Which Anti-Gun Studies Have Backfired?

The AMA antis recently published a paper concluding that the restrictions placed on gun owners by the Brady Bill have had no effect what so ever on crime. DUH! When laws only effect law abiding citizens, of course there will be no effect on crime.

Another report, can't remember who released it, stated that a number of women who had purchased firearms to protect themselves had been raped and/assulted during the Brady waiting period. So in effect the Brady Bill was responsible.

Mark / FL
 
The "Guns in America" survey by Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig (same people responsible for the JAMA article saying Brady doesn't work) was meant to debunk the Kleck claim of 2.5 million DGUs a year.

Instead it recorded 1.5 million DGUs a year using Cook and Ludwig's methodology. If they had used Kleck's methodology (which allowed a person to report more than one DGU within the past year) they would have had 4.7 million estimated DGUs per year.
 
You'll notice that the "43x more likely to kill your family" study isn't used much anymore. This is because we realized that the study was performed backwards.

They looked at homicides that happend at "home" (i put this in quotes because it was not well defined in the study) and found that IF you are murdered in your home, it is 43x more likely that the home also contained a gun (not that you were killed by said gun, mind you.)

But this is just bunk. How many homes contain a gun in which there is no homicide? The Study only showed statistics about homes in which homicides occured, not gun owners. One could (and i do) argue that a home in which a homicide occurs is not the "average" home in America; this is a home in which you'll probably find rampant drug use and other criminal behavior.

A very good essay on this can be found at www.cato.org (just search on gun control...)



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
The Wright-Rossi report and, as already mentioned, Kellerman report. Rossi published what he found. Kellerman did, but the good stuff is hidden in the raw data, he attempted to skew the data and presented it as supporting his view. To do this he had to heavily represent the 'high risk' group and use the wrong statistical model.
 
The "43:1" ratio study by Kellerman is interesting. I recommend all gun owners read the report.

Is the Kellerman study regarding "gun uses"? No. Mainly the study is focused on deaths from gun "misuse". Of which 83% were suicides.
Kellermann also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." In short, Kellermann ignored the vast majority of situations in which legally armed citizens frightened away intruders simply by displaying a firearm.

"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." What a joke.

-------

Here are some interesting quotes from the article.

"Although previous authors have correlated regional suicide rates with estimates of firearm density, the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear." "...the choice of a gun may simply reflect the seriousness of a person's intent."

"Of the 743 deaths from firearms noted during this six year period, 473(63.7%) occurred inside a house or dwelling, and 398(53.6%) occurred in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Of these 398 firearm deaths, 333(83.7) were suicides, 50(12.6%) were homicides, and 12(3%) were accidental gunshot deaths."

"A blood ethanol test was positive in 27 of 47 victims tested (57%) and showed a blood ethanol level of 100mg per deciliter or more in 10 of the victims(21%)."

"Forty-two homicides(84%) occurred during altercations in the home, including seven that were later determined to have been committed in self-defense. Two additional homicides involving the shooting of burglars by residents were considered legally "justifiable". Forty-one homicides(82%) resulted in criminal charges against a resident of the house or apartment in which the shooting occurred."

"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified."

This last quote makes me think of a sign I have yet to see posted in anybody's yard.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> "We are unarmed, please leave us alone"[/quote]

-------

Not to mention and second what USP45 said about this not being the average gun-owning home. I mean, how many of us have killed a friend or spouse? Paaaleeeeze.

Again how if it is suggested that guns "cause" or "induce" suicide, how come Japan has such a high suicide rate? Culture maybe?

---------

Does anybody have a good link to debunking this article?

Regards,
MP
 
You can't forget that one gem that also appeared in kellerman's "study". According to him, you are 60 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime where a gun is used if you have a deadbolt on your front door!

There also was the "you are 400 times more likely to be a victim if you are male".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top