Answer: 6 in 10.

[Little-Acorn]

The usual nonsense about guns being more dangerous to a house's residents than to a burglar or home invader, has been debunked numerous times.

Here is one such.

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

GunCite - Gun Control Web Site A Gun in the Home

Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

Introduction

Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner's gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "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." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.

Refutation

First we need to understand how the ratio was derived.

Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann's paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).

Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home

Type of Death . . . . . . . No.
Unintentional deaths . . . 12
Criminal homicide . . . . . 41
Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
Self-protection homicide . 9

As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.
Let's apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.

Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm

Type of Death . . . . . . No.
Unintentional deaths . . . 0
Criminal homicide . . . . 50
Suicide . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Self-protection homicide . 4

This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.

So having applied Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.

Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann's study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.

For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann's approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research. (See How often are guns used in self-defense?)

 

[WelfareQueen]

Question: What are the chances that your own gun kills you.

When gun control people say they want your guns, and we do, it isn't about crime, or the Second Amendment, or any other gun-related issue, it's about deaths by firearms, period. 32,000 deaths per year, every year, year after year, and 20,000 of those are suicides.

Your gun is most likely going to kill you or someone you love, not the bad guys. And yes we want them, all of them, in a hole in the ground. The Wild West is long gone John Wayne Wannabes, it's time to move on and have gun death numbers as low as other places where common sense not tradition rules.

You had 230 years to play with your guns and that's bloody long enough, literally.

1) Zero chance that my gun will kill me. I've never known a gun to sprout legs and shoot anyone on its own.
2) We don't need a bunch of mentally-challenged Libtards babysitting us and protecting us from ourselves. Libtards are far more dangerous than guns are.
3) Far more people die from medical malpractice than by firearms each year. Auto accidents account for more deaths than gun deaths. Do you want to confiscate doctors and cars?
4) Other causes of suicide: drowning, electric shock, slit wrists (or other main arteries), jumping (bridge, cliff), suffocation, carbon monoxide, poisoning, hanging, drug overdose. Do you want to confiscate water, electric implements, knives, plastic bags, automobiles, poisons, rope, and drugs? Using your idiotic logic the answer MUST be YES!

My logic is 20,000 people a year, mostly men, there brains out from a total of 32,000 total gun deaths, which means the person most likely to be killed by your gun is you. And long as it's mostly the gun nuts who die, on with the slaughter.

Unfortunately, it's not. Gun nuts shoot first and answer questions later only when benignly queried by the local police, otherwise known as their shooting range buddies.

The numbers still go our way, more dead gun nuts than anyone else.

Why do you assume I am anti-abortion? I would have fully supported your Mother's right to an abortion.

 

[DriftingSand]

Question: What are the chances that your own gun kills you.

When gun control people say they want your guns, and we do, it isn't about crime, or the Second Amendment, or any other gun-related issue, it's about deaths by firearms, period. 32,000 deaths per year, every year, year after year, and 20,000 of those are suicides.

Your gun is most likely going to kill you or someone you love, not the bad guys. And yes we want them, all of them, in a hole in the ground. The Wild West is long gone John Wayne Wannabes, it's time to move on and have gun death numbers as low as other places where common sense not tradition rules.

You had 230 years to play with your guns and that's bloody long enough, literally.

Here ya go, man. Fire away!

I'd point it at myself if only Paint was standing right in front of me.

 

[deltex1]

1) Zero chance that my gun will kill me. I've never known a gun to sprout legs and shoot anyone on its own.
2) We don't need a bunch of mentally-challenged Libtards babysitting us and protecting us from ourselves. Libtards are far more dangerous than guns are.
3) Far more people die from medical malpractice than by firearms each year. Auto accidents account for more deaths than gun deaths. Do you want to confiscate doctors and cars?
4) Other causes of suicide: drowning, electric shock, slit wrists (or other main arteries), jumping (bridge, cliff), suffocation, carbon monoxide, poisoning, hanging, drug overdose. Do you want to confiscate water, electric implements, knives, plastic bags, automobiles, poisons, rope, and drugs? Using your idiotic logic the answer MUST be YES!

My logic is 20,000 people a year, mostly men, there brains out from a total of 32,000 total gun deaths, which means the person most likely to be killed by your gun is you. And long as it's mostly the nut guts who die, on with the slaughter.

Deltex did not say that...Drifing Sand did.

So get it corrected? I would fix it for you but it's too late now.

I didn't fuck it up...you did. And what makes you think I was talking to you. I have better things to do.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I was just kidding, but we have kids on these boards you shouldn't have gave them ideas

what like taking their mums gun and whacking her ? do you remember the case of the white supremacist who had trained his 12 yrs old son to be a crack shot.It took the kid one shot to put the piece of shit down.

