Can someone tell me where this statistic comes from

[natedog]

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member or a friend than an intruder (Kellerman et al., Journal of Trauma, 1998, 45.2).

Anyone? Anyone have any background information? I believe this is the statistic that considers only justifiable homicides to be self-defense with a gun- (ie it does not consider brandishing a gun against an intruder to be self-defense).

 

[Crom]

IIRC, that statistic was based on one of the most discredited pieces of research ever published. The "study", by a man named Kellermann, was based on a survey of homes where a homicide had taken place.

Of course these "homes" were violent places to begin with, often with gang and drug involvement. Mr. Kellermann, a self-admitted gun prohibitionist, deliberately excluded factors that would invalidate his desired conclusion.

Factors like people living in a dangerous place are more likely to own guns for protection and that many of the victims were not killed with their own gun, but with one owned by the assailant. Some of the deceased "friends" were gang and drug associates.

Unfortunately this statistic is used quite alot by the anti-gunners.

Actually, from the last statistics I saw by the National Safety Council, accidental gun deaths are at their lowest level in 100 years, homicides are down, and suicides are holding steady, despite increased gun ownership.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[F4GIB]

Kellerman has gotten paid by the government 3 times to do the same study, each time with lower numbers. The last article had 2.2 times (TWO POINT TWO) while the first had 43 times. He bases his study on dead bodies in the morgue. Since over 98% of successful defensive gun uses start with brandishing and end with the perp running away, Kellerman misses all of them. Next, he doesn't eliminate suicides. Third, he doesn't consider whether the gun at home was used or if the perp brought his own. Fourth, since the dead bodies tend to come from financially challenged, socially disfunctional homes, his "data" says nothing about normal folks. Etc. Etc.

He will not share his data sets with other scholars so you have to take his basic numbers (as well as his analysis) on faith. For all we KNOW he did a "dry lab" exercise and made up all the numbers. No one has been able to check his raw data. That's not good scientific method but it does allow him to milk the government grant system for all he can get.

 

[MikeB]

Try here http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html.

 

[Col. Mustard]

Kellerman did a study of gun homicides/suicides around Seattle, WA; out of 389 deaths, 9 were criminals. Ergo, he decided that guns in the home were (389/9=) 43 times more likely to result in the death of a resident than a criminal.

This study was discredited for a number of reasons, including:

- He didn't consider whether the guns were legally owned (i.e.,felons, adjudicated mental challenges, etc. in the house);

- He considered only those instances in which somebody died; disregarding those occasions where a criminal was discouraged by the mere presence of a gun.

IIRC, he attempted to address some of the flaws in his methodology, which might account for your 22x number.

It's still bad science.

 

[Wiley]

Over on JPFO they have an analysis by Kleck of the study.

 

[Stand_Watie]

An excellent (long) expose of Kellerman's flawed logic and math can be found here

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.html#contents

"Abstract
Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence. The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research. Most of the data on guns and violence are available in the criminological, legal, and social sciences literature, yet escapes acknowledgment or analysis of the medical literature. Lobbyists and other partisans continue to promulgate the fallacies that cloud the public debate and impede the development of effective strategies to reduce violence in our society. This article examines a representative sample of politicized and incompetent research"


and four more here (got to the "research library" and click on the "Kellerman study" section, the one by Schaffer is particularly good.)


http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/



"Statistical Misgivings and Lies - A look at the Gun Control Debate and Kellerman's Study - September 3, 2002, Gary Shade, Rod Murphy, Tony Joeseph and Tim Arinze (PDF Format)


Comments on Kellerman - Guns in the Home, a paper by H. Taylor Buckner, Associate Professor of Sociology, at Concordia University. A response to the infamous "a person with a gun in the home is 2.7 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide" study by Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine, showing the inaccuracies of the data gathered and the poor methods used to compile the study.


"Serious Flaws in Kellerman," a paper by Henry E. Schaffer, Ph. D. Another response to the Kellerman study, showing the inaccuracies of the methods used to compile the study.


"When Doctors Call for Gun Seizures, It's Grand Malpractice," an excerpt from the book, "Stopping Power: The Humanistic Case For Civilian Arms," by J. Neil Schulman. Yet another response to the Kellerman study, critical of the study's methods."