"Brian Trdina" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> "BBC3" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > "A gun in the home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, seven
> > times more like to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be
> > used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense."
> >
> > Kellerman, Arthur L., et. al. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of
> > Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care. Volume 45, No. 2. August 1998
> > ---------------------------------------------
>
> The kellerman study (a favorite reference by the gun control crowd) only counted cases where the
> gun was acutally fired as a 'uses in self defense.'
Half a truth. The Kellermann 1986 study (a favorite reference of the Kellermann bashing crowd) did.
The followup study in 1993 looked at the simple question: did homes where there was a gun present
have a higher, lower, or unchanged risk of domestic homicide. The raw data showed a higher risk of
homicide, over all subgroups of the population (criminals, upstanding citizens, white, black,
history of violence, no history, etc.) and the final result was an independent overall 2.7X increase
in risk of domestic homicide from having a gun present in the house, after factoring out criminal
history, history of violence, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, and many other factors. The risk was
entirely from an increase in domestic/family/romantic type shootings, where somebody familiar with
the house and with the gun shoots another. There was no effect on risk of homicide from forced
intrusions, increase or decrease. The added risk was greater for guns kept unlocked and/or loaded.
No big surprise.
> In the vast majority of cases where a firearm is emloyed in a defensive capacity, merely showing
> the potential attacker the gun is enough to difuse the situation.
Kind of bogus. Where are you getting this data from? If it is the famous 98% bandied around and now
claimed by John Lott, be aware that there is serious doubt. The survey he now claims to have done to
get this figure (after claiming that it came from other researchers' surveys but being proved wrong)
but lost due to computer crash, shows no other signs of having existed; and at best, would have had
a total of about 25 defensive gun uses, out of his claimed sample of 2,424 individuals surveyed, if
you believe Kleck's 2,500,000 DGUs yearly (which itself is way overinflated). If you can explain how
you can get a 98/2 percentage breakdown out of 25 individuals, you get a prize. You're at least way
ahead of Lott, who hasn't been able to.
> Also, comparing guns used in suicides with guns used in
> defense of crimes is comparing apples to oranges.
Well, not exactly, but I see what you mean.
>
> The most well-reasearched evaluation of the effects of gun posession on crime rates was done by
> John Lott (a University of Chicago Economist), and it concluded that, in virtually every case
> examamed, increased civilian posession of firearms results in lower rates of violent crime (title:
> More Guns, Less Crime www.amazon.com). Perhaps the most telling aspect of the book is that Lott
> was personally favored gun control until he performed the research that led to its publication.
Again, something claimed for Lott, although I haven't heard him say it himself. How odd, since in
everything else he is an extreme libertarian, even to the point of arguing that laws against crime
in general may not be as beneficial to society as letting some crime exist. Before you jump to his
defense and accuse me of character assassination, note that he has in the last week admitted to
having a Usenet pseudonym under which he engaged his critics in debates regarding his research, and
also tried to bolster his defense of his questionable survey. Posting under a pseudonym is not a
problem, but using the pseudonym to engage in academic battles with your critics rather than doing
so openly sure is, and attempting to pose your alter ego as independent corroboration is definitely
not cool. He denied it for a while but finally owned up, which must have taken guts.
>Of couse, its much simpler for his critics to demagogue the issue than it is to try to understand
>and subsequently employ sound statistical methods to analyse the available data.
Ahh bull. This has been treated again and again. Lott's work is very complex and each complication
can be a source of error. He makes varied assumptions that are questionable but inevitably aid his
case; for instance, he lumps the effects of concealed carry loosening together for all states, and
also doesn't address the question of the different periods of time snce the various states
instituted CCW loosening. As a result, it's clear that what is happening is mostly that Florida, a
large state which relaxed CCW early on and had a drop in violent crime, is carrying the whole study,
along with a little help from middlesized Georgia which also loosened CCW early and had a drop, and
big TX which came on board later and also had a drop in crime. But most of the states that relaxed
CCW showed no decrease and often an increase in violent crime afterwards, if you treat them
individually and not as part of one big CCW-relaxed whole. And there is no overall constancy between
types of crime; some states have increased murder and decreased rapes, some the other way around,
etc. He theorizes that criminals are afraid of being shot and will transfer their business to
nonviolent crime like auto theft, but his biggest effect overall is on rape, suggesting that fear of
armed victims is causing rapists to give up rape and become auto thieves, more than armed robbers.
He finds a similar decrease in crimes on men and women, when it's mostly men who are getting CCW
permits not women, and on childrem as well when no children are allowed CCW permits. And when one
looks at the actual numbers, you see that the numbers of crimes stopped by an armed victim is
miniscule; a dozen reported in Miami, compared to 100,000 arrests by police. Even if you assume 90%
aren't reported, it's still trivial, to see such a big effect on crime. He comes out with some very
odd results, such as the violent crime rate being not very sensitive to the number of young black
males, but highly sensitive to the number of elderly black females. If you don't believe that to be
valid, then you can't pick other results of the study, such as more guns less crime, to be proved.
> Its also remarkable that some of the country's leading medical journals have allowed themselves to
> be the tools by which poor data analyses masking as 'science' are presented to the public.
What's remarkable is that the gun lobby has enlisted so many perfectly willing lay preachers to go
about spreading the gospel about how bad Kellermann is and how great Lott is, when they clearly
don't have clue one about what it is they are saying; and they have the nerve to call people who
have actually familiarized themselves with the field and disagree with them, sheep.
>Its a telling commentary on how far seemingly rational people (scientists, no less) will go to
>cling to the litany that they've established for themselves as the truth.
Yes, it certainly is, irony intended. Does not bode well for the future of America that easily led
sheep like to arm themselves heavily and express animosity towards anyone who disagrees with them.
