No, you haven’t been looking forward to my post, my good douchebag. You’ve been a part of threads many times in the past which debunked Kellerman, and you don’t care. You don’t even care that Kellerman retracted the study you like to take as truth because it was grossly inaccurate. His “evidence” fits what you want to believe.
So I wasn’t that enthusiastic about following up my post. Poor form, I admit. But it was tangenital and I was too lazy to do the work so I just left the thread instead.
That, and there’s a thread concurrent with this one that focuses more on the issue than this thread does. I should’ve pointed that out.
I bring those up because they’ve done the leg work in the past of debunking it on these boards and I was lazy. But if you want further detailed methodological criticisms of Kellerman, start here and here. Both of those debunk Kellerman specifically, and other studies in which the gun issue has been dealt with with faulty methodology.
The Kellerman “study” was essentially his effort to cherry pick data and suit his criteria to support the conclusion he was going for. He found a place with a small sample of deaths that heavily skewed towards crime and suicide, and then attempted to mislead people into thinking that these instances of crime and suicide were the result generally of the inherent danger of common gun owners keeping guns.
The vast majority of deaths in this case are suicide, which automatically makes it bullshit. There’s little to no correlation between the availability of guns and suicide rate, so the guns didn’t cause the suicides. Certainly people don’t sell the “43 times more likely to kill a loved one or acquantaince” bullshit line as “if you commit suicide you’ll probably use a gun”.
Others are crimes from an area cherry picked with many gang related deaths, but because these deaths were amongst gang rivals who knew each other, they were acquaintenaces and hence you can go ahead and group up the idea of one gang member shooting another in a driveby with some guy shooting his wife by accident. Same thing!
The study is so flawed due to the way the data was categorized and analyzed, from the cherry picked nature of it, and the small sample size that it showed living alone or renting rather than owning your property is far more correlated with death than gun ownership. Why aren’t people saying “OMG, if you live in an apartment or you live alone you’re like 50x more likely to be killed!”? Well… because there’s not a big “anti-living alone” lobby out there that picks its evidence based on what it wants to believe. But surely you can understand that if the results of a study say that living alone or renting has a greater than 43:1 increased likelihood of dying, there’s probably a methodological flaw in there somewhere, right?
Read the two articles I linked above, they do more detailed debunking. I would say “I hope you find this information useful”, but we both know that you won’t. You aren’t interested in getting at the truth, and you will be repeating the same Kellerman bullshit the next thread we talk about the issue.