Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

[rushmc 23]

A certain poster here likes to make this claim regularly on this site

Time to take at least one contrary look at that claim

Quote

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

So now consider this

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Quote

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

"used to kill someone in self-defense" does not equal "defensive gun uses."

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

The biggest problem with accurately estimating DGUs is that most (well over 90%) end with the aggressor running away with no shots being fired. In many of these, the DGUer doesn't bother to call the pollice, so there isn't any record of the incident.

Look through the "Did you ever have to use your gun" thread. Most are "I felt threatened, I showed the person that I was able and willing to use force to stop them, they left."

And with no police reports, you have to take people at their word. I think there's a world of difference between someone using a gun to defend themselves and someone seeing a flying saucer, but those who don't wish to believe guns can be used for good will make the comparison to discredit the idea of self-reporting.
And some of those people aren't going to tell the truth. Some will minimize what they did, others will exaggerate. In an ideal world, the two extremes would cancel each other out, but it's not ideal.

Because of this, the Kleck study is flawed. How flawed is a subject of a lot of debate.

And the Kellerman study, while statistically accurate, is flawed becuase it only counts self defense deaths. It completely ignores all the incidents where a gun was used in self defense where the attacker didn't die. It's also flawed because it counts any relationship between the shooter and the decedent as "friends" or "family." That includes members of opposing gangs and estranged spouses (both homicide and self defense)

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,151]

Kleck's methods were so flawed that when used on another issue they "proved" that 10% of Americans had been in a spacecraft from another world.

Don't bet your family's safety on Kleck's numbers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Kleck's methods were so flawed that when used on another issue they "proved" that 10% of Americans had been in a spacecraft from another world.

Don't bet your family's safety on Kleck's numbers.

Kellermans were no better

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Kleck's methods were so flawed that when used on another issue they "proved" that 10% of Americans had been in a spacecraft from another world.

Don't bet your family's safety on Kleck's numbers.

Kellermans were no better

No, but the DoJ's are. So are Hemenway's.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Perspective is important too

Quote

by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

[Editor's note: A version of this piece was published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous than guns." ]

What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

When I read your posts all they ever do is say ...oh this is wrong...I'm right. Post your solution so everyone else can debate rather than just constantly saying whos datum is incorrect and who's is.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

When I read your posts all they ever do is say ...oh this is wrong...I'm right. Post your solution so everyone else can debate rather than just constantly saying whos datum is incorrect and who's is.

I did already.

You could try paying attention.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling. There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

[jclalor 12]

Quote

A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[14] Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses;[15] however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias".[16] In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

[champu 1]

Quote

When I read your posts all they ever do is say ...oh this is wrong...I'm right. Post your solution so everyone else can debate rather than just constantly saying whos datum is incorrect and who's is.

People use this site as a form of entertainment in a great many ways. Kallend enjoys making ambiguous or suggestive statements and then mocking anyone who responds reading into his suggestion and also generally riling up certain folks around here by focusing on the GOP congress and other conservative groups. A lot of my posts are criticizing the arguments/suggestions of people I don't fundamentally disagree with if you take a couple steps back, which I suppose is similar and/or equally annoying at times, so I can't really fault him.

In any event, the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" adage seems particularly applicable to the discussion of home defense gun usages vs. "family" getting injured or killed. You can debate all you want about what numbers to start with but all the projecting and estimating of what might have happened in different situations sounds like people arguing about the parameters of the Drake equation. And unfortunately, I'm not convinced there are any players (i.e. quoted references) involved who actually give a shit about coming up with a correct assessment.

[regulator 0]

You are correct. I have high ambitions from John about how he could use that amazingly bright mind of his to illustrate to others how wrong guns were by using physics and complex algorythms. Amazing us with some of what his students might be allowed to see. Squashing all doubt and showing everyone that he could be the savior for gun control. By simply reading what he had to offer, But instead we're stuck with a child stuck in a mans body that can only hurl insults and ambiguity instead of logical thought.

Yeah that should rile him up

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I have high ambitions from John about how he could use that amazingly bright mind of his to illustrate to others how wrong guns were bad by using physics and complex algorythms. Amazing us with some of what his students might be allowed to see.

His students pay darn good money to hear the Prof expound on those matters, and you want it for free? What are you son a God damn Commie or something?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[regulator 0]

Anything would be better that what he is currently offering to those who frequent the sc.

[Skyrad 0]

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[rhaig 0]

ah yes, but that 2.5M number can't possibly be true because then the guns would be preventing more death than they cause (by a factor of about 2.5). And we can't have that... That would shoot holes in a certain person's claims.

(I might add, that since deciding that comments by that person or replies to his comments aren't worth my time to read or respond to, I've gotten a lot more reading done... He's quite prolific with his BS here.)

--
Rob

[rushmc 23]

Quote

ah yes, but that 2.5M number can't possibly be true because then the guns would be preventing more death than they cause (by a factor of about 2.5). And we can't have that... That would shoot holes in a certain person's claims.

(I might add, that since deciding that comments by that person or replies to his comments aren't worth my time to read or respond to, I've gotten a lot more reading done... He's quite prolific with his BS here.)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

ah yes, but that 2.5M number can't possibly be true because then the guns would be preventing more death than they cause (by a factor of about 2.5). And we can't have that... That would shoot holes in a certain person's claims.

(I might add, that since deciding that comments by that person or replies to his comments aren't worth my time to read or respond to, I've gotten a lot more reading done... He's quite prolific with his BS here.)

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Anything would be better that what he is currently offering to those who frequent the sc.

But you get it for free, so STFU.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Anything would be better that what he is currently offering to those who frequent the sc.

But you get it for free, so STFU.

You get what you pay for?


I love it when people argue about the validity of one "study" vs another. Few, if any, are based on the same parameters so of course the numbers don't jibe.

About the suicide issue...Well, Duh! If I'm going to commit suicide, I'd prefer to do it with the quickest and most painless method available to me. Are you guys saying that the only reason for the suicides is because there is a weapon in the house? Take the weapon away to prevent suicides?



You do realize that people commit suicide by skydiving. Do you think we should take all the planes away? Please tell me no.
.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Starting your autobiography I see

[rushmc 23]

You are on a roll today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[regulator 0]

why dont you do what do best...sue me