Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kellermann and X times more likely: he's baaack

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Monkeyleg, Jul 7, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,058
    Location:
    Decatur, AL
    This column appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's op-ed section today. Notice that Kellermann is now down to 12x more likely.

    *******
    Guns in the home are still a public health risk

    By ARTHUR KELLERMANN

    Posted: July 5, 2008

    The Supreme Court has spoken: Thanks to the court’s blockbuster 5-4 decision, Washingtonians now have the right to own a gun for self-defense. I leave the law to lawyers, but the public health lesson is crystal clear: The legal ruling that the citizens of Washington D.C. can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn’t mean that they should.

    In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly endorsed the wisdom of keeping a handgun in the home for self-defense. Such a weapon, he wrote, “is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”

    But Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world’s most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.

    In the real world, Scalia’s scenario — an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun — happens pretty infrequently. Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies. The reason is simple: A gun kept loaded and readily available for protection may also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse or a depressed teen.

    More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study’s seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

    A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

    Oh, one more thing: Scalia’s ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn’t fit the facts. According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property.

    In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5%) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner’s gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

    The court has spoken, but citizens and lawmakers should base future gun-control decisions — both personal and political — on something more substantive than Scalia’s glib opinion.

    Arthur Kellermann is a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University. This article first appeared in The Washington Post.
     
  2. SomeKid

    SomeKid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,544
    Location:
    FL
    Anyone who is a better wordsmith want to issue a rebuttal, pointing out this guy is a fraud - again?
     
  3. RancidSumo

    RancidSumo Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,168
    Location:
    Green River, WY
    I refuse to read any of his drivel.
     
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    You can always count on leftist extremists to try to hand the nation's civil rights over to lawyers and self-appointed pseudo-medical busybodies.
     
  5. Crunker1337

    Crunker1337 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,168
    My God, the SCOTUS doesn't make rulings to keep us safe, it makes rulings to keep our rights safe! Freedom often lends itself to safety, but not for everyone (read: thugs and criminals will have harder lifestyles).
     
  6. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,596
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    They have a technical term for "Scalia's glib opinion". It's called THE LAW.

    Try to base "future gun control issues" on something ELSE and you'd better both have a fat bank account and a desire to share the physical act of love with another man... while living in a 12x12 room with steel bars on one side.

    The Supreme Court has decided. You LOST. Get used to it.
     
  7. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    If pistols are so dangerous, why is the government so enamored with them?:confused:

    Shouldn't government show us ignorant peasants the True Path and disarm themselves?
     
  8. TexasSkyhawk

    TexasSkyhawk Internet SEAL

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Texas
    Funny how errant doctors kill more Americans than guns. . .

    Jeff
     
  9. bdickens

    bdickens Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    What studies might those be? Who conducted them? What journals were they published in? Is there any conflicting evidence? What data set did they use and what was their methodology for interpreting it? Those are basic questions any alleged scholar should pose.

    1.5 - 2.5 million times firearms are reported used for self-defense per year sure is infrequent compared to the approximately 115,000 total firearms-related injuries per year.( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm ) Approximately 30-40 thousand of those are fatal. ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm )

    Kellerman's 20-year-old study is deeply flawed and had been trashed thoroughly. For one, his data set is totally inadaquate in that it looked at only one county! The "subsequent study" mentioned (without citation) only took into account only three unnamed US cities! At least one study has been done that took into account every single county in the US. Interestingly, it came to a far different conclusion. An abstract of that study can be found at : http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467988?prevSearch=(lott)+AND+[journal:+jls]

    Now, I am not a "little old lady" by any stretch, but "..clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other.." is hardly an upper-body strength intensive task; it is actually quite easy. I can do it and then switch hands and do it again. So can my 110lb wife. And I think even my cat could do it if she only had an opposable thumb.

    And finally, as has been pointed out before: 1) "the SCOTUS doesn't make rulings to keep us safe, it makes rulings to keep our rights safe." and 2) "They have a technical term for "Scalia's glib opinion". It's called THE LAW."
     
  10. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Do you have a citation for this one?

    I thought that the "used for self-defense" figures were extrapolations based on assumption. It would be very nice to find that those figure were bases on some kind of "reported" frequency.

