# Firearm Related Studies Vol 1: Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2018, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213 "2018-02-20T17:36:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/61 "2018-02-22T16:51:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not just firearms from outside the home that’s a problem, though it’s a major one. The contention is that people should be discouraged from keeping a firearm in the home based on the results of this study. Since many of the firearms used here didn’t come from the home itself, what this recommendation says is that somehow keeping a firearm in the home attracts in some way the subsequent homicide. Was that contention part of the study’s conclusions, or was that something someone else said? If the former, it certainly reflects badly on the quality of the study. But if the latter, it doesn’t. Think this through with me: pretty much everyone I know who doesn’t own guns, also doesn’t want friends or relatives bringing guns into their house. Many - not all, surely, but many - people who do own guns would, I assume, have a greater tolerance for that. There’s how outside guns are more likely to be in the homes of people who own guns than the homes of people who don’t. And once there, they’re just as much of a risk factor as the guns kept there. Maybe more, because they’re on the persons of their owners, rather than locked in a cabinet somewhere else in the house. Now if a gun owner sells all of his guns, that’s not going to change the presence of outside guns in his home, if he doesn’t also change his tolerance of friends bringing guns into his home. If those guns are still welcome, they’ll still be a risk factor. Getting rid of his own guns hasn’t affected the risk of shootings by other people’s guns in his home. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there is a single flaw that kills the study either. A control group that’s too different from the test group on key variables is a big enough flaw to kill any study. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/62 "2018-02-22T17:02:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It was in the text Thanks, I read that part but my mind apparently didn’t process it when I typed it. > [@](#): > > By plausible I mean we can postulate a mechanism that would make death by an outside weapon more likely with a gun in the home. I don’t see enough data to call it probable. However, what do you think is a plausible reason for the control group having fewer deaths from outside weapon than the studied group? Ok - I always took ‘plausible’ to be roughly equivalent to probable. I think the control group engaged in a less risky lifestyle and therefore experienced less overall risk, including risk of homicides. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > One thing you certainly cannot take from this study, or any study that I’ve seen, is that a gun in the house makes you safer, you are just arguing about how much less safe having a gun makes you and your family, and whether that is worth the risk. I agree that one cannot take from this study that a gun in the house makes you safer. You also cannot take from this study that a gun in the house makes you less safe. The reason is because the study is badly flawed and those flaws make the findings worthless. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > [@Bone](#): > > > > It’s not just firearms from outside the home that’s a problem, though it’s a major one. The contention is that people should be discouraged from keeping a firearm in the home based on the results of this study. Since many of the firearms used here didn’t come from the home itself, what this recommendation says is that somehow keeping a firearm in the home attracts in some way the subsequent homicide. > > Was that contention part of the study’s conclusions, or was that something someone else said? If the former, it certainly reflects badly on the quality of the study. But if the latter, it doesn’t. What contention are you referring to? The study specifically says: > [@](#): > > In the light of these observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes. The part you quoted from me where I said ‘Since many…’ is not from the study, that’s my extrapolation, though I think it’s a fair one. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/63 "2018-02-22T17:07:08Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Was that contention part of the study’s conclusions, or was that something someone else said? If the former, it certainly reflects badly on the quality of the study. But if the latter, it doesn’t. > > Think this through with me: pretty much everyone I know who doesn’t own guns, also doesn’t want friends or relatives bringing guns into their house. Many - not all, surely, but many - people who do own guns would, I assume, have a greater tolerance for that. There’s how outside guns are more likely to be in the homes of people who own guns than the homes of people who don’t. > > And once there, they’re just as much of a risk factor as the guns kept there. Maybe more, because they’re on the persons of their owners, rather than locked in a cabinet somewhere else in the house. > > Now if a gun owner sells all of his guns, that’s not going to change the presence of outside guns in his home, if he doesn’t also change his tolerance of friends bringing guns into his home. If those guns are still welcome, they’ll still be a risk factor. Getting rid of his own guns hasn’t affected the risk of shootings by other people’s guns in his home. > > A control group that’s too different from the test group on key variables is a big enough flaw to kill any study. This is a good point. I don’t let anyone bring a gun into my house unless it is unloaded. There is no need for a loaded gun in my house. Now, I did have a “no guns” policy entirely for quite a while, but as I have a number of friends who like guns, and that see each other when they come to visit me, they wanted to be able to show off their guns to their friends at my house. So, I allowed that, but only if they are unloaded. Now, as an analogy, I used to have a “no dogs” policy in my house. It wasn’t that I minded dogs, it’s just that I didn’t really have a need for them to be in my house. Then I got a dog of my own, and now my policy is “dogs welcome.” My chances of being attacked in my house by a dog went up when I got a dog, as well as my chances of being attacked by a dog from outside of my house. (not by much, of course) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/64 "2018-02-22T17:24:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I agree that one cannot take from this study that a gun in the house makes you safer. You also cannot take from this study that a gun in the house makes you less safe. The reason is because the study is badly flawed and those flaws make the findings worthless. I think that that is a conclusion, not a given, and it is one that there are many different viewpoints on. What I would say is that this study has very little relevance in any way, regardless of how it was performed, because it was done 25 years ago, largely with data that was a bit dated when compiled. Demographics have changed, culture has changed, technology has changed, even the technology of guns has changed. An entire generation has gone by since the study. That is what I would attack about the study, personally, that it no longer has any relevancy. Discrediting it on based on whether you agree with the methods used seems a bit pointless, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/65 "2018-02-22T18:13:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not just firearms from outside the home that’s a problem, though it’s a major one. The contention is that people should be discouraged from keeping a firearm in the home based on the results of this study. Since many of the firearms used here didn’t come from the home itself, what this recommendation says is that somehow keeping a firearm in the home attracts in some way the subsequent homicide. Yes it doesn’t state a causal relationship, but it implies it quite strongly. And given that the slim majority of homicides in the case items were not committed with a firearm at all, it’s even more misleading to pin the homicide risk on the presence of a firearm at home. So the scenarios that I brought up in post#2 and #5 are just too ludicrous give any thought? It’s impossible that an armed person would come to steal your guns? That your gun might turn an angry confrontation into a lethal one? That a person might bring his gun when confronting you because he knows you have a gun in the house? Basically, the idea that a gun in the home attracts violence is so unbelievable that it damns the study because of that suggested linkage? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/66 "2018-02-22T19:22:02Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A control group that’s too different from the test group on key variables is a big enough flaw to kill any study. Often true. But if, for instance, drug use is highly correlated with homicides in houses with guns, the big difference in drug use between the homicide and control groups would not invalidate the study. Someone heavily involved with drugs would have a higher risk of getting killed and would also be likely to own a gun, and so controlling for this by selecting the control group to have the same percentage of drug use would skew the results. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/67 "2018-02-22T19:25:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think that that is a conclusion, not a given, and it is one that there are many different viewpoints on. > > What I would say is that this study has very little relevance in any way, regardless of how it was performed, because it was done 25 years ago, largely with data that was a bit dated when compiled. > > Demographics have changed, culture has changed, technology has changed, even the technology of guns has changed. An entire generation has gone by since the study. > > That is what I would attack about the study, personally, that it no longer has any relevancy. Discrediting it on based on whether you agree with the methods used seems a bit pointless, IMHO. What has changed so much in the past 25 years? I’m sure many a professor would love to get a grant to redo the study. However wouldn’t a similar result, that gun ownership increases the risk of homicide, be considered as anti-gun propaganda and be banned by the bullshit law? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2018, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/68 "2018-02-22T19:26:31Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So the scenarios that I brought up in post#2 and #5 are just too ludicrous give any thought? It’s impossible that an armed person would come to steal your guns? That your gun might turn an angry confrontation into a lethal one? That a person might bring his gun when confronting you because he knows you have a gun in the house? Basically, the idea that a gun in the home attracts violence is so unbelievable that it damns the study because of that suggested linkage? I’m not sure what thought you think wasn’t given to post #2 and #5. I responded to post #2 and post #5 wasn’t directed at me. Post #2 posits a hypothetical that is along the same lines as the ones that Voyager raised. I think it’s possible, but the data presented in this study doesn’t support it. It doesn’t reject it either. Post #5 is along the same lines, that the presence of a firearm can act as an escalation turning what wouldn’t previously been a homicide into a homicide. The majority of the incidents were non-forced entry (84%) involving someone known to the victim (77%) as a result of an altercation or romantic triangle (51%). The idea you’re presenting is that the presence of a firearm in the home had some kind of escalatory impact on those circumstances. I think that’s possible. \*\*If \*\*that were true, would the primary recommendation be to not have a firearm in the house, or to not associate with or allow people prone to violence in your house? Something else, both maybe? Put another way - is the person who associates only with the finest upstanding people but also possesses firearms in more danger than the person who doesn’t possess firearms, but who associates with people prone to violence at more risk? I think it’s misinterpreting the data if one were to say that having a firearm in the house make you less safe, or that it causes some kind of increased homicide risk, etc. And that’s how the study is often used. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/69 "2018-02-23T18:19:11Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not sure what thought you think wasn’t given to post #2 and #5. I responded to post #2 and post #5 wasn’t directed at me. Post #2 posits a hypothetical that is along the same lines as the ones that Voyager raised. I think it’s possible, but the data presented in this study doesn’t support it. It doesn’t reject it either. > > Post #5 is along the same lines, that the presence of a firearm can act as an escalation turning what wouldn’t previously been a homicide into a homicide. The majority of the incidents were non-forced entry (84%) involving someone known to the victim (77%) as a result of an altercation or romantic triangle (51%). The idea you’re presenting is that the presence of a firearm in the home had some kind of escalatory impact on those circumstances. I think that’s possible. \*\*If \*\*that were true, would the primary recommendation be to not have a firearm in the house, or to not associate with or allow people prone to violence in your house? Something else, both maybe? > > Put another way - is the person who associates only with the finest upstanding people but also possesses firearms in more danger than the person who doesn’t possess firearms, but who associates with people prone to violence at more risk? I think it’s misinterpreting the data if one were to say that having a firearm in the house make you less safe, or that it causes some kind of increased homicide risk, etc. And that’s how the study is often used. I guess the problem is, that you seem to keep hanging your hat on this as a “damning” feature of the study. It’s not. If you want to refute someone using this study as a cite, you could say “correlation /= causation” and that would be fine. But that would not be refuting the study which merely showed correlation. And it’s not wrong to say “based on this strong correlation, we recommend not doing x”. That’s how warnings against smoking started. That’s a principle in medical studies, if you remember the “circumcision=less AIDS” African study. It would have been immoral for them to continue the study when the results were coming in so lopsided. Your arguments about the differences between the control group and the study group makes way more sense if you want to refute the study. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/70 "2018-02-23T18:38:11Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What has changed so much in the past 25 years? > I’m sure many a professor would love to get a grant to redo the study. However wouldn’t a similar result, that gun ownership increases the risk of homicide, be considered as anti-gun propaganda and be banned by the bullshit law? What Bullshit Law? Look, the CDC is banned from doing gun studies which have the purpose of advocating gun control. > **[Here's why the federal government can't study gun violence](https://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379)** > > The congressman who pushed the so-called "Dickey amendment" came to regret it. \*… The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012. Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed “point man for the NRA” on The Hill – the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. \* ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/71 "2018-02-23T18:43:01Z")
And I’m quite aware that it can go the other way. The correlation can be a bit of a red herring, like many studies showing marijuana is a gateway drug because most heroin addicts tried it first but ignoring that they tried cigarettes and alcohol first oftentimes and probably had a bunch of other shitty life situations in common as well. That’s why “didn’t control for other variables” is a reasonable objection to me but not “but you didn’t PROVE ‘X’ caused that”. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/72 "2018-02-23T18:51:52Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I guess the problem is, that you seem to keep hanging your hat on this as a “damning” feature of the study. It’s not. If you want to refute someone using this study as a cite, you could say “correlation /= causation” and that would be fine. But that would not be refuting the study which merely showed correlation. And it’s not wrong to say “based on this strong correlation, we recommend not doing x”. That’s how warnings against smoking started. That’s a principle in medical studies, if you remember the “circumcision=less AIDS” African study. It would have been immoral for them to continue the study when the results were coming in so lopsided. > > Your arguments about the differences between the control group and the study group makes way more sense if you want to refute the study. I don’t think any case control study of this nature will show causation because it’s not intended to or designed to do that. So while it’s true that correlation != causation, I don’t think that particular criticism is very strong for this particular study, or any case control study. The issue with the conclusion is that it’s misleading. The recommendation misleads readers and users to imply causation. I’m not trying to refute the study in saying the data is wrong per se. It’s that the weaknesses presented in both the method and analysis are sufficient that the conclusions are not supportable. Here from the discussion section (my bold): > [@](#): > > Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection,\*\* this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. \*\*Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are also important risk factors. Efforts to increase home security have largely focused on preventing unwanted entry, **but the greatest threat to the lives of household members appears to come from within.** The study doesn’t show that possession for personal protection is counterproductive. In fact, the study says this: > [@](#): > > Attempted resistance was reported in 184 cases (43.8 percent). In 21 of these (5.0 percent) the victim unsuccessfully attempted to use a gun in self-defense. In 56.2 percent of the cases no specific signs of resistance were noted. Fifteen victims (3.6 percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances. Four were shot by police acting in the line of duty. The rest were killed by another member of the household or a private citizen acting in self-defense. It’s hard for me to parse this precisely, but the way I’m reading it is that 15 (3.6%) of the homicides included in the total results were as a result of self defense, though it’s unclear how many if any were from firearms. Firearms certainly aren’t a talisman against bad outcomes, but I don’t see how the conclusion that personal protection is counter productive can be drawn if the study wasn’t evaluating for personal protection in the control subjects. That’s not what was asked in the controls, and that’s not the basis for choosing the case examples. The discussion section also says that the greatest threat to the lives of household members appears to come from within. But that’s not supportable either. Based on the data the largest plurality of groups of people were friends or acquaintances (31%). And when looking at the method of homicide, just more than half were with non-firearms (50.2%). Those are the types of conclusions that are drawn from the data that are objectionable. If the study simply said, firearms present a risk and should be evaluated against other risks and other benefits, then sure I’d agree with that. But when it says, the greatest threat to the lives of household members are firearms [in the home] that’s misleading. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/73 "2018-02-23T18:56:21Z")
