Argument source, guns in homes/danger

Status
Not open for further replies.

sv51macross

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
380
I saw a thread that showed MSNBC tossing around that 'gun in the home 43 times more likely' stuff. I know that this false, as I have seen refutation before, but I know not where to find the proof. I already have the Florida State University study on defensive gun usage (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html), and the Brady Bunches 'more gun deaths than all killed in America's wars' has also been proven erroneous. This would make a nice trifecta to combat any anti arguments I encounter. I would prefer a non NRA-related source to keep inferred bias to a minimum.

I appreciate the time. SV

[EDIT]: It just occurred to me that this section might be inappropriate. I apologize if my classification was incorrect.
 
It's massaged data. A majority of households have firearms (in theory), therefore there's a higher chance a home that has a problem will have a gun.

The problem with this question on both sides is there is no way to find out who has a gun without meticulous registration, searches, etc. You know, the violating our rights stuff. SO anti-guns can't be proven wrong, and pro-guns can't be proven right.

The closest thing to a "firearms in the home" poll is Gallup's, and it varies WILDLY.

This is not exactly what you're looking for, but it will get you on the right track: http://www.gallup.com/poll/25090/americans-slight-margin-say-gun-home-makes-safer.aspx

Hope this helps. Bringing up the rates of violent crime among concealed pistol carriers is always a good one for arguments. Use the mouth of the beast: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Now use this to do the math: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

AND THAT IS JUST FOR FLORIDA. THE VPC POLL IS FOR THE ENTIRE NATION.
 
It's massaged data. A majority of households have firearms (in theory), therefore there's a higher chance a home that has a problem will have a gun.

The problem with this question on both sides is there is no way to find out who has a gun without meticulous registration, searches, etc. You know, the violating our rights stuff. SO anti-guns can't be proven wrong, and pro-guns can't be proven right.

The closest thing to a "firearms in the home" poll is Gallup's, and it varies WILDLY.

This is not exactly what you're looking for, but it will get you on the right track: http://www.gallup.com/poll/25090/americans-slight-margin-say-gun-home-makes-safer.aspx

Hope this helps. Bringing up the rates of violent crime among concealed pistol carriers is always a good one for arguments. Use the mouth of the beast: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Now use this to do the math: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

AND THAT IS JUST FOR FLORIDA. THE VPC POLL IS FOR THE ENTIRE NATION.
For fun, I decided to do it myself.

606 incidents of Concealed carry crimes, divided by the amount of licensed people in the state of Florida:

7.76330875806276e-4

Whatever number that is. So if I'm reading that right, if you only took one state in the Union, it would be 7%. If we do the law of averages and subtract JUST California, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii...

7.76 / 46 = 1.687675816970165e-5
 
The "43 times more likely..." old saw is not really that surprising. The result was that a gun in the home was 43 times likely to be used against a family member, friend, or acquaintance than a against a stranger.

All this means is that we're usually attacked by people we know or have seen around (the crazy neighbor, your abusive husband, Uncle Sex Offender, a previous employee or house helper, the door-to-door salesman that came by yesterday, so and so's kids who broke in, etc..).

Random crime is much less frequent than crimes against people who know you in some way.

There is also the suicide issue, which I do think is higher with gun households than non gun households. If you don't trust your kids or spouse, lock up your guns. If I want to commit suicide, I'll get it done one way or the other. The gun is just easier, unless you mess up, lobotomize yourself, and still live.

They tried to emphasize family in the statistic, but I believe acquaintances were at least as common if not more so than family members. Gun use against immediate family members (e.g. those living in the house) weren't all that big of a number except for the suicides.
 
The guy who did the "43 times" study, Arthur Kellermann, was criticised for not sharing his statistics for replication (for example, today American Economic Review will not publish an article if the data and math are not released pre-publication for replication by other researchers; in 1986 medicine allowed researchers to withold data until they decided they had no further studies to produce from the data).

12 Jun 1986, New England Journal of Medicine, Arthur Kellerman, M.D., and Donald Reay, medical examiner, Kings County, Washington State, six years 1978-1983, medical examiner and police reports; 398 gunshot deaths in the residences where the gun was kept, 9 justifiable homicide (self defense), 12 accidents, 41 nonjustifiable homicides, 333 suicides, a questionable 3 either accident or suicide. So the "43 times" comes from 1 justifiable homicide versus 1.33-1.67 accidents, 4.56 criminal homicides, and 37.33 suicides.

There are problems assuming that a sample of homes that include unusual numbers of suicides plus homicides represent otherwise ordinary households that happen to own a gun for self-defense. Another Kellermann study weighted for other factors, such as: households with a member who uses illicit drugs; rented homes; prior violence within the household; living alone; household member with arrest record.

