I'm sure you've all heard the claptrap that a gun in the home increases your risk...

[PaulD]

of being killed. Well, this might be the study that BS is based on. I haven't fully read through it yet, but maybe some of you can critique my initial reactions.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

- First, the study is based on 3 fairly urban counties: Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The study was done over a 20 month period where in that period there were 1860 murders. Of those, they limited the study to VICTIMS who died in their own home/property. So, already, they've excluded any case where a gun was used to help defend a potential victim. Confirmation bias much?

- Next, those cases were included regardless of whether a gun was the method used to kill the person. There's no mention in the study about whether the gun was readily accessible during the event, or stored away. Only 49.4% of the victims died from a gunshot wound. The others died from stabbing, bludgeoning, etc.

- Finally, they conclude

Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry.

So if anyone would like to say I'm wrong on my analysis, please do. However, it seems this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty the other side employs.

 

[Bonesinium]

However, it seems this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty the other side employs.

It is almost certainly intellectual dishonesty.

Not sure what you mean by "other side" though. Almost everyone with an agenda is guilty of the same, not just any one "side."

To minimize selection bias, the controls were identified by a previously validated procedure for the random selection of a matching household in the neighborhood

If I'm understand it right, their "control" was simply matching their selection bias with someone else, meaning they still had a very obvious selection bias, but it only accounted for 50%. Having HALF of your entire study based on a bias is still pretty darn bias. It does seem like a logical control except for the fact their study is about violence, and literally half of all the homes they looked at were picked solely based on an already known instance of violence. Of course it is going to skew high!

 

[rivet_42]

Does the study go into whether these guns were kept in the home lawfully, by people with peaceable backgrounds, or whether they were kept (presumably) unlawfully, by people with violent criminal pasts? Past behavior is a fairly good predictor of future behavior. I would wager that once you separate out the guns that were kept by law-abiding individuals, the rate of misuse would go way down.

 

[jkelly1229]

Serious question isn't 1860 homicides high for 3 counties even over 5 years. They said 24000 people were killed per year so over 5 years that's 120000 people and on average in the us which has 3143 counties give or take 100. There should be about 560 ish total homicides by average

 

[whacko]

They chose urban arwas for he study and neglect to mention if the "homeowner" killed was in lawful posession or not. Id love to see a study of non pp gun owners vs pp gun owners and the risk level associated with gun ownership. Bet there would be a huge difference. This is similar to when the anti studies use stats about "children" killed by guns and dont mention that the majority of these so called children are gan banging shitheads killed in gang violence......and them use that stat to justify why jon amd jane law abiding person should turn in their guns

 

[boiler_eng]

Serious question isn't 1860 homicides high for 3 counties even over 5 years. They said 24000 people were killed per year so over 5 years that's 120000 people and on average in the us which has 3143 counties give or take 100. There should be about 560 ish total homicides by average

Couldn't speak to if that is high but not every county has same population. Middlesex county has 1.5 million and Nantucket has 10k according to census. So it's pointless if you don't count it as "per 100k residents".

 

[92G]

Simple...

they had to choose urban areas w high death #'s or else it would have taken 200 years to collect enough data to claim statistical significance.

also keep in mind if they proved no association or a negative association, NEJM wouldnt hsve published it. Its a major problem in medical/scientific publishing.....reward is high for "proving" something unexpected even if the hypothesis is flawed or data are bogus.

any MD worth his salt knows this 1993 NEJM paper is junk and irrelevant....the rest of 'em think they can save the world so their illness is profound.

 

[SpaceCritter]

First, the study is based on 3 fairly urban counties

Fairly urban?? Memphis, Seattle, and Cleveland.

 

[carbuncle]

King County comtains some Very Urban and high crime areas, as in 60% of it...

 

[PaulD]

It is almost certainly intellectual dishonesty.

Not sure what you mean by "other side" though. Almost everyone with an agenda is guilty of the same, not just any one "side."



If I'm understand it right, their "control" was simply matching their selection bias with someone else, meaning they still had a very obvious selection bias, but it only accounted for 50%. Having HALF of your entire study based on a bias is still pretty darn bias. It does seem like a logical control except for the fact their study is about violence, and literally half of all the homes they looked at were picked solely based on an already known instance of violence. Of course it is going to skew high!

The other side meaning the anti gun side. The pro gun side, and I'm biased here, doesn't seem to be nearly as intellectually dishonest.

The point of the study was to determine if having a gun in the home is highly correlated with being murdered (or making you less safe), then they limited the sample to people who had been murdered in their own home. To truly determine probability, wouldn't they need to also look at gun owners who were able to fend off an attack in their home? Hell, why not look at gun owners who died of natural causes also, if they want to get to a true probability.

Their statistical method is like determining the general population's chances of dying from AIDS by only studying a sample set of people that have tested positive for AIDS.

 

[jkelly1229]

Good point about the population differences. I was just saying it seemed a little high for those areas generally speaking I don't consider Seattle or Tennessee the hood. I guess Cleveland is pretty shi**y but I grew up watching the drew Carey show in the 90s so I didn't think they'd be killing each other there

 

[robjax]

"Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry."

In my house you would not be wrong. Everyone here knows how to use a firearm. My youngets will be 11 this month. She loves shooting. Anyway, what would seem most likely a reason to me and i base this mostly on immaturity would be the part that says "substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance."

To me, this is no reason to kill. More of a reason to celebrate...I look at any violation of the marriage vows on her behalf as a get out of jail free card...lmao.....FOR ME!!!! Within eight hours of me finding out I will have called and to say "good luck, I'm in Key West fishing if anyone other than you is looking for me"......so that would never occur in my house....lmao....

 

[one-eyed Jack]

If family members want to off each other, what business is it of theirs? It's a free country, no? Jack.

 

[Jason Flare]

If family members want to off each other, what business is it of theirs? It's a free country, no? Jack.

There's a lot of truth to this. After Ray Rice had a knockdown drag-out with the fiance they walked down the isle together.

Some people are OK with a certain level of physical confrontation.

Although completely, "offing," your spouse is a little over the top.

 

[knfmn]

of being killed. Well, this might be the study that BS is based on. I haven't fully read through it yet, but maybe some of you can critique my initial reactions.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

- First, the study is based on 3 fairly urban counties: Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The study was done over a 20 month period where in that period there were 1860 murders. Of those, they limited the study to VICTIMS who died in their own home/property. So, already, they've excluded any case where a gun was used to help defend a potential victim. Confirmation bