Source
r/guns•
questionablemoose

Studies on Firearms Ownership and Firearms Homicide

First, there was Kellerman and then another study published in the Oxford Journals.

My take on both of these is that the researchers are drawing correlations between firearms ownership and "violent death" without proving causation.

The Oxford paper doesn't seem to go into why the deceased owned firearms, it simply draws a correlation. In my opinion, this is nowhere near enough research to actually indicate that simply owning a firearm automatically increases your risk of violent death.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Posted Oct 30, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

618
me_for_now•

It doesn't make that claim, it only notes the correlation. you say "In my opinion... not enough evidence .. increases risk".
That would be correct, and I believe this is their opinion as well. They may say things in the discussion like: "suggests and increased risk", but they are scientists and if anyone knows the limits of extrapolating their work it is them.
For example: Perhaps people who are prone to a violent death tend to keep guns in the house (loud idiots and criminals). This would cause the above correlation, but in truth the gun in your house doesn't mean you're more likely to die.

.. though it does make it possible for you to commit suicide, or for a stupid kid to find. Statistics have a way of adding up, and not having a gun makes it hard to commit suicide with one (therefore having a gun makes it more likely). These things do happen, hence the stats.

/TLDR: I believe the data, though it silly to get worked up about it (or political). Some people have guns, some don't. This changes their behavior. (surprise! people who are near bullets have more bullet-related lives)

That said: I do resent people (or politics) jumping on someone just because they point our an interesting fact. /Scientist

2
LonelyMachines•

they are scientists and if anyone knows the limits of extrapolating their work it is them.

That's exactly what happened. The validity of Kellerman's raw data (some of which he claimed was lost in a computer crash) was in question from the beginning, but that didn't stop a reporter from USA Today from reporting that someone was 43 times more likely to get killed if they kept a gun in their home. The Brady campaign ran with it like a drunken frat boy with a pair of purloined panties, and it was accepted as fact in the media.

There were some real questions about Kellerman's academic honesty that were never addressed. Of course, this wouldn't be the only time an Emory alumni bent facts to his cause.

First off, let's consider the "control group." He simply included respondents who stated they didn't keep a gun in the home. OK. You call me at the worst juncture in our history for gun control and ask me if I've got a gun in the home, and I'm going to say no. He had to take respondents at their word, which is a questionable methodology.

Second, how many of those "guns in the home" were guns belonging to the victims, and how many were brought there by the assailants? We don't know. Kellerman couldn't say, and he admitted that in a response to grilling by Gary Kleck in 1999.

Kellerman was part of a wave started by Galen Wintemute and funded by anti-gun luminaries to convert gun control from a political issue into a noble-seeming one of public health.

3
questionablemooseOP•

Are you aware of any studies along the same lines which actually go in depth and produce other factors such as drug abuse, existing mental issues, domestic disputes, ND's and so on?

1
LonelyMachines•

No. In fact, Kleck, Kopel and others suggested that such a study would cast an even greater pallor on Kellerman's work. Kellerman seems to agree, as he spent several years quietly backing away from the study in addition to providing as little raw data as possible.

1
questionablemooseOP•

That's a shame. I think it's something that needs to be done. I don't think this debate will ever come to a close, but the existing studies leave a lot to be desired.

What reading would you recommend for better insight on these issues?

1
questionablemooseOP•

It doesn't make that claim, it only notes the correlation.

Thanks for pointing that out.

1
erinbeth•

I think this is largely an issue of correlation != causation. In the second link it states that those with a firearm in the home are more likely to suicide by firearm than any other method - that kind of seems like a no-brainer to me. If one is to the point where suicide is something they are seriously considering and planning, it seems obvious that one would use a gun if they have access, IMO. I work in mental health and one of the questions we ALWAYS ask is if they have access to guns. We don't ask if they have access to knives or drugstores or ropes or any other of a million other ways to attempt to end your life, unless there appears reason to do so.

One thing that DID stick out to me from the Kellerman article:

54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept

0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry

1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense

So I wonder a few things about this data - they are saying that roughly half of firearm deaths occurred in the home, but VERY small percentages of these involved an intruder or were deemed self-defense. What were the rest of these deaths? Were they accidents? Homicides within the family? What? This is the kind of data that worries me about having guns in the home.