Has anyone pointed out the obvious? That if humans are a disease and should be wiped from existence as PMH declares, then suicides are a good thing. So are accidental shootings and being killed by your own gun. He should be promoting guns for everybody.

The slow and stupid deaths are a waste, like this young mother shot by her toddler. Mass extinction, bring it on.

It has to do with the suffering of others, something you wouldn't understand.

Take away the guns, you will see much more suffering from homes & businesses being robbed and more women being raped.
That is what has happened in the countries that have banned their guns.

Let's find out...

Already have. Australia outlawed weapons and violent crime jumped 44% overnight. It then dropped for several years but is now, once again, on the upswing. Further whereas hot burglaries in the US are rare, they are common as dirt in Oz. A hot burglary refers to the burglar knowing there are people in the building but he comes in anyway. They are the most dangerous for all involved.

a different perspective When will the US learn from Australia Stricter gun control laws save lives Rebecca Peters Comment is free The Guardian

Ps could you post the stats to back up your "hot" claim

westwall any chance of seeing the stats to back up your statements on "hot" robberies?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1) Zero chance that my gun will kill me. I've never known a gun to sprout legs and shoot anyone on its own.
2) We don't need a bunch of mentally-challenged Libtards babysitting us and protecting us from ourselves. Libtards are far more dangerous than guns are.
3) Far more people die from medical malpractice than by firearms each year. Auto accidents account for more deaths than gun deaths. Do you want to confiscate doctors and cars?
4) Other causes of suicide: drowning, electric shock, slit wrists (or other main arteries), jumping (bridge, cliff), suffocation, carbon monoxide, poisoning, hanging, drug overdose. Do you want to confiscate water, electric implements, knives, plastic bags, automobiles, poisons, rope, and drugs? Using your idiotic logic the answer MUST be YES!

My logic is 20,000 people a year, mostly men, there brains out from a total of 32,000 total gun deaths, which means the person most likely to be killed by your gun is you. And long as it's mostly the nut guts who die, on with the slaughter.

Deltex did not say that...Drifing Sand did.

So get it corrected? I would fix it for you but it's too late now.

I didn't fuck it up...you did. And what makes you think I was talking to you. I have better things to do.

So do them then.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I was just kidding, but we have kids on these boards you shouldn't have gave them ideas

what like taking their mums gun and whacking her ? do you remember the case of the white supremacist who had trained his 12 yrs old son to be a crack shot.It took the kid one shot to put the piece of shit down.

The slow and stupid deaths are a waste, like this young mother shot by her toddler. Mass extinction, bring it on.

It has to do with the suffering of others, something you wouldn't understand.

Take away the guns, you will see much more suffering from homes & businesses being robbed and more women being raped.
That is what has happened in the countries that have banned their guns.

Let's find out...

Already have. Australia outlawed weapons and violent crime jumped 44% overnight. It then dropped for several years but is now, once again, on the upswing. Further whereas hot burglaries in the US are rare, they are common as dirt in Oz. A hot burglary refers to the burglar knowing there are people in the building but he comes in anyway. They are the most dangerous for all involved.

a different perspective When will the US learn from Australia Stricter gun control laws save lives Rebecca Peters Comment is free The Guardian

Ps could you post the stats to back up your "hot" claim

westwall any chance of seeing the stats to back up your statements on "hot" robberies?

westwall for the third time of asking have you any stats to back up your assertion about hot robberies ?I hope you were not telling porkies.
PaintMyHouse

 

[peach174]

I was just kidding, but we have kids on these boards you shouldn't have gave them ideas

what like taking their mums gun and whacking her ? do you remember the case of the white supremacist who had trained his 12 yrs old son to be a crack shot.It took the kid one shot to put the piece of shit down.

Take away the guns, you will see much more suffering from homes & businesses being robbed and more women being raped.
That is what has happened in the countries that have banned their guns.

Let's find out...

Already have. Australia outlawed weapons and violent crime jumped 44% overnight. It then dropped for several years but is now, once again, on the upswing. Further whereas hot burglaries in the US are rare, they are common as dirt in Oz. A hot burglary refers to the burglar knowing there are people in the building but he comes in anyway. They are the most dangerous for all involved.

a different perspective When will the US learn from Australia Stricter gun control laws save lives Rebecca Peters Comment is free The Guardian

Ps could you post the stats to back up your "hot" claim

westwall any chance of seeing the stats to back up your statements on "hot" robberies?

westwall for the third time of asking have you any stats to back up your assertion about hot robberies ?I hope you were not telling porkies.
PaintMyHouse

hot robbery rose in austrila after guns banned - Yahoo Search Results
Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

AUSTRALIA MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Violent crime rose after gun ban in Australia syracuse.com

 

[I.P.Freely]

peach174 drivel, these are the last Gov stats please read and assimilate.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf

 

