Violent crime on London "Tubes" up 45% over the last 3 years....but they banned guns?

[2aguy]

You can't afford both the police and your government healthcare....... if you think the farther left political party is going to save you, you truly are delusional....

 

[2aguy]

go and look at the CDC research studies and you will see...

...Nothing, just gathering statistics...no, wait, "According to the research, 39,773 people were fatally shot in 2017, a figure that has grown by more than 10,000 people since 1999. CDC data going back to 1979 shows that last year had the highest rates of gun deaths in nearly 40 years." Gun Deaths in the U.S. Are at Their Highest Rates in Decades, CDC Says

Lack of any control over firearms is "detrimental" to public health, wouldn't you agree?

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research? You are wrong, as in all things .....

 

[Vagabond63]

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research?

No.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

 

[Vagabond63]

You can't afford both the police and your government healthcare...

Prove it.

 

[2aguy]

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research?

No.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

And the research into guns in the home was flawed from the start.....as I keep showing joe, the other anti-gunner....the Kellerman research looked at violent homes instead of normal homes....

You really should catch up to the fake research before you post.....

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

And more ......

The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

 

[Vagabond63]

"17.25 million Americans carry guns". Really? Without gun control, how do you know?

 

[2aguy]

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research?

No.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

I showed you two studies done by the CDC after this amendment....and there is more....showing that it is a lie that the CDC can't do gun research...what they can't do is "advocate research" research that advocates for banning guns....

You can keep pushing the lie, but the internet shows it is a lie....

No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.


Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.

Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.

And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.

In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.

It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.

Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.

The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.

Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.

-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

 

[2aguy]

"17.25 million Americans carry guns". Really? Without gun control, how do you know?

States that have permit requirements.......so that number is even higher as several states don't require a permit to carry a gun......and yet, with all those people carrying guns....law abiding people......our gun crime rate has gone down 75%....how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our gun murder rate has gone down 49%...how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%...how do you explain that?

Thank you for bringing that number up for discussion, considering it shows your arguments for gun control have no basis in truth, facts or reality...very brave of you...

 

[Vagabond63]

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research?

No.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

And the research into guns in the home was flawed from the start.....as I keep showing joe, the other anti-gunner....the Kellerman research looked at violent homes instead of normal homes....

You really should catch up to the fake research before you post.....

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

And more ......

The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

... and these are unbiased sources? I thnik not.

 

[2aguy]

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research?

No.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

To show you are wrong, again....two studies on guns done by the CDC.....

Obama CDC Study: Silencers Best Option for Noise Reduction at Gun Ranges - The Truth About Guns

The CDC looked at a number of different solutions to reduce the exposure to the hazardous noise levels in shooting ranges and arrived at the same solution as every other logical gun owner: silencers.
The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.
Some gun control activists claim that noise on shooting ranges isn’t a health issue. The CDC says otherwise, and the report is right here in black and white. Are these luddites going to argue with science?


====================

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C.

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.



They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

 

[2aguy]

Didn't you claim in post #92 that the CDC wasn't doing gun research?

No.

“So we looked at the question, does having a gun at home protect your family or not?” Dr. Rosenberg recalled.

He was amazed by the answer. The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk.

“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”

To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

And the research into guns in the home was flawed from the start.....as I keep showing joe, the other anti-gunner....the Kellerman research looked at violent homes instead of normal homes....

You really should catch up to the fake research before you post.....

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

And more ......

The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

... and these are unbiased sources? I thnik not.

Then why did Kellerman change his research?

The first link is to the update Kellerman had to do after his research was shown to be flawed...and even then he didn't change his methods...but notice...his 43% became 2.7.....so obviously he was wrong, and is still wrong...

Kellerman's revised research after he was called out: remember it used to be 43%....

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[Vagabond63]

"17.25 million Americans carry guns". Really? Without gun control, how do you know?

States that have permit requirements.......so that number is even higher as several states don't require a permit to carry a gun......and yet, with all those people carrying guns....law abiding people......our gun crime rate has gone down 75%....how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our gun murder rate has gone down 49%...how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%...how do you explain that?

