GunLoon Myths: The Changing Numbers of Dr. Kellermann
When dealing with gunloons, you always have to understand the gunloon often hasn’t the faintest idea of what he is talking about. Whenever, you mention Dr. Arthur Kellermann, this ignorance tends to go into hyperdrive.
Kellermann is a CDC epidemiologist who has studied emergency cardiac care, injury prevention, healthcare and insurance, and firearm-related deaths and injuries. The latter issue causes gunloons to foam at the mouth.
Kellermann authored or co-authored some 50 peer-reviewed studies on firearm-related deaths or injuries. Several stand out and received a great deal of attention. One study in particular had two particular and distinct findings on different issues–this, of course, created great confusion among gunloons (like Thirdpower) who believes Kellermann has changed his numbers or findings.
The study measured whether a “firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home.” This study found “that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).” IOW, a gun in the home carries a nearly three times greater risk of homicide than a home without a firearm.
The other finding produced by the study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. IOW, gun-owning households saw an increased (21 times) murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances.
Gunloons are usually confused by this, having never read the study, and will often attack Kellermann on the erroneous basis that Kellermann has revised his figures from 3 to 21 or vice-versa.
Then again, gunloons usually aren’t well-read and repeat the propaganda of their masters at the NRA.
Ah, just the typical play on numbers that is typical of any PSH “research”
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
To bad it’s a fact that the majority of homicides are by and against prior criminals and the other 80 million households aren’t involved at all.
Comment by thirdpower — September 18, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Exactly- I will still take the chance and keep a firearm in my house for protection. I can not understand how anyone would give up the right to protect themselves and their loved ones– guess the majority of the antis have 24 hour police presence on every street corner and a 3-5 second 911 response time. I don’t.
Comment by Scott — September 18, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Next up, household who have insulin are over a hundred times more likely to house a type-1 diabetic than insulin free houses!
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 19, 2007 @ 9:23 am
Thirdpower demonstrates once more he hasn’t read Kellermann’s study. If he had, he probably wouldn’t make the ignorant comment he did. The fact is the Kellermann study controlled for criminal backgrounds.
I realize Thirdpower isn’t bright to understand what “controlled for” means in a study of this kind, so I will attempt to explain it to him. The Kellermann study utilized the case control method which compares the differences between two groups: one that possesses a certain trait, and another that does not. In the Kellermann study, a number of factors were examined including drug/alcohol abuse, criminal background, home owned or rented, etc.
In point of fact, a gun in a household where more than one party had a criminal background presented a much higher risk than 2.7 times.
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Scott again confuses faith with evidence.
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Michael: Why demonstrate your ignorance? Can’t we just acknowledge it and move on? Or shall I expalin to you how silly your analogy is?
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 9:29 am
It’s OK butterbars. We understand that you have to grasp at the straws of a failing political movement to make yourself feel better about yourself and get a little attention. All Kellerman did was tweak some cherry-picked numbers and create some talking points. He didn’t “prove” anything.
Comment by thirdpower — September 19, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Once more, Thirdpower cannot offer proof of his claims. That’s because such evidence simply doesn’t exist.
And as for my “failing political movement,” polls consistently show Americans favor stricter gun laws by a wide margin over those who favor less strict laws. George Bush could only dream of ‘failing’ so well.
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Right. Providing links isn’t “proof” in butterbar’s world. His version of “proof” is repeating Kevin’s name over and over again. I guess he has convieniently forgotten the recent polls on gun laws and NRA support that have already been sourced on Snowflakes even though he was involved in that thread. But we don’t really expect much more. Do we?
Comment by thirdpower — September 19, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Your link was demonstrated to be false. It claimed Kellermann’s study was disproportionately comprised of past criminal offenders. Yet, his study controlled for that.
Additionally, your link cites Kleck who does change his numbers more frequently than you change your underoos. Of course, Kleck’s “research” has been thoroughly debunked on this site.
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
OK butterbar. Since you say so it must be true. Ad Hominems, selective reading, and all.
Remember folks “controlled” doesn’t really = tweaking the numbers to say whatever you want them to.
Of course the fact that he’s never released his full data sets is just more proof of how strong these “research papers” are.
Comment by thirdpower — September 19, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Thirdpower, your gunloon pals are going to start thinking you’re on my side given the way you keep teeing up the issues for me.
The Data Sets Thirdpower Claims Kellermann Never Released
Comment by Administrator — September 19, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
No, No, No,. Not confusing facts with faith. You and I both can quote stats all daaaaay long. I will not change your mind, and you will not change mine. Unless it can be proven that 100% of all households that contain firearms will have some type of accident or death due to them, that stat means nothing. The one stat, in my case, that is 100% true is that any “bad” guy that enters my house, car, or property with intent to do harm to me or my family will suffer an increased chance of dying.
Comment by Scott — September 19, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
“Michael: Why demonstrate your ignorance? Can’t we just acknowledge it and move on? Or shall I explain to you how silly your analogy is?”
.
Please do!
.
I’ll even elaborate on that analogy:
People who fear they are at risk of being murdered buy weapons to protect them from that perceived threat.
.
Murder is a highly personal matter which most often takes place between acquainted people.
.
Thus, it’s no surprise that households with a gun are more likely to house a victim of violent crime, perpetrated either by a member of the household or by an outsider.
.
Please Jade, do tell me how silly I am! Silly would be people insinuating causality which cannot be proven.
.
So after you point out how silly I am, could you please answer this question:
Are people more likely to get killed BECAUSE a gun is present in their household?
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 20, 2007 @ 4:50 am
Michael: I’ll answer your last question first: yes. The evidence is plain, a gun in the household presents a higher risk of homicide to its inhabitants than those that don’t.
What’s more–a gun is many more times more likely to be used against a household member or intimate acquaintance than an unknown intruder.
Comment by Administrator — September 20, 2007 @ 8:53 am
No, I’m afraid you are wrong. Kellermann’s numerous studies never demonstrated that the murder weapon was the actual gun kept “in” the home. PLUS, as shown in Deltoid by a commenter who reviewed the data (unanswered by Lambert) , most homicides were committed by nonresidents.
Comment by k-romulus — September 20, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
K-R: What you say is true; Kellermann’s research didn’t demonstrate the murder weapon was the actual weapon used in the homicide. However, what you’re suggesting is far more remote: that people came to a household (that happened to have a firearm) with a weapon (not always a gun) and were involved in a gun homicide. A possibility is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brings a gun to a household (with a gun), intent on mayhem. However, this remote possibility doesn’t help your argument that a gun in the house makes one safer.
WRT to your second point, I’m afraid you’re confusing the issue. The study never claimed residents committed most of the homicides–it said: gun-owning households saw an increased (21 times) murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances.
Comment by Administrator — September 21, 2007 @ 7:42 am