They didn’t say “personal protection is counter productive”, they said a gun in the house is counter productive to personal protection. Or am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/74 "2018-02-23T19:01:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > They didn’t say “personal protection is counter productive”, they said a gun in the house is counter productive to personal protection. Or am I missing something? I’m not seeing the distinction, but I quoted the section of the study that I was referring to. When I said _‘The study doesn’t show that possession [of a firearm in the residence] for personal protection is counterproductive.’_ it should be read with the bracketed parts. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/75 "2018-02-23T19:04:34Z")
Look, ignoring the control group problems, if you are 25%(or whatever) more likely to die when there’s a gun in the house then a gun in the house is counter productive to staying alive. You seem to be saying “but a gun in the house IS personal protection!”. That’s what they were studying! Shotgun traps all over my house may be intended as home protection but that doesn’t mean I’m safer with them. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/76 "2018-02-23T19:27:23Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Look, ignoring the control group problems, if you are 25%(or whatever) more likely to die when there’s a gun in the house then a gun in the house is counter productive to staying alive. You seem to be saying “but a gun in the house IS personal protection!”. That’s what they were studying! Shotgun traps all over my house may be intended as home protection but that doesn’t mean I’m safer with them. I’m saying that the study wasn’t intended to measure the impacts or effects of firearms as personal protection. It’s not how they selected the case examples, and it’s not what they asked the control examples. Concluding on personal protection while only evaluating the cost side of the equation (even providing for the fact that they did identify incidents of personal protection) isn’t supportable. Because it’s not supportable, the study shouldn’t draw those conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/77 "2018-02-23T19:39:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Look, ignoring the control group problems, if you are 25%(or whatever) more likely to die when there’s a gun in the house then a gun in the house is counter productive to staying alive. You seem to be saying “but a gun in the house IS personal protection!”. That’s what they were studying! Shotgun traps all over my house may be intended as home protection but that doesn’t mean I’m safer with them. Actually the results of the study _seemed_ to be “If you live in a bad neighborhood you have a greater chance of dying from violence”. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/78 "2018-02-23T19:42:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The idea behind this thread is to discuss one specific firearm related study. Often threads about firearms meander a bit but for the purpose of this thread I’d like to focus on one specific study. There are many different studies and I’d be glad to start additional threads on those as well, but focusing on one at a time I think can be more productive. I’m starting with one that is often brought up in various discussion – the 1993 Kellerman study, _ **Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home** _ From the study: > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Ultimately I don’t think anyone disputes that firearms present a risk - of course they do. However, a more meaningful question is whether those risks are outweighed by the benefits. This study makes no attempt to address that question. As a result, the conclusions from this study are poor, and the usefulness of this study in decision making is of little value. I agree. I grew up with guns in the house. My father had a semi-automatic on his side of the bed, my mom had a revolver on hers. I was shown where they were and how to properly handle them when I was 7. I got my first firearm when I was 9. I’ve had firearms in my home pretty much all my life, with some exceptions. My home is safer as a result. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/79 "2018-02-23T23:14:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > What Bullshit Law? Look, the CDC is banned from doing gun studies which have the purpose of advocating gun control. > > [Here's why the federal government can't study gun violence - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379) > \*… > The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012. > > Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed “point man for the NRA” on The Hill – the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. \* No self-respecting scientist does a study with the purpose of advocating anything. Any study rigged to try to prove anything is flawed and would be rejected by any decent reviewer no matter what their position on the subject is. So there was no need for the law, in terms of fairness. Why have it? Obviously to intimidate the CDC from funding studies that might produce results calling the wonderfulness of gun ownership into question. Like the one discussed here. NRA lackeys are so, so concerned about the integrity of science. So I stand by calling it a bullshit law. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/80 "2018-02-23T23:19:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Actually the results of the study _seemed_ to be “If you live in a bad neighborhood you have a greater chance of dying from violence”. You should maybe read how they selected the controls again. Because you clearly didn’t understand it the first time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213.md?page=5)