Thank you for bringing that number up for discussion, considering it shows your arguments for gun control have no basis in truth, facts or reality...very brave of you...

In other words, you have no idea how many people in you country own guns, posession of a permit (or lack of one) does not mean gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

"17.25 million Americans carry guns". Really? Without gun control, how do you know?

States that have permit requirements.......so that number is even higher as several states don't require a permit to carry a gun......and yet, with all those people carrying guns....law abiding people......our gun crime rate has gone down 75%....how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our gun murder rate has gone down 49%...how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%...how do you explain that?

Thank you for bringing that number up for discussion, considering it shows your arguments for gun control have no basis in truth, facts or reality...very brave of you...

In other words, you have no idea how many people in you country own guns, posession of a permit (or lack of one) does not mean gun ownership.

Yes.....they went to all the work of getting a permit to carry a gun, just to not carry a gun......this kind of thinking is how you lost your Empire.....

 

[2aguy]

"17.25 million Americans carry guns". Really? Without gun control, how do you know?

States that have permit requirements.......so that number is even higher as several states don't require a permit to carry a gun......and yet, with all those people carrying guns....law abiding people......our gun crime rate has gone down 75%....how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our gun murder rate has gone down 49%...how do you explain that? With all of those people carrying guns, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%...how do you explain that?

Thank you for bringing that number up for discussion, considering it shows your arguments for gun control have no basis in truth, facts or reality...very brave of you...

In other words, you have no idea how many people in you country own guns, posession of a permit (or lack of one) does not mean gun ownership.

From the Kellerman study...


In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.
Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

 

[Markle]

From David Schneider's own blog describing himself.

David SchneiderVerified account
@davidschneider
Actor, writer, director, fool. Less ranty version now available on http://www.instagram.com/davidschneideruk …

Strange Tommy Tainant, is it not?

Where does that indicate that he is, in any way, some sort of economic brain?

 

[Markle]

In other words, you have no idea how many people in you country own guns, posession of a permit (or lack of one) does not mean gun ownership.

What is your point?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

From David Schneider's own blog describing himself.

David SchneiderVerified account
@davidschneider
Actor, writer, director, fool. Less ranty version now available on http://www.instagram.com/davidschneideruk …

Strange Tommy Tainant, is it not?

Where does that indicate that he is, in any way, some sort of economic brain?

I dont think you need an especially big brain to understand what is going on. Anything slightly bigger than a conservatives will do.

 

[Vagabond63]

Nope.....we have more than enough control over guns, what we lack is control over gun criminals. This problem stems from our democrat party......they release violent, repeat gun offenders, the ones doing the shooting, over and over again.

Really? So do Republican controlled cities by the looks of things, cities like Jackson, Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Cincinnati, Dayton, Kansas, etc all have higher homicide rates than Chicago according to this article in 2016. Meet the Republicans representing cities with a higher murder rate than Chicago

And of course, they used suicides to get that number up....a dishonest action on their part to push their anti-self defense agenda.....

Suicide with a gun is a valid form of gun violence. Suicide is a mental health issue, remove guns and it makes it harder to kill yourself, giving you or your fasmilly time to seek help.

Here is the true measure...more Americans own and carry guns, while our crime rates drop.

Do they?

"According to our partners at USAFacts, a non-partisan, not-for-profit civic initiative aimed at making government data accessible and understandable, reported violent crime in the U.S. rose in both 2015 and 2016 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available). Violent crime includes aggravated assault, robbery, murder, non-negligent manslaughter, and rape.

Aggravated assault is the most common crime, with a rate nearly five times higher than murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Robberies and assaults have greatly decreased since the early 1990s, while the murder rate has not changed significantly since 1980, according to USAFacts.

The rate of reported rapes had also been holding steady since 1980, but preliminary data indicate that it went up in 2017."
U.S. Violent Crime on the Rise: Where and Why

You really should catch up to the fake research before you post.....

