There have been many analyses showing the flaws in the infamous Kellerman study purporting to show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than an intruder.
There is, however, one point which I have never seen addressed: even if Kellerman’s figures were accurate, 43:1 is a GOOD result, NOT a bad one.
The size of the apparent risk disparity depends heavily on the fact that the figures are not adjusted for exposure time.
But ANY risk factor in one’s household is more likely to affect a household member because of the enormously greater time of exposure, compared to an intruder.
Average exposure times for household members would measure in person-years; average exposures for intruders would probably be in SECONDS, or even fractions of a second, considering that many (most?) households don’t ever HAVE intruders.
Thus ALL (not just firearms) risks will be skewed toward higher household member deaths.
GUNS will actually show the BEST odds!
Consider the knives in your kitchen.
How often does anyone kill an intruder by using a knife from the kitchen?
Virtually never.
But in-home violence with such knives is quite common.
The Household_Member/Intruder death ratio is probably well into the thousands.
For other risk factors in the home, the odds become astronomical.
Consider your electric wiring, natural gas supply, prescription drugs, the rope in your garage – what risk do they pose to an intruder?
When was the last time a rapist died from a fall in his victim’s bathtub?
Many of the risk factors in the home have likely odds in the range of MILLIONS to one.
At ONLY 43 to 1, firearms would have probably the BEST odds of intruder death of anything one can own. (Not surprisingly, since they are the only common object DESIGNED to kill intruders.)
Thus, when the Anti’s use the 43 to 1 argument, it is not even necessary to debunk the figures – we can point out that everything else is much, much WORSE.
There is, however, one point which I have never seen addressed: even if Kellerman’s figures were accurate, 43:1 is a GOOD result, NOT a bad one.
The size of the apparent risk disparity depends heavily on the fact that the figures are not adjusted for exposure time.
But ANY risk factor in one’s household is more likely to affect a household member because of the enormously greater time of exposure, compared to an intruder.
Average exposure times for household members would measure in person-years; average exposures for intruders would probably be in SECONDS, or even fractions of a second, considering that many (most?) households don’t ever HAVE intruders.
Thus ALL (not just firearms) risks will be skewed toward higher household member deaths.
GUNS will actually show the BEST odds!
Consider the knives in your kitchen.
How often does anyone kill an intruder by using a knife from the kitchen?
Virtually never.
But in-home violence with such knives is quite common.
The Household_Member/Intruder death ratio is probably well into the thousands.
For other risk factors in the home, the odds become astronomical.
Consider your electric wiring, natural gas supply, prescription drugs, the rope in your garage – what risk do they pose to an intruder?
When was the last time a rapist died from a fall in his victim’s bathtub?
Many of the risk factors in the home have likely odds in the range of MILLIONS to one.
At ONLY 43 to 1, firearms would have probably the BEST odds of intruder death of anything one can own. (Not surprisingly, since they are the only common object DESIGNED to kill intruders.)
Thus, when the Anti’s use the 43 to 1 argument, it is not even necessary to debunk the figures – we can point out that everything else is much, much WORSE.
