I've run across this claim before, so it's pretty easy to eviscerate it.
Until recently, Faria was head of a small group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) which put out its "findings" in a publication called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS). Here's what Science-Based Medicine says about AAPS:
It is not an exaggeration to say that the AAPS, through its journal JPANDS, is waging a war on science- and evidence-based medicine in the name of its politics.
In addition to opposition to any gun control, AAPS also claims:
- Fluoridation of drinking water is against freedom;
- HIV does not cause AIDS;
- Vaccinations cause autism and that "shaken baby syndrome" is a hoax and is caused by vaccinations;
- Abortion causes breast cancer;
- Climate change is a hoax;
- Illegal aliens bring the "plague" and leprosy to the US;
- That Barack Obama used "mind control" to win election in 2008.
A simple Google search on "Kellerman debunked' will give you well over 100 links.
ReplyDeleteKellerman himself corrected his numbers in a 1996 study.
"after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; ....."
In other words, if there's no hostory of violence in the family, you do not engage in drug or gang related activities (including associations), your risk of injusry falls to 2.7%
Clearly you guys should do more more reading. You'll have better luck away from the VPC or Brady sites which never seem to update their information.
Anon: Per usual--you aren't the first--you're confusing two separate studies measuring two different issues.
ReplyDeleteBTW, if you Google "aliens walk among us"--you get 856000 hits. I suspect you'd get similar numbers for "Jesus cured my..."
Re the 2.7x risk, I'm afraid you're not reading the study. It's a case control study--which is designed to account for factors such as drug/alcohol use, criminal behavior, etc. This means your risk--absent such factors--is 2.7x greater if you have a gun in the house than if you do not.
"Anon: Per usual--you aren't the first--you're confusing two separate studies measuring two different issues.
ReplyDeleteIs the snark necessary? I can play elsewhere. The second study was used to correct the first. Kellerman even states that as his reason for the control group. Even he admits some of the initial criticism was valid.
"I suspect you'd get similar numbers for "Jesus cured my..."
LOL. Doesn't change the fact that many sources have refuted Kellerman or explained how his numbers do not explain the 'whole' story. Miguel Faria notwithstanding.
"This means your risk--absent such factors--is 2.7x greater if you have a gun in the house than if you do not"
So my risk is 2.7x greater than a house without firearms. Peachy. There is risk in everything. So do tell, what is your risk as a non-gunowner? (Its certainly not zero)
Not to add a distraction but how that that par with the odds of being a violent crime victim? Odds being 1:20 as reported by the BJS National Crime Survey.
Both taken as pure numbers, the odds are still better at being prepared for violent crime even if that just means better locks, living in a nicer community, an alarm system, not texting while walking, or even owning a gun.
BTW - Does it bother you in the least that Kellerman's study was only done in one area of a state with moderate violent crime? As opposed to a higher violent crime state like NY, Fl or CA? Or opposed to a low violent crime state like Utah or Virginia?
IMO - That's a problem with localized research regardless of which side one falls on.
Fair to say we are both advocates so believing the other side is unlikely. Even if the odds are only 2.7x greater, you'll find little traction given the perceived benefits of gun ownership (those you reject out of hand).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Those are not "many sources," as much as pro-gun bloggers repeating over and over again what is not true. That's the very hallmark of pro-gun blogging, after all.
ReplyDeleteJadegold already pointed out that you didn't quite say it right. After removing those other factors, the risk is STILL 2.7 times greater. That was the point, not what you said.
You biased, closed-minded gun lovers were saying a gun in the house results in increased safety. Kellerman showed it does not.
MikeB: “Jadegold already pointed out that you didn't quite say it right. After removing those other factors, the risk is STILL 2.7 times greater. That was the point, not what you said.”
ReplyDeleteKellermann’s same study (with the same control factors) also says we are 4.4 times more likely to be a murder victim if we rent our living space vs. own. So that is a bigger factor than guns according to him. Therefore we should make it real easy for people to buy a house (even if they can’t afford it). Interest only loans for everybody! Think of the lives that will be saved. Can you explain how that works?
TS: The fact is that if you rent, you are more likely to be poor and must live in less than desirable neighborhoods. So, of course, there's a greater risk if you're poor than if you're wealthy.
ReplyDeleteBut let's also remember gunloons are fond of asserting that owning a gun makes them safer--when, as Kellermann and others show--the opposite is true.
Jade: “The fact is that if you rent, you are more likely to be poor and must live in less than desirable neighborhoods. So, of course, there's a greater risk if you're poor than if you're wealthy.”
ReplyDeleteAh, so Kellermann didn’t properly control for other variables as you have told us.
Jade: “But let's also remember gunloons are fond of asserting that owning a gun makes them safer--when, as Kellermann and others show--the opposite is true.”
Did he? If you take a household without guns and then add a gun, are they now more likely to be murdered? If you take that same household and move them into rented home, are they now more likely to be murdered by an even greater factor? If you are going to swear by the former, then the latter has to be true as well.
TS: If I were Jon Sullivan (Linoge), I'd type out a melodramatic "sigh."
ReplyDeleteNo, had you read the study, Kellermann did control for the rent v. own factor. The entire basis behind case-control studies of this sort is to isolate and separate factors such these so they are not a factor is influencing a study's results.
