# 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:** 5
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/81 "2018-02-23T23:22:13Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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. You feel your home is safer. I suspect most of the homicide victims in the study felt that way also. I bet you visualize the threat as coming from outside, whereas the study shows that the threat comes mostly from friends and spouses. ---
**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, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/82 "2018-02-23T23:32:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The study doesn’t show that possession for personal protection is counterproductive. In fact, the study says this: > > 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. Where did it say “greatest” threat? It is possible that drug use is a greater threat (I don’t know) but there is no lobby encouraging drug use in the house. I didn’t get that they were talking about personal protection in the sense of pulling the gun out to defend oneself. Clearly that didn’t happen in a lot of cases. But if a friend with a beef (and I count friends as inside cases, since they mostly got invited in, not broke in) brings a gun knowing that the victim has a gun, I think the victim getting killed even if his gun was not used counts as an example of increased risk. Any good study poses more questions than it answers. This is clearly a good study. Another interesting question - were houses with guns burglarized more, less, or the same as houses without guns. If less, that might be an advantage of gun ownership not considered here. ---
**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 24, 2018, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/83 "2018-02-24T00:07:09Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Where did it say “greatest” threat? It is possible that drug use is a greater threat (I don’t know) but there is no lobby encouraging drug use in the house. Whether or not there exists a lobby for other dangerous activity doesn’t reflect on the basis for conclusion. The source was quoted, but here it is again. From the text (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.** This could be referring to something other than firearms, but given the context of the discussion, and later recommendations against keeping firearms in the home, it’s not hard to see how this bit is misleading. > [@](#): > > I didn’t get that they were talking about personal protection in the sense of pulling the gun out to defend oneself. In what sense do you think the study was talking about personal protection as it relates to firearms? Deterrent maybe? That’s the only other way I could think of, but I doubt that’s how they meant this phrasing. > [@](#): > > Another interesting question - were houses with guns burglarized more, less, or the same as houses without guns. If less, that might be an advantage of gun ownership not considered here. This was not within the scope of the study. I do know of some evidence in other areas that is much older, but it’s not relevant to this thread. > [@](#): > > Any good study poses more questions than it answers. This is clearly a good study. Whether or not this is a good study is the basis for the thread and clearly I disagree for the reasons presented. The main conclusion is suspect, the discussion items are not accurate, and the presentation is misleading. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/84 "2018-02-24T01:31:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … Whether or not this is a good study is the basis for the thread and clearly I disagree for the reasons presented. The main conclusion is suspect, the discussion items are not accurate, and the presentation is misleading. I had been aware of the Kellerman study, and its flaws, for a number of years now, but something I only learned recently was that it was _THE_ study that caused the ‘CDC ban on gun research’ (in actuality a ban on gun control advocacy): > [@](#): > > In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). … > > The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 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.” [http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx) > [@](#): > > The Dickey amendment was passed after a CDC-funded study, led by physician and epidemiologist Arthur Kellerman, found that having a gun in the home increased homicide risk. After the results were published, the National Rifle Association pressured lawmakers, arguing that the CDC was inappropriately using its funds to advocate for gun control. > **[Why is there so little research on guns in the US? 6 questions answered](https://theconversation.com/why-is-there-so-little-research-on-guns-in-the-us-6-questions-answered-92163)** > > Research is the foundation for evidence-based policies. But because of funding prohibitions, there’s little US research to inform the contentious debate around gun violence and gun control. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/85 "2018-02-24T04:10:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. That is true, which is why many were pissed when the CDC did exactly that-did a study with the purpose of advocating gun control. Which is the study referred to here. [Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#1b1d3a8c282d) \*There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.” Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.” Sociologist David Bordura and epidemiologist David Cowan characterized the public health literature on guns at that time as “advocacy based upon political beliefs rather than scientific fact”\* > **[Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/)** > > The Centers for Disease Control was using taxpayer money to pay for biased advocacy studies about guns and gun control. _CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”…CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control._ Not to mention the CDC has indeed published numerous gun studies since then. That’s Ok, as long as the PURPOSE isn’t to push for gun control. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/86 "2018-02-24T04:12:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You should maybe read how they selected the controls again. Because you clearly didn’t understand it the first time. > **[Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/)** > > The Centers for Disease Control was using taxpayer money to pay for biased advocacy studies about guns and gun control. \*Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime. Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home…These problems prompted objections and questions from leading scientists in the field of criminology, such as Yale University professor John Lott, Florida State’s Gary Kleck, and University of Massachusetts sociology professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi. Their research had come to vastly different conclusions, and they found the methodology unsound. \* ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/87 "2018-02-24T04:37:13Z")
People who own life jackets have a greater risk of dying in boating accidents than those that don’t. Clearly, if you wish to reduce your risk of dying in a boating accident, you shouldn’t own a life jacket. ---
**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 24, 2018, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/88 "2018-02-24T04:56:01Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > People who own life jackets have a greater risk of dying in boating accidents than those that don’t. > > Clearly, if you wish to reduce your risk of dying in a boating accident, you shouldn’t own a life jacket. The damning refutation of your study is that you forgot to emphasis how few people were actually strangled by their own lifejackets. Sometimes it was someone else’s lifejacket. In fact, in most cases it wasn’t a lifejacket strangulation type boating accident at all. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/89 "2018-02-24T05:47:08Z")
Statistical conclusions do not apply exactly to all instances. Kellerman concludes that a gun increases the chance of homicide 2.7 times but you _know_ that doesn’t apply to _your_ gun. Let’s be generous and say you _correctly_ know that. This doesn’t invalidate Kellerman’s statistic of _average_ death rate; it just means that some other guns (including some whose owners _incorrectly_ “know” their gun is not a problem) increase the chance of homicide by _more_ than 2.7. Of course it annoys to be treated as a statistic, e.g. when you know _your_ gun ownership is more benign than the average. All studies suffer from this problem. But policy makers need to make public policy decisions, not to pass judgement on the _specific_ gun owned by some _specific_ poster at SDMB. > [@Bone](#): > > … The one I find most damning is that in this study, there is no effort or distinction made between the gun kept by the homeowner and one that is brought in from outside the home. It’s like saying, you kept gun A, therefore you are 2.7 times more likely to be killed by gun B. 😕 I don’t think Kellerman excluded killings by gun A from the count. Nor is there a specific gun B; the death count is the sum of deaths from A, B[sub]1[/sub], B[sub]2[/sub], etc. > [@DrDeth](#): > > That study has been debunked … > > … [www.firearmsandliberty.com](http://www.firearmsandliberty.com) … > … [www.guns.com](http://www.guns.com) … > … [guncite.com](http://guncite.com) … I notice a pattern in the domain names for the scientific studies debunking Kellerman. Even AGW deniers can do better than this! ---
**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 24, 2018, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/90 "2018-02-24T06:59:00Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Statistical conclusions do not apply exactly to all instances. Kellerman concludes that a gun increases the chance of homicide 2.7 times but you _know_ that doesn’t apply to _your_ gun. Let’s be generous and say you _correctly_ know that. This doesn’t invalidate Kellerman’s statistic of _average_ death rate; it just means that some other guns (including some whose owners _incorrectly_ “know” their gun is not a problem) increase the chance of homicide by _more_ than 2.7. I think this is a good example of the misleading nature of the study. The study didn’t establish an average death rate as you indicate. To do that, it would need to be extrapolated across more than just the case examples in the three counties selected. But as we see from the data, the characteristics of the case examples weren’t well matched with the controls, much less a wider extrapolation. > [@](#): > > 😕 I don’t think Kellerman excluded killings by gun A from the count. Nor is there a specific gun B; the death count is the sum of deaths from A, B[sub]1[/sub], B[sub]2[/sub], etc. If you read the study and it says a gun in the home is associated with 2.7 times the likelihood of homicide, do you think that means that your spouse is more likely to strangle you if there is a firearm present? It’s much less sensational to say that if there is a gun in the house, someone else you know from outside the house who you invite in may kill you without using a gun at all - so don’t have a gun in the house. So yes, I think the lack of identification of which gun was used in the selected homicide is very misleading. ---
**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 24, 2018, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/91 "2018-02-24T20:56:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/) > \*Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime. > > Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home…These problems prompted objections and questions from leading scientists in the field of criminology, such as Yale University professor John Lott, Florida State’s Gary Kleck, and University of Massachusetts sociology professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi. Their research had come to vastly different conclusions, and they found the methodology unsound. > \* The controls were people from the same neighborhood. The criticism that they picked homicide rich environments is pretty bizarre since to get statistically significant amounts of data for a particular area you have to pick such places. The criticism about the weapons kept in the home not being the murder weapon is particularly stupid, since the paper indicates that the victims were killed by things other than guns a good number of times. The study was not about whether guns in the house kill people, it was about whether people with guns in the house are killed at higher rates than those without. And the study showed that people with similar characteristics who lived in the same crappy neighborhood (for 2 of the 3 counties) died at lower rates. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/92 "2018-02-24T21:35:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/) > \*Furthermore, the gun victims he studied were anomalies. They were selected from homicide victims living in metropolitan areas with high gun-crime statistics, which completely discounted the statistical goliath of areas where gun owners engage in little to no crime. > > Other factors that lent to the study’s unreliability were: It is based entirely on people murdered in their homes, with 50 percent admitting this was the result of a “quarrel or romantic triangle,” and 30 percent said it was during a drug deal or other felonies such as rape or burglary; it made no consideration for guns used in self-defense; it provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in these crimes belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home…These problems prompted objections and questions from leading scientists in the field of criminology, such as Yale University professor John Lott, Florida State’s Gary Kleck, and University of Massachusetts sociology professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi. Their research had come to vastly different conclusions, and they found the methodology unsound. > \* Well, First I have to say that this is not really a good cite to rely on, John Lott, for example has been found to be wrong. [https://psmag.com/news/researchers-repeat-more-guns-dont-make-us-safer](https://psmag.com/news/researchers-repeat-more-guns-dont-make-us-safer) > [@](#): > > A prolific researcher, Lott works at a non-profit called the Crime Prevention Research Center, publishing studies that, though rarely peer-reviewed, are often cited by academics, politicians, and pro-gun private citizens. “If you know a statistic or a fact-based argument about how guns save lives, it’s likely, whether you know it or not, you’re citing some of Lott’s work,” Moskowitz wrote. > > The argument that more guns means less crime was born out some of Lott’s research from the 1990s, which suggested that states that passed more lenient concealed-carry laws saw a drop in crime rates. However, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that looked at the relationship between gun laws and crime rates over a longer time period found that Lott’s initial theory does not hold up. > The Decline in Violent Crime Rates has been Far Greater in States with No RTC Laws > > The NBER analyzed 33 states that adopted right-to-carry laws—which allow anyone who meets minimal requirements to obtain concealed carry permits—between 1977 and 2014. They found that, 10 years after the laws were passed, violent crime rates actually increased by up to 15 percent. And while it’s true that, nationally, violent crime rates have fallen as right-to-carry laws have proliferated, those drops were not evenly distributed: The decrease in violent crime in states that didn’t adopt right-to-carry laws was four times greater than in those that did. > > This new study’s findings are unlikely to sway the most avid proponents of the right to bear arms, however. The gun control debate is not one about pragmatic policies—for those who believe that gun ownership is an American birthright, it’s about patriotic identity and the ability to exercise inviolable rights. I do remember that in this issue it is Lott the one that has gotten more criticism. On that I see a lot of similarities when smoking or climate change “experts” (That have an axe to grind) convince many politicians of the right to follow their flawed reasoning. The solution for the “flawed” research is indeed not to curtail research but to counter it with research that is more independent. Second: I really do have to say that I did look at a lot of research before to conclude that a lot of the research on guns was inconclusive because many times I noticed how a lot of the doom did not take place or the conclusions are misleading, both for the proponents of gun rights or the proponents of gun control. > **[Is violent crime lower in states with open carry?](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/oct/09/matt-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-open-carry/)** > > Florida is one of only a handful of states left in the country that doesn’t allow any open carry of firearms, and some s Meaning that lots of new research is needed, but really what it was not needed was to go full Lysenko and stop federal government research. If one just stops to ponder for a minute, the solution was clear: get the research to scientists that are clearly before hand making noise that guns should be restricted beforehand out and then continue funding the research. The irresponsible choice of Lysenkoism is really bananas, and more so when we have groups that are not elected dictating the politicians what to do. ---
**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 24, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/93 "2018-02-24T22:27:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That is true, which is why many were pissed when the CDC did exactly that-did a study with the purpose of advocating gun control. Which is the study referred to here. [Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#1b1d3a8c282d) > \*There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.” > > Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.” > > Sociologist David Bordura and epidemiologist David Cowan characterized the public health literature on guns at that time as “advocacy based upon political beliefs rather than scientific fact”\* > [Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget](http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/) > > _CDC Leaders Admit They Want to Ban Guns > In the late ’80s and early ’90s, the CDC was openly biased in opposing gun rights. CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” This sounds more like activist rhetoric than it does scientific research, as O’Carroll effectively set out with the goal of confirmation bias, saying “We will prove it,” and not the scientific objectiveness of asking “Does it?”