[I.P.Freely]

peach174 drivel, these are the last Gov stats please read and assimilate.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf
Figure 7 Property crime by location, 2005–10 (n)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Other Retail Recreational
community
Dwelling Transport Street/footpath
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
• Overall, the number of property crimes has decreased across all locations since
2005. The location with the largest percentage decrease in the occurrence of
property crimes is transport. In 2005, 59,875 property crimes occurred in transport
locations compared with 34,406 in 2010—a decrease of 43 percent.
• Over the past six years, there has been a shift from residential dwellings to retail
settings as the most common location for property crime. For the first time in 2009,
a larger number of property crimes occurred in retail locations than residential
settings.
• The number of property crimes occurring on the street/footpath and in recreational
settings has decreased steadily over the six years. Specifically, the number of
property crimes occurring on the street/footpath has decreased by approximately
four percent per year, while those occurring in recreational settings have decreased
by approximately five percent per year.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

 

[Ellipsis]

Question: What are the chances that your own gun kills you.

When gun control people say they want your guns, and we do, it isn't about crime, or the Second Amendment, or any other gun-related issue, it's about deaths by firearms, period. 32,000 deaths per year, every year, year after year, and 20,000 of those are suicides.

Your gun is most likely going to kill you or someone you love, not the bad guys. And yes we want them, all of them, in a hole in the ground. The Wild West is long gone John Wayne Wannabes, it's time to move on and have gun death numbers as low as other places where common sense not tradition rules.

You had 230 years to play with your guns and that's bloody long enough, literally.

I look forward to your car-ban legislation, then.

 

[westwall]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

It's California where you are guaranteed to be prosecuted for defending yourself. The last estimate I heard for a defensive shooting defense was 25,000 bucks. Also the home invasions are occurring in the poor sections of Oakland, the ones least likely to be able to afford a gun. It's not happening up in the Oakland hills where the people DO have guns. You'll also notice that it isn't happening in Nevada. Right, Next. Door.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

It's California where you are guaranteed to be prosecuted for defending yourself. The last estimate I heard for a defensive shooting defense was 25,000 bucks. Also the home invasions are occurring in the poor sections of Oakland, the ones least likely to be able to afford a gun. It's not happening up in the Oakland hills where the people DO have guns. You'll also notice that it isn't happening in Nevada. Right, Next. Door.

you should sell your obvious expertise to these people they obviously need it.
Home Invasion Robberies on the Rise - HG.org

 

[westwall]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

It's California where you are guaranteed to be prosecuted for defending yourself. The last estimate I heard for a defensive shooting defense was 25,000 bucks. Also the home invasions are occurring in the poor sections of Oakland, the ones least likely to be able to afford a gun. It's not happening up in the Oakland hills where the people DO have guns. You'll also notice that it isn't happening in Nevada. Right, Next. Door.

you should sell your obvious expertise to these people they obviously need it.
Home Invasion Robberies on the Rise - HG.org

Did you notice all the methods they recommend that few average households can afford? Yes, everyone should invest thousands of dollars in a safe room. I particularly liked this one..

"Eighth, if feasible, have armed security on your estate or home. Although costly, an armed former police officer can deter intruders and help shield the family if there is an intrusion."

EVERYONE can afford that option for sure! The one option they don't mention? Having a firearm in your home and knowing how to use it. That's the ONE thing that most people could afford, but the progressives, and their campaign against personal defense have scared a huge number away from that option. But, did you notice what they said there at the end??? Did you? Hmmmm????

You might choose to live in a third world shithole where only terrorists and bandits have access to guns, but I don't.

 

[Avorysuds]

There is a higher chance the Government will kill you or someone you love by many many many many many many times over. Guess PMH is now anti Government.... He wants Government in a hole and gone forever.

Government has killed more people than anything else on planet earth. Fact.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

It's California where you are guaranteed to be prosecuted for defending yourself. The last estimate I heard for a defensive shooting defense was 25,000 bucks. Also the home invasions are occurring in the poor sections of Oakland, the ones least likely to be able to afford a gun. It's not happening up in the Oakland hills where the people DO have guns. You'll also notice that it isn't happening in Nevada. Right, Next. Door.

you should sell your obvious expertise to these people they obviously need it.
Home Invasion Robberies on the Rise - HG.org

Did you notice all the methods they recommend that few average households can afford? Yes, everyone should invest thousands of dollars in a safe room. I particularly liked this one..

"Eighth, if feasible, have armed security on your estate or home. Although costly, an armed former police officer can deter intruders and help shield the family if there is an intrusion."

EVERYONE can afford that option for sure! The one option they don't mention? Having a firearm in your home and knowing how to use it. That's the ONE thing that most people could afford, but the progressives, and their campaign against personal defense have scared a huge number away from that option. But, did you notice what they said there at the end??? Did you? Hmmmm????

You might choose to live in a third world shithole where only terrorists and bandits have access to guns, but I don't.