IOW,were you to be both a renter and keep a gun in the household, your risk would be far greater than 4.4x. The risks are cumulative as you add more risk factors such as drug use and/or criminal backgrounds, etc.
TS: Additionally: case control methodologies like this were almost exactly the same used in determining smoking poses a greater risk of cancer and other ailments.
ReplyDeleteThus, if you were to work in a coal mine and smoke cigarettes, your risk would be much greater than if you engaged in only one of these factors.
So what you are saying is that you believe in this statement:
ReplyDeleteIf you take a family (no guns) and the only change that happens is that they become tenants instead of homeowners. All other factors remain equal- it is just now their checks get written to a landlord instead of a bank (say they sold their house and still maintained occupancy). They are now 4.4 times more likely to be murdered.
Is that your stance? Because that is what I asked, and you didn’t broach it. And if you are going to say that adding a gun increases the risk, then the above change would be an even greater risk independant of each other.
Jade: “No, had you read the study, Kellermann did control for the rent v. own factor. The entire basis behind case-control studies of this sort is to isolate and separate factors such these so they are not a factor is influencing a study's results.”
ReplyDeleteBut you just told us that Kellermann did not factor income levels into the rent vs own results. So which is it? Do you stand by the statement I made above, or do you stand by this statement where you told us that Kellermann did not properly control for income levels?
TS, It really sounds like you're nit picking. Guns are bad news, man. Face it. The reason is simple. Most people, not you perhaps, but most people don't do the proper training and/or don't have the sufficient intelligence and common sense to make it safer to own guns than not.
ReplyDeleteRenting is bad news, man. Face it. So says Kellermann.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about, TS?
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you read the study, you'd understand Kellermann looked at about three dozen factors.
I notice you omitted (perhaps because you didn't read the study) that guns in the household actually presented a greater risk (2.7x) than someone in the household having an arrest record (2.5x).
Jade, if you are going to continue in this discussion you should answer the damn question. You say Kellermann did a case study that correctly isolated different variables for risks of homicide. So far we have discussed the following results: 2.5x for prior arrest, 2.7x for guns in the home, and 4.4x for renters. You also contradicted yourself by telling us that Kellermann DID NOT properly control for income levels regarding the renters. So which is it? You have two options: either it is a proper case study, so clearly renting is a significantly greater risk than having an arrest record or having a gun. Or you can explain away the ridicules assertion that someone who switches to renting their current living area is at greater risk for homicide by saying it WAS NOT a proper case study, because clearly he did not account for income disparity. Which one?
ReplyDeleteTS: again, you need to read the study instead of pretending you've found something magically wrong with the study.
ReplyDeleteYou insist on pretending Kellermann compared poor, impoverished gun owners against wealthy non-gun owners. It did not happen. The survey controlled for neighborhoods. The researchers matched the control subjects by neighborhood to the case subjects.
The homicides which were studied came from three metro areas. The first two were Shelby County, Tennessee (which includes Memphis), and King County, Washington (which includes Seattle), both from August 1987 to August 1992. The third was Cuyahoga County, Ohio (which includes Cleveland), from January 1990 to August 1992. King County is predominately white and enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Cuyahoga County is 25 percent African-American, as is 44 percent of Shelby County. The poverty levels of these counties were 5, 11 and 15 percent, respectively. (The national poverty rate in 1992 was 15 percent.)
Thus, your claims the study didn't account for wealth or poverty or economic level are false.
TS: I think you're trying to make the ludicrous claim that since renting poses a 4.4X times greater risk--by itself--we should just laugh off the study because guns pose "only" a 2.7X greater risk that not owning one.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fairly specious argument for a number of reasons. First, gunloons are fond of telling us how guns *save* lives and are a net benefit to gunowners. This study strongly debunks such claims.
Second, WRT renters, very few impoverished people own homes. In fact, section 8 housing assistance provides only rental subsidies. By and large, poor people are compelled to rent as opposed to owning.
Jade: "Thus, your claims the study didn't account for wealth or poverty or economic level are false."
ReplyDeleteJade, Jade, you are not listening to me. Stop for just a second and listen, Ok...
YOU said he did not account for income levels in his rental results. YOU SAID IT. Are you now retracting that statement?
Jadegold already pointed out that you didn't quite say it right. After removing those other factors, the risk is STILL 2.7 times greater. That was the point, not what you said.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to get her to clarify. The risk is supposedly 1/43 for everyone. An increase of 2.7 times if there's a gun in the house. You may correct my 'new' math so lets say the risk then drops to 1/40 with a gun in the house. Are those then not the odds?
Its a lifetime risk 1/20 to be involved in violent crime. So one is twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime then be killed from a firearm.
You biased, closed-minded gun lovers were saying a gun in the house results in increased safety. Kellerman showed it does not.
Same back at ya. Kellerman didn't look at a lot of factors. Not a single benefit which Faria points out. There are costs and benefits to everything. That's what risk assessment (when done properly) tends to show. If one only looks at costs, you're only looking at half the story. And that's Kellerman.
BTW - I noticed the best anyone here has done is to slander Miguel Faria as opposed to critiquing any of his work.
Perhaps you should critique his work for a blog entry. Might carry more weight.