The 43:1 is highly dependent for shock value on the ratio of 37 suicides to one justifiable homicide; as though the suicides were committed with guns kept as protection against criminals, versus guns acquired for the intent of committing suicide. Or that people in high crime neighborhoods were more likely both to own a gun for protection and to potentially be a victim.

There are some problems with assuming that police report all self defense killings as justifiable homicide. Most justifiable homicides (self-defense) are adjudicated much higher in the judicial system than by police report; Gary Kleck has estimated that for every homicide adjudicated by police report as justifiable, the judicial system will eventually adjudicate four or seven times that number of voluntary manslaughters as justifiable self defense.

In a totally different study*, researchers looked into the question of why the district attorney did not charge murder in 481 out of 1247 homicides as determined by the medical examiners office in a Wisconsin jurisdiction. Of a selected sample of the non-prosecuted homicides looked at in the study, half were adjudicated by the prosecutor as self-defense. That would imply 1 out of 6 homicides adjudicated at the DA level as self-defense, not tracing cases through the judicial system to trial jury or appellate court level where other cases could be adjudicated a self defense. Most crime stats are not reported past the police report level and adjudication can take years. The FBI Uniform Crime Report table of "killing of a felon during commission of a felony" by a citizen adjudicated by police does not reflect adjudication by coroner, ME, DA, grand jury, judge, trial jury or appeals court. Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang found that in isolated jurisdictions that did track homicides all the way, 20 to 30 percent were self defense. Kellermann's sample was 9 justifiable homicides and 41 criminal homicides of a subsample of 50 (sample was gunshot deaths in a home where a gun was kept) actually pretty close to 20%.

--------------------------------------------
* PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences February 2003
"Discrepancy Between the Legal and Medical Definitions of Homicide" by Jeffrey M. Jentzen, MD, of Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office
and three co-authors.
 
Well there is some truth to that, I don't know about 47x more dangerous, but it is a danger with a gun in the house. Obviously if you have something that can kill in your house, there is an increased danger- whether it is accidental, emotions get out of hand, you got drunk and did something stupid, or whatever. You could extend the logic to kitchen knives. I bet if we compared houses with kitchen knives vs. houses without kitchen knives you'd come to the same conclusion.

The bottom line is if you're careful and responsible and don't get complacent with a gun around the house you'll be OK. You're not gonna leave a kitchen knife on the sofa, or play with it when you're drunk, or leave it where kids can get to it and play Zorro. Same thing with the gun. But not everybody is responsible.
 
That "statistic" is akin to saying that you're X times more likely to be killed falling down stairs if you live in a 2+story building. The question is biased since households with guns are going to be inevitably more likely places for the rare firearms accidents crimes or passion or suicide to take place. Add that you're also including as "homes" the places criminals live/work into the numbers and you end up with a nearly meaningless statistic.

The more valuable statistic would be to compare just firearms accidents in the home and leave everything else out since the others are criminal activities (yes, even suicide).
 
Last edited:
Hello all,
One thing that I tell people about guns is the number one safety feature of any of them is what's between your ears.
If you carry you don't go into a bar and get drunk, you don't get into an argument, you don't let someone get you riled up, you don't have a major disagreement with someone, and you control you temper and you tongue, and have situational awareness so you avoid possible “situations” that could get you into trouble.
Just my $0.02 worth.
 
It's massaged data.

Scuba divers have an astronomically higher death rate from drowning compared to someone who never goes in the water.

I have a zero percentage probablity of dying trying to jump 20 buses with a motorcycle.

A thing people forget about "so many more times" statistics. For example if you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of whatever, 43 more times chance gets you in the 43 in 100,000 category. Not really something to run away from in fear.
 
Carl N. Brown's post is well worth reading, lots of good info there.

Also, as I understand it, one of the things in Kellermann's studies that is problematic was that he did not take into account, or chose to omit, incidents in which someone used a gun for self-defense, but did not shoot. Essentially his study missed out on the most likely outcome of the use of a firearm for defense: that no shot is fired, but the perpetrator ceases hostile activity.
 
Those with cars are more likely to get into car accidents than those without cars.

Same principle.
 
Also, as I understand it, one of the things in Kellermann's studies that is problematic was that he did not take into account, or chose to omit, incidents in which someone used a gun for self-defense, but did not shoot.

True, but even more problematic, Kellerman assumed that the gun used to kill was the one kept in the home. Upon rechecking his data, he found that something like 80% of the deaths were caused by a gun brought into the home by someone else (e.g., in the process of committing a drug rip-off). :what::eek::uhoh:
 
Easy. The most conservative estimate on the number of crimes stopped by firearms each year is over 700,000, and that is the number published by the FBI. Other organizations estimate into the millions. According to the Brady Campaign to Promote Gun Violence, there are ~30,000 gun-related deaths each year.
 
