some of the burden of proof should shift back to you, so let’s see if you can support the idea that crime risk varies widely from block to block in City X.”

and

" Okay, thanks again."

If Tim wants to post his half of the correspondence, that’s up to him. In any case, this is a side issue, and making too much more of it will convince me you have no substantive replies to any of the factual or historical issues raised here.

Natural rights, oh, it is to scream.

Memo to Justwuanno: Mairsey Doats and Dozey Doats and Liddlelamsy Divey.

Memo to Diddley, SPOOFE Bo: I do believe in spooks, I do! I do!

[Tim_Lambert]

*Originally posted by Max Torque *
**

*Originally posted by Tim Lambert *
I think it is fairly easy to verify that Kellermann did not just control by matching, but used a multivariate regression to control for factors like family violence.

I’m going to refer you back to the Schaffer article, in particular his demonstrations in parts I and II, too long to quote here, showing “no causal effect in subgroups - spurious harmful association overall” and “protective effect in subgroups - spurious harmful association overall”. How do you respond?
**

For the third time: Schaffer’s “demonstration” entirely ignores Kellermann’s multivariate analysis where he controlled for those factors that Schaffer suggested could cause a spurious association in a bivariate analysis. Why are you having such difficulty in understanding this?

**I’m particularly interested in “living alone” and “being a renter”. … Perhaps, also, living alone means that one is prone to some other risk factor, but then why was that risk factor not listed instead of “living alone”?

Because that other risk factor was not directly measured.**

Do you consider listing only “living alone”, rather than attempting to determine exactly why living alone should be so especially dangerous, a failing of the study?

No. Figuring that out would require conducting another study.

[Tim_Lambert]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**

Tim chose, freely and of his own will, to participate.

Really? Max must have gotten a tad confused when Mr. Lambert said (in the very first line of his very first post) that “Hipster Dufuz has asked me to comment on the criticism of Kellermann that has appeared here.”

But it’s alright, Dufuz… you’ve shown your mettle as a trustworthy guy. Selective memory is a problem, ain’t it? **

Hipster asked me to comment, to him, via email. He did not ask me to post here. That you are clutching at such straws suggests that you have no substantive comments to make.

[justwannano]

Well Crimson you’ve got another Quote wrong.

If you don’t know what you are talking about just quit posting.
Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy.A kid’ll eat ivy too wouldn’t you.

[The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz]

News Flash Crimson did it again

Ooo! Flash Crimson, I like that.

bombombombombombombombombombombomb FLASH! >shing< AAAAAA-AH! He save everyone of us.

“Time for me to exit, Terminator-X it.”

[justwannano]

Yeah Crimson It just proves that you post and don’t know what you are talking about

[Deep_Thought]

I feel the right to bear arms is an anacronism, a hangover from frontier days, and not relevant for non-criminals in today’s society. Unless you live in a very dangerous place, you probably don’t need one.
If you are a gun owner you will be howling in indignation about your “rights” already, but before posting a reply, please ask yourself in TOTAL honesty - “what is my REAL motivation for wanting guns?” Not the superficial “home defense” thing, but the real deep-down reason. You like 'em, right guys? They make you feel powerful, tough, manly, macho defender of the family. And your dad had one, so you’ve got to do the same.
Deny it if you dare. Then count up the number of action movies you watched this year… and deny it again. Can you?
Gun owners are more often part of the problem than part of the solution. To paraphrase the original posting, “there are only a few gun accidents”. Oh well, that’s OK then. If I get killed by someone by accident my family shouldn’t mind as it only happens from time to time. I think I have the right not to get shot, but your “right” to own dangerous weapons is more important apparently. And before you say how I don’t know what I’m talking about, I am an ex-competition shooter, fully trained by the Army in weapons handling, which is part of why I won’t have one, because I know what they can do.
If you don’t like this, shoot me. You know you want to.

[jumblemind]

*Originally posted by justwannano *
**Damn.It would scare the hell out of me if I knew anyone with the Kill anything that moves atitude. Thing is almost everyone that I know owns a firearm and none(repeat) NONE has that attitude. **

Hyperbole employed to show the overly self-centered sillyness of some of the gun debate, not implying that every pro-gun-ite has a Kill everything attitude. Though I grew up with one of those individuals, and it is indeed hellaciously scary.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by Tim Lambert *
For the third time: Schaffer’s “demonstration” entirely ignores Kellermann’s multivariate analysis where he controlled for those factors that Schaffer suggested could cause a spurious association in a bivariate analysis. Why are you having such difficulty in understanding this?