    Mike
     
  11. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,462
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    A Professor at the University of Florida, Gary Kleck, did a study a number of years ago. Originally, IIRC, he was trying to prove that we needed better gun control laws, but once his research was completed he was intellectually honest enough to change his mind, as his research indicated a million or more people used firearms to defend themselves or loved ones each year. Later, more research caused him to "up" the estimate to about two million.

    It may be "extrapolation" or whatever. One quite common remark encountered in reading these studies is the number of incidents where people defend themselves -- and never report it for fear of government reaction.
    Anyone wish to cast blame on people who do this?:rolleyes:
    But, it will make actual studies difficult. Properly done extrapolations should be accurate enough for guestimates........
     
  12. shdwfx

    shdwfx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    579
    Location:
    Go Bucks!
    Can't fix stupid.
     
  13. Bacardi151

    Bacardi151 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    17
    I am sure his study considered:

    And if more housholds had guns would this number go up or down? And if every household had a gun and people properly trained to use it effectively, would the number of attacks buy "armed assailaints" go up or down?

    What was the root cause of these deaths?

    How many homicides not involving a gun? How many of theres 41 would have been prevented if the deceased had a gun? How many would have still occured without access to a gun?

    How many not involving a gun? How many would have happened in the absence of a gun?

    I am sure all these and similar relevent questions were thoroughly analyzed in these "Studies". :rolleyes:
     
  14. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    Arthur Kellerman has a real point there. It is indeed hard to dial 911 with one hand while clutching a handgun in the other. While that might be a good reason for not having a telephone or not dialing 911, only a knave or an addlepate would offer the difficulty as a reason for not having a handgun for the defense of one's life.

    It's much harder to hold a crying baby while dialing 911 for emergency medical services, but what fool would suggest that it is a reason for not having children.

    "Addlepated" seems the kindest word to describe Arthur Kellerman. "Knave," "charlatan," "incompetent," "unscrupulous," and "dishonest" might be more accurate terms to use in characterizing someone who suppresses or ignores evidence that destroys his thesis with one mighty blow.

    What Arthur Kellerman says "doesn't fit the facts" are the facts. In April 2007 (which is within living memory) 82-year-old Venus Ramey did exactly what Justice Scalia understood that the Constitution protected. Miss Ramey used a snubnose .38 Special snubnose revolver to hold criminal intruders until the police arrived. It was indeed especially hard for her to dial 911 while clutching her handgun, because Ms. Ramey uses a walker. Fortunately, the 82-year-old little old lady with a walker has more intelligence than Arthur Kellerman: she had someone else place the 911 call. The police arrived and arrested the criminals.

    I don't know whether Arthur Kellerman is incompetent or dishonest. Perhaps he's a mixture of both, with more than a bit of knavery and charlatanism additional. Who in his position could have missed the story of Venus Ramey-- the little old lady with the walker and the .38 Special snubnose revolver--that was published widely in newspapers, magazines, the Internet, and other media? Ms. Ramey's story was big news because she was Miss America of 1944 and a notable pinup girl of World War II.

    But Arthur Kellerman neglects to mention her and other, less newsworthy, little old ladies who survive because they have the means to defend themselves when there are no other means available. Knaves like Kellerman want to deny them that last best chance. Thank God the Constitution prevents the charlatans from having complete control over the lives of other people, especially the weak and the elderly. It's now up to those who want some control over their own lives to repudiate the Arthur Kellermans of the world. Otherwise the Kellermans will really kill them with hypothetical kindness.

    That's not a change anyone sensible wants to believe in.
     
  15. grimjaw

    grimjaw Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,358
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Kellermann's studies are trotted out every so often, and he still preaches what he believes to be the gospel of saving from guns in the name of "public health." It is an effort to save us from ourselves with legislation.

    jm
     
  16. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Stuff happens. Everybody has guns around here. The young son of a friend of ours "accidently" shot and killed himself with a .22 rifle some years back. The JH age son of another friend "accidently" strangled himself in his bedroom. :( Should we ban guns, rope, beds, and closed doors ????? :rolleyes:

    Just a couple weeks ago, some young guys flipped a Mustang convertible, killing one and seriously injuring the other three. Let's ban cars, too - or at least convertibles, V-8s, gravel roads, and driving under the age of 30.