I am and always have been on the fence about having firearms in the home where there are children because it seems that the possibility of some horrible accident is more likely than an actual break-in situation where having a firearm would help the situation. For me the risk/reward balance tips toward the risk of something going wrong with the gun in the house is not worth the potential reward of having it in the unlikely situation of needing it. I don't begrudge other people to have the opposite opinion and it's up to you what you decide for your family. For me, that particular risk (at this moment in time) is not something I would choose. That being said, I live alone, have no children and DO own a handgun.

2
questionablemooseOP•

I am and always have been on the fence about having firearms in the home where there are children because it seems that the possibility of some horrible accident is more likely than an actual break-in situation where having a firearm would help the situation.

For me, the answer leans on proper education, appropriate storage, and correct handling. There are precautions I find reasonable especially when there are children in the house, but the majority of the issues I read about where children and firearms are an issue are based around poor or incorrect education.

It's often said that teaching children about firearms removes the mystery element, greatly reducing risk. I believe this very strongly. I was brought up in a house with firearms and a strong emphasis on safety and proper handling. That education kept me safe then and does now.

one of the questions we ALWAYS ask is if they have access to guns. We don't ask if they have access to knives or drugstores or ropes or any other of a million other ways to attempt to end your life, unless there appears reason to do so.

I'm curious about this. Why ask about firearms and nothing else? I do not work in mental health, so my understanding is far less than yours in this department.

2
erinbeth•

For me, the answer leans on proper education, appropriate storage, and correct handling. Etc...

I agree with all of that. This is why I'm not against firearms in the home in general - I just don't think it's right for me (once I have a family). I kind of liken it to someone being pro-choice but would not personally choose to have an abortion. I just can't get that nagging thought out of my head of WHAT IF SOMETHING went wrong. What if there was an ND that went through the wall/floor/ceiling and hit someone? I just can't wrap my head around that and I would never get over it if something like that happened - I would feel like it was my fault for having the gun present. If someone broke into my house and something happened it would be THEIR fault for being psycho and breaking the law.

I'm curious about this. Why ask about firearms and nothing else? I do not work in mental health, so my understanding is far less than yours in this department.

When doing an assessment, standard procedure is to assess for suicidal and homicidal ideation. Even if they deny, we always ask if they have access to guns because of the statistics, and because a gun is a HIGHLY effective method of suicide, compared to overdose and other methods. But if they deny suicidal ideation, it just doesn't make sense to ask about access to all ways of attempting suicide since they already denied it. If someone does endorse suicidal ideation, then you assess for a plan and go from there. For example, if someone said they were having thoughts to OD on their meds, we might talk about having a family member hold their meds until they felt better. Among other things.

1
questionablemooseOP•

What if there was an ND that went through the wall/floor/ceiling and hit someone? I just can't wrap my head around that and I would never get over it if something like that happened - I would feel like it was my fault for having the gun present. If someone broke into my house and something happened it would be THEIR fault for being psycho and breaking the law.

Ok, your perspective makes sense to me. Thank you.

1
LonelyMachines•

I think this is largely an issue of correlation != causation.

You're absolutely right. I have seen scads of studies showing a loose correlation between higher rates of firearms ownership and homicide/suicide rates, but not one that could prove causation. There are too many variables.

Let's say City A has a higher firearms homicide rate than City B. City A has more gun owners. We can't prove causation until we can rule out every other factor. Could it be that City B has a higher standard of living, more frequent police patrols, or more rehabilitation programs? This was the flaw with Kellerman's Seattle/Vancouver comparison.

This is an important point for both sides of the debate. I often hear people claiming that states with lenient ownership or CCW laws have lower violent crime rates. That's not always true, nor can we prove that causation. We risk looking very foolish in a debate by making such claims.

Now, the data (particularly the UCR's) can be interpreted to show that gun control does not decrease crime, but even then, there are possible rebuttals through reductionism.

1
zarx•

Here's an excellent reference:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

1
[deleted]•

Are suicides in that list? Researchers usually include them to beef up the numbers, not taking into account that a suicide if different from being violently killed by someone else and that many suicides buy guns for the express purpose of committing suicide with them.

1
questionablemooseOP•

Suicides are in the Oxford study.

1