First hot robbery's were a rarity, then you try to dodge the Oakland report with more drivel about how they only happen in poor areas that cannot afford guns.I then post a link that shows the targets for these "hot robbery's" are in gun owning affluent areas, where in another article I have ,shows gun owners as actually being a prominent target.Your response was to try to deflect by picking holes in the security methods to protect against this Hmmmm RARITY.
So bloviator, for the fifth time of asking put up your stats showing hot robbery is a rarity in America.
ps I have no interest in living in Chicago.

 

[westwall]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

It's California where you are guaranteed to be prosecuted for defending yourself. The last estimate I heard for a defensive shooting defense was 25,000 bucks. Also the home invasions are occurring in the poor sections of Oakland, the ones least likely to be able to afford a gun. It's not happening up in the Oakland hills where the people DO have guns. You'll also notice that it isn't happening in Nevada. Right, Next. Door.

you should sell your obvious expertise to these people they obviously need it.
Home Invasion Robberies on the Rise - HG.org

Did you notice all the methods they recommend that few average households can afford? Yes, everyone should invest thousands of dollars in a safe room. I particularly liked this one..

"Eighth, if feasible, have armed security on your estate or home. Although costly, an armed former police officer can deter intruders and help shield the family if there is an intrusion."

EVERYONE can afford that option for sure! The one option they don't mention? Having a firearm in your home and knowing how to use it. That's the ONE thing that most people could afford, but the progressives, and their campaign against personal defense have scared a huge number away from that option. But, did you notice what they said there at the end??? Did you? Hmmmm????

You might choose to live in a third world shithole where only terrorists and bandits have access to guns, but I don't.

First hot robbery's were a rarity, then you try to dodge the Oakland report with more drivel about how they only happen in poor areas that cannot afford guns.I then post a link that shows the targets for these "hot robbery's" are in gun owning affluent areas, where in another article I have ,shows gun owners as actually being a prominent target.Your response was to try to deflect by picking holes in the security methods to protect against this Hmmmm RARITY.
So bloviator, for the fifth time of asking put up your stats showing hot robbery is a rarity in America.

From YOUR LINK.....

"Eighth, if feasible, have armed security on your estate or home. Although costly, an armed former police officer can deter intruders and help shield the family if there is an intrusion."

 

[I.P.Freely]

Hot robbers are fearless in Oakland they dont realise they are a rarity according to Westwall,
Rising Oakland home invasions rob victims of sense of security - SFGate

It's California where you are guaranteed to be prosecuted for defending yourself. The last estimate I heard for a defensive shooting defense was 25,000 bucks. Also the home invasions are occurring in the poor sections of Oakland, the ones least likely to be able to afford a gun. It's not happening up in the Oakland hills where the people DO have guns. You'll also notice that it isn't happening in Nevada. Right, Next. Door.

you should sell your obvious expertise to these people they obviously need it.
Home Invasion Robberies on the Rise - HG.org

Did you notice all the methods they recommend that few average households can afford? Yes, everyone should invest thousands of dollars in a safe room. I particularly liked this one..

"Eighth, if feasible, have armed security on your estate or home. Although costly, an armed former police officer can deter intruders and help shield the family if there is an intrusion."

EVERYONE can afford that option for sure! The one option they don't mention? Having a firearm in your home and knowing how to use it. That's the ONE thing that most people could afford, but the progressives, and their campaign against personal defense have scared a huge number away from that option. But, did you notice what they said there at the end??? Did you? Hmmmm????

You might choose to live in a third world shithole where only terrorists and bandits have access to guns, but I don't.

First hot robbery's were a rarity, then you try to dodge the Oakland report with more drivel about how they only happen in poor areas that cannot afford guns.I then post a link that shows the targets for these "hot robbery's" are in gun owning affluent areas, where in another article I have ,shows gun owners as actually being a prominent target.Your response was to try to deflect by picking holes in the security methods to protect against this Hmmmm RARITY.
So bloviator, for the fifth time of asking put up your stats showing hot robbery is a rarity in America.

From YOUR LINK.....

"Eighth, if feasible, have armed security on your estate or home. Although costly, an armed former police officer can deter intruders and help shield the family if there is an intrusion."

So idiot does that prove HOT ROBBERY is a RARITY in affluent areas?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,Where are your stats for the eighth time of asking

 

[Listening]

I don't understand the suicide angle. If someone is going to kill themselves they'll find a way, gun or not.

and where did you get the stat that 60% of gun owners are killed by there weapons? Ill keep asking this until you give me an answer.

I didn't. I said what are the chances that your gun kills you, 60% (if it kills anyone that is). When there are 32,000 deaths due to firearms, and suicide and accidents account for more than 20,000 of those, that's how the math works out.

And so if take away the guns, they won't kill themselves ?

Is this the argument ?