    A couple counties over, a teenager went off his meds and killed his mother and brother several years ago. No, I can't personally recount an equal or greater number of DGU's. But neither can anyone count the number of crimes that just simply don't happen in the first place because most BGs know better than to mess with armed rural folk.

    Kellerman apparently has never read any "Armed Citzen" stories in the NRA publications, or had his eyes closed when he did so.
     
  17. divemedic

    divemedic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,462
    Location:
    30 minute drive from Disney World

    Similarly, the legal ruling that the First Amendment Guarantees his right to speak his mind doesn’t mean that he should.
     
  18. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Yeah, I remembered the study vaguely. I recall that it had a lot of speculation and extrapolation. Given the massive under-reporting of guns used for self-defense where no shots are fired, it seemed like the estimates came out of thin air.

    I hope that there were newer studies that were based on some kind of reports.

    Mike
     
  19. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,462
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    RPCVYemen, why would studies today necessarily be any better than those done 3,6,10, or 15 years ago?
    Do you think people will be more willing to talk today? I don't think so.
    ALL these studies involve some sort of extrapolation and guesstimations. You can't poll 320 million people.
    Political polsters don't do that...you think university based researchers will have the $$$ for it?
     
  20. anarchris

    anarchris Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    114
    I'm so tired of the drivel!

    Well, mister, just because you have the right to write a letter doesn't mean you should either!
     
  21. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Because those studies were done 3,6,10 or 15 years ago. Usually, particularly when a study has an unpredicted outcome later studies usually replicate and refine the original study.

    I read that to mean that someone had done a study based somehow on reported usage instead of speculation and abstraction. I guess that he meant something more like "reportedly used" meaning that "someone said they were used", not that new studies had somehow been based on actual reports. I had hoped for the latter.

    BTW, I wasn't objecting to original study - I have no clue what the real numbers are. The study just didn't seem very solid to me, and I hoped that someone else had come up with a less speculative study.

    Mike
     
  22. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    "Dr. Arthur Kellerman, stated: "If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994) " link

    Evidently Dr. K lacks confidence in his own research.
     
  23. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    I can't believe anyone listens to this clown anymore. His research is completely skewed and starts from false premises. He starts with the population of "homicides in the home with gun present", and then figures how many of the victims were family members vs. intruders. It doesn't exclude suicides, which is a big factor right there. He doesn't compare to the death rate in non-gun homes.

    A true comparison of safety for gun vs. non-gun homes would be to compare the following:

    A) Residents killed or injured by accident in home in gun vs. non-gun homes, per 100,000.

    B) Residents killed or injured by intruders in home in gun vs. non-gun homes, per 100,000.

    That would reveal the true risk or benefit of having a gun. If it's truly as he says, then the numbers for A) and B) will be much higher for gun homes than non-gun homes. I suspect he did this study and it didn't give the results he wanted, so he came up with the stupid "the gun is X times more likely to kill you than an intruder". It makes for good news headlines but is absolutely meaningless.
     
  24. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,462
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    And this overcomes people not wanting to talk about or report self-defense uses ....how?????

    I won't deny that subsequent studies might provide better results ... but it just seems to some factors will always be imponderables ... to me, atleast.
    Maybe I'm being too picky.:scrutiny:
     
  25. RPCVYemen

    RPCVYemen Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    The point would be that someone might have figured out some other methodology to get at the number of defensive gun uses. I'm sorry I didn't state that - I thought it was obvious, since folks are probably no more or less likely to report now than they were are the time of the original study.

    The original study was set of telephone interviews that extrapolated something like 1.5 million defensive uses based on 80 or so defensive gun uses reported in the telephone survey.

    In essence, as I recall the methodology, they called up some number of people, and asked if they had used a gun for self defense. Some very small percentage of the folks they called said they had used a gun for self defense. They measured that percentage, and multiplied it times the population of the US as a whole to get the number of defensive gun uses in the US as a whole.

    That seems like fine methodology to start with, but when you extrapolate from 80 to 1.5 million, I am a bit skeptical.

    Mike
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page