The guy who did the "43 times" study, Arthur Kellermann, was criticised for not sharing his statistics for replication (for example, today American Economic Review will not publish an article if the data and math are not released pre-publication for replication by other researchers; in 1986 medicine allowed researchers to withold data until they decided they had no further studies to produce from the data).

12 Jun 1986, New England Journal of Medicine, Arthur Kellerman, M.D., and Donald Reay, medical examiner, Kings County, Washington State, six years 1978-1983, medical examiner and police reports; 398 gunshot deaths in the residences where the gun was kept, 9 justifiable homicide (self defense), 12 accidents, 41 nonjustifiable homicides, 333 suicides, a questionable 3 either accident or suicide. So the "43 times" comes from 1 justifiable homicide versus 1.33-1.67 accidents, 4.56 criminal homicides, and 37.33 suicides.

There are problems assuming that a sample of homes that include unusual numbers of suicides plus homicides represent otherwise ordinary households that happen to own a gun for self-defense. Another Kellermann study weighted for other factors, such as: households with a member who uses illicit drugs; rented homes; prior violence within the household; living alone; household member with arrest record.

The 43:1 is highly dependent for shock value on the ratio of 37 suicides to one justifiable homicide; as though the suicides were committed with guns kept as protection against criminals, versus guns acquired for the intent of committing suicide. Or that people in high crime neighborhoods were more likely both to own a gun for protection and to potentially be a victim.

There are some problems with assuming that police report all self defense killings as justifiable homicide. Most justifiable homicides (self-defense) are adjudicated much higher in the judicial system than by police report; Gary Kleck has estimated that for every homicide adjudicated by police report as justifiable, the judicial system will eventually adjudicate four or seven times that number of voluntary manslaughters as justifiable self defense.

In a totally different study*, researchers looked into the question of why the district attorney did not charge murder in 481 out of 1247 homicides as determined by the medical examiners office in a Wisconsin jurisdiction. Of a selected sample of the non-prosecuted homicides looked at in the study, half were adjudicated by the prosecutor as self-defense. That would imply 1 out of 6 homicides adjudicated at the DA level as self-defense, not tracing cases through the judicial system to trial jury or appellate court level where other cases could be adjudicated a self defense. Most crime stats are not reported past the police report level and adjudication can take years. The FBI Uniform Crime Report table of "killing of a felon during commission of a felony" by a citizen adjudicated by police does not reflect adjudication by coroner, ME, DA, grand jury, judge, trial jury or appeals court. Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang found that in isolated jurisdictions that did track homicides all the way, 20 to 30 percent were self defense. Kellermann's sample was 9 justifiable homicides and 41 criminal homicides of a subsample of 50 (sample was gunshot deaths in a home where a gun was kept) actually pretty close to 20%.

--------------------------------------------
* PROCEEDINGS of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences February 2003
"Discrepancy Between the Legal and Medical Definitions of Homicide" by Jeffrey M. Jentzen, MD, of Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office
and three co-authors.
Very good post. I believe there was another (Junk) study that was similiar to Kellermann's but it was based on a county in Georgia or South Carolina.
 
man I hate the news sometimes. I think the reporter needs to spend some time in a real domestic violence setting themselves.

I grew up in one. My sister also headed the domestic violence task force in my home town. If they think you need a gun they are sadly mistaken and many time the sicko (to be real nice with vocabulary), would prefer to NOT use a gun and instead get the satisfaction of using his hands. But hey, as usual the news want to ignore the REAL issue of domestic abuse and focus on whatever the guy has in his hands at the time, but only if it is a gun, not a iron, bat, beer bottle, telephone, book (yeah books can kill), or any 1 of a million items.

I am sure without a firearm an abuser would not find something else to use. yeah...right.
 
Man was killing man long before firearms came along. People love a good killing story you know. Tv will run those stories to death and even call a homeowner who shoots a burglar that has a gun and threatens him and his family a murderer.
 
Run Gun Run
Load Gun Load
Point Gun Point
Shoot Gun Shoot

No my guns will not perform these functions by themselves.

Guns are NOT dangerous. Now if we add people to the equation then we may find an improperly trained person is dangerous – but not only with a gun, but with many different tools or situations, etc.
 
I think the best false number is that youth is defined as 0-19. This allows the 18 and 19 year old, adult gangbangers to be included in the "gun violence" statistics as related to youth.
 
Hope this helps. Bringing up the rates of violent crime among concealed pistol carriers is always a good one for arguments. Use the mouth of the beast: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Now use this to do the math: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Hmm, I took the total number from the first site (I got 596), and divided by the 780000 number from the second site. I got 596/780595 = 7.63e -4. Which means: 0.000763 which is 0.07%, not 7%. So that number would be lower by a factor of 100. Did I miss something?
 
Yeap, Howard you are right. The calculation for "e-#" was not being done right.

The number of "incidents" from CCW's is less than a tenth of a percent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top