Schaffer’s hypothetical high-risk group is composed, as he says in the article, of “career criminals, gang members and others who have a repeated history of criminal activity.” I’ve been going over Kellermann’s study, and I can’t find any reference to controlling for gang membership. The closest he comes is “any household member arrested”, which isn’t quite on point.

Have you actually READ the Schaffer article?

**Do you consider listing only “living alone”, rather than attempting to determine exactly why living alone should be so especially dangerous, a failing of the study?

No. Figuring that out would require conducting another study.**

Considering that “living alone” turned out to be much more risky than “owning a gun”, it strongly suggests to me that the researcher approached the study with a pre-conceived agenda, other risk factors be damned.

I also find it interesting that, of the 420 cases Kellermann studied (of which, incidentally, only 316 were included in the multivariate analysis), fewer than half (209) died of gunshots. Please explain to me how owning a gun, in itself, makes it more likely that I will be stabbed. Answers that “because you own a gun, you’re more likely to be violent” will not be accepted.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by Deep Thought *
I feel the right to bear arms is an anacronism, a hangover from frontier days, and not relevant for non-criminals in today’s society. Unless you live in a very dangerous place, you probably don’t need one.

Unless you live in a very remote area, you probably don’t need a car, either. Ah, but you want a car, right? So, as long as your car ownership doesn’t bother me, who am I to prevent you from owning one?

If you are a gun owner you will be howling in indignation about your “rights” already, but before posting a reply, please ask yourself in TOTAL honesty - “what is my REAL motivation for wanting guns?” Not the superficial “home defense” thing, but the real deep-down reason. You like 'em, right guys? They make you feel powerful, tough, manly, macho defender of the family. And your dad had one, so you’ve got to do the same.

I own guns primarily because I find shooting fun. Ever shot skeet? It’s a blast! Pun intended.

Gun owners are more often part of the problem than part of the solution. To paraphrase the original posting, “there are only a few gun accidents”. Oh well, that’s OK then. If I get killed by someone by accident my family shouldn’t mind as it only happens from time to time. I think I have the right not to get shot, but your “right” to own dangerous weapons is more important apparently.

It’s a matter of setting priorities. If more people are dying in swimming pool accidents than gun-related accidents, banning which would be of greater social utility? And yet, we hear so few outcries against swimming pools, and we see no Million Mom March festooned with inflatable pool toys.

Furthermore, you’re not in danger from the average gun owner. The people most impacted by new gun control laws are those least likely to shoot you. A criminal intent on robbing you doesn’t care if the gun he uses is “super-duper illegal” or “extra double-plus super-duper illegal”.

And before you say how I don’t know what I’m talking about, I am an ex-competition shooter, fully trained by the Army in weapons handling, which is part of why I won’t have one, because I know what they can do.

Then you should know that a gun is exactly as dangerous as the person holding it, no more and no less.

**If you don’t like this, shoot me. You know you want to. **

Nah; being an ex-army person, you’re probably all tough and stringy.

[justwannano]

Jumblemind said

…(I’m )“not implying that every pro-gun-ite has a Kill everything attitude. Though I grew up with one of those individuals, and it is indeed hellaciously scary.”

So you grew up with someone that was perhaps a little crazed? Do you think that your past experience with that one individual has molded your opinions?.
You’re right.Not all people are like that. As a matter of fact almost none.
Think of the odds. You knew one. I’ve known none. I’ve known a lot of people in my 53 years.Some crazies and a couple of convicted killers.

[Deep_Thought]

It’s a matter of setting priorities. If more people are dying in swimming pool accidents than gun-related accidents, banning which would be of greater social utility?

Good point, the primary purpose of a swimming pool is to serve a harmess purpose, and bring pleasure and exercise to adults and children alike. If misused it can injure.
The primary purpose of a gun is as a weapon, i.e. to injure and kill. It can do this if used correctly or incorrectly.

**Then you should know that a gun is exactly as dangerous as the person holding it, no more and no less.
**

Again you are correct. And the person NOT holding a gun is much safer. You can’t have an accident with a gun you don’t have.
The vast majority of people are simply not qualified to own a gun, do not have the proper respect or motivation, and therefore should not. How about mandatory safety training before ownership? Is that an infringement of rights? We don’t allow people to drive cars without a license, and we all despise drunk / irresponsible drivers, right?

**Nah; being an ex-army person, you’re probably all tough and stringy. **

Nice one!

[justwannano]

Hmmm
Deep thought

Ever seen someone protect his home with a swimming pool.

There are few things that are used for defense that aren’t dangerous if used improperly.
Lawyers included.(pun intended)