Oh good grief, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, another "unbiased" source? Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia

"Kellerman's study was peer reviewed and found to be accurate. Kellermann is known for his research on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries and deaths in the US. In a 1995 interview, Kellermann said he saw firearm injuries not as random, unavoidable acts but as preventable public health priority.[6] Kellermann's studies, which indicate an increased risk of mortality associated with gun ownership, have been disputed by gun rights organizations, in particular by the National Rifle Association; although Kellermann's findings have been supported by a large body of peer-reviewed research finding that increasing gun ownership is associated with increased rates of homicide and violence.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

You can keep pushing the lie, but the internet shows it is a lie....

Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

Yes.....they went to all the work of getting a permit to carry a gun, just to not carry a gun......this kind of thinking is how you lost your Empire.....

I have a private pilot's licence but I don't own an aircraft, many people have driver's licences but don't own cars. Gun permit holders may have sold their guns but still have a permit, that's your problem over there, you just don't know how many people own guns, and people are killed as a result.

 

[2aguy]

Nope.....we have more than enough control over guns, what we lack is control over gun criminals. This problem stems from our democrat party......they release violent, repeat gun offenders, the ones doing the shooting, over and over again.

Really? So do Republican controlled cities by the looks of things, cities like Jackson, Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Cincinnati, Dayton, Kansas, etc all have higher homicide rates than Chicago according to this article in 2016. Meet the Republicans representing cities with a higher murder rate than Chicago

And of course, they used suicides to get that number up....a dishonest action on their part to push their anti-self defense agenda.....

Suicide with a gun is a valid form of gun violence. Suicide is a mental health issue, remove guns and it makes it harder to kill yourself, giving you or your fasmilly time to seek help.

Here is the true measure...more Americans own and carry guns, while our crime rates drop.

Do they?

"According to our partners at USAFacts, a non-partisan, not-for-profit civic initiative aimed at making government data accessible and understandable, reported violent crime in the U.S. rose in both 2015 and 2016 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available). Violent crime includes aggravated assault, robbery, murder, non-negligent manslaughter, and rape.

Aggravated assault is the most common crime, with a rate nearly five times higher than murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Robberies and assaults have greatly decreased since the early 1990s, while the murder rate has not changed significantly since 1980, according to USAFacts.

The rate of reported rapes had also been holding steady since 1980, but preliminary data indicate that it went up in 2017."
U.S. Violent Crime on the Rise: Where and Why

You really should catch up to the fake research before you post.....

Oh good grief, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, another "unbiased" source? Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia

"Kellerman's study was peer reviewed and found to be accurate. Kellermann is known for his research on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries and deaths in the US. In a 1995 interview, Kellermann said he saw firearm injuries not as random, unavoidable acts but as preventable public health priority.[6] Kellermann's studies, which indicate an increased risk of mortality associated with gun ownership, have been disputed by gun rights organizations, in particular by the National Rifle Association; although Kellermann's findings have been supported by a large body of peer-reviewed research finding that increasing gun ownership is associated with increased rates of homicide and violence.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

You can keep pushing the lie, but the internet shows it is a lie....

Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

Yes.....they went to all the work of getting a permit to carry a gun, just to not carry a gun......this kind of thinking is how you lost your Empire.....

I have a private pilot's licence but I don't own an aircraft, many people have driver's licences but don't own cars. Gun permit holders may have sold their guns but still have a permit, that's your problem over there, you just don't know how many people own guns, and people are killed as a result.

Democrat party....

Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.



The top murder cities in this country are all controlled by the democrat party...

You didn't even do your research.....Baton Rouge for example...except for 2 republicans the city has been controlled by democrats since 1872.....

Little Rock, again, democrats...
Cincinnati....democrat mayors since 1951....you doofus...did you even look at these cities?

Suicide....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

Crime 2015-2016......

The reason crime went up between 2015-2016, is obama, black lives matter and a concentrated effort to attack the police in this country that led to the Ferguson Effect....and now that obama is out of office, that tide has turned...