…CDC leaders were not shy about their intentions of banning guns from the public. Sure enough, they acted on their desires. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC to the tune of $1.7 million, entitled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.” The leader author was Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an epidemiologist, physician, and outspoken advocate of gun control._ > > Not to mention the CDC has indeed published numerous gun studies since then. That’s Ok, as long as the PURPOSE isn’t to push for gun control. The people on the top are not writing papers, they are just setting policy based on the data. And the data on gun deaths in the US is pretty bad. You might as well criticize them for being against measles and Zika. Which is more or less what the anti-Vaxxers do. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/94 "2018-02-24T23:23:59Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I notice a pattern in the domain names for the scientific studies debunking Kellerman. Even AGW deniers can do better than this! I also had The Federalist and Forbes. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2018, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/95 "2018-02-24T23:28:02Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The people on the top are not writing papers, they are just setting policy based on the data. And the data on gun deaths in the US is pretty bad. > You might as well criticize them for being against measles and Zika. Which is more or less what the anti-Vaxxers do. Yes, but you see, measles and Zica are dangerous Diseases, which the Center For _Disease_ Control has as it job to control. Not guns. Guns have many uses- police, military, hunting and even Olympic sports. They are also protected by the 2nd Ad . They are also politically controversial. Should the CDC lobby against cars as many people die in them? None of those are true with diseases. ---
**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 24, 2018, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/96 "2018-02-24T23:38:58Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, but you see, measles and Zica are dangerous Diseases, which the Center For _Disease_ Control has as it job to control. Not guns. > > Guns have many uses- police, military, hunting and even Olympic sports. They are also protected by the 2nd Ad . They are also politically controversial. Should the CDC lobby against cars as many people die in them? > > None of those are true with diseases. Oh for God’s sake. You realize that the CDC does do research on car deaths. Also dangerous chemicals and workplace conditions. The 2nd amendment is an important law but it is still just a law. You’re basically saying “how dare they research and reach opinions on legal actions or products?”. ---
**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 24, 2018, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/97 "2018-02-24T23:55:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, but you see, measles and Zica are dangerous Diseases, which the Center For _Disease_ Control has as it job to control. Not guns. > > Guns have many uses- police, military, hunting and even Olympic sports. They are also protected by the 2nd Ad . They are also politically controversial. Should the CDC lobby against cars as many people die in them? > > None of those are true with diseases. The also do research on pancreatic cancer. That doesn’t mean that they are anti-pancreas. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/98 "2018-02-25T00:10:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I also had The Federalist and Forbes. Again they do a good case for bias from researchers, but the point stands, that bias is usually deal with by checking at that research with research made without the researchers they complained about, or to see those critics to publish their own research so as to see if it passes peer review. Thing is that this begins to look more to me as the same tactics that Climate change deniers are doing, criticise research as flawed, and to not check if they could get different results. What the actions seen shows to me is actually fear that they (the less biased researchers or even independent ones) would find basically the same. _So instead they resort to solutions that not even the climate change deniers have managed_: The removal of funds to do research that even smells of eventually telling the policy makers about what restrictions or what regulations or new policies that are needed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/99 "2018-02-25T01:01:00Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Oh for God’s sake. You realize that the CDC does do research on car deaths. Also dangerous chemicals and workplace conditions. Do they declare they are in favor of banning all cars? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2018, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-related-studies-vol-1-gun-ownership-as-a-risk-factor-for-homicide-in-the-home/809213/100 "2018-02-25T01:02:19Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The also do research on pancreatic cancer. That doesn’t mean that they are anti-pancreas. They are anti cancer, however. [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=4) [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=6)