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

And now? After obama is gone?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/data-suggests-uptick-in-murders-tapering-off/

There are charts in the article you will want to use..

Whatever the case with Chicago, the national trends are encouraging. Look, for instance, at the ten biggest U.S. cities. We now have homicide figures for the first half of 2018 (via the FBI, police departments, and local media coverage) and can compare these with data from the same time period in the last eight years. We had crime spikes in 2012, 2016, and 2017.

But 2018, at least so far, looks good. The ten-city total is down by 6 percent relative to last year. Not standing-ovation territory, but certainly the right direction.

Another indicator is the trend in the cities red-flagged by criminologist Richard Rosenfeld when crime first rose between 2014 and 2015. Rosenfeld found that these ten cities alone accounted for nearly two-thirds of the increase in homicides nationwide.

As you can see, in 2018 crime dropped in eight of ten of these red-flag cities, and cumulatively the decline was 14 percent.

What about the Big Apple? Regardless of scary reports that citywide shootings were up 16 percent in July, and that Bronx murders had risen by almost one-third, the long-term picture still looks good. There’s been an increase since last year — but last year was an unusually safe one.

When crime first shot up in 2015 and 2016, I pointed out that there’s a big difference between a crime spike, which may last a few years, and a crime boom, such as the one this country suffered from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. I’m sticking to my story.

And our Crime rate is dropping....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Nope.....we have more than enough control over guns, what we lack is control over gun criminals. This problem stems from our democrat party......they release violent, repeat gun offenders, the ones doing the shooting, over and over again.

Really? So do Republican controlled cities by the looks of things, cities like Jackson, Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Cincinnati, Dayton, Kansas, etc all have higher homicide rates than Chicago according to this article in 2016. Meet the Republicans representing cities with a higher murder rate than Chicago

And of course, they used suicides to get that number up....a dishonest action on their part to push their anti-self defense agenda.....

Suicide with a gun is a valid form of gun violence. Suicide is a mental health issue, remove guns and it makes it harder to kill yourself, giving you or your fasmilly time to seek help.

Here is the true measure...more Americans own and carry guns, while our crime rates drop.

Do they?

"According to our partners at USAFacts, a non-partisan, not-for-profit civic initiative aimed at making government data accessible and understandable, reported violent crime in the U.S. rose in both 2015 and 2016 (the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available). Violent crime includes aggravated assault, robbery, murder, non-negligent manslaughter, and rape.

Aggravated assault is the most common crime, with a rate nearly five times higher than murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Robberies and assaults have greatly decreased since the early 1990s, while the murder rate has not changed significantly since 1980, according to USAFacts.

The rate of reported rapes had also been holding steady since 1980, but preliminary data indicate that it went up in 2017."
U.S. Violent Crime on the Rise: Where and Why

You really should catch up to the fake research before you post.....

Oh good grief, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, another "unbiased" source? Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia

"Kellerman's study was peer reviewed and found to be accurate. Kellermann is known for his research on the epidemiology of firearm-related injuries and deaths in the US. In a 1995 interview, Kellermann said he saw firearm injuries not as random, unavoidable acts but as preventable public health priority.[6] Kellermann's studies, which indicate an increased risk of mortality associated with gun ownership, have been disputed by gun rights organizations, in particular by the National Rifle Association; although Kellermann's findings have been supported by a large body of peer-reviewed research finding that increasing gun ownership is associated with increased rates of homicide and violence.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

You can keep pushing the lie, but the internet shows it is a lie....

Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot.

Yes.....they went to all the work of getting a permit to carry a gun, just to not carry a gun......this kind of thinking is how you lost your Empire.....

I have a private pilot's licence but I don't own an aircraft, many people have driver's licences but don't own cars. Gun permit holders may have sold their guns but still have a permit, that's your problem over there, you just don't know how many people own guns, and people are killed as a result.

I showed you the actual research where Kellerman changed his number....I showed you the peer reviewed critique of his research that led him to change his number from 43%, to 2.7 percent......here it is again...

First.....the study he did to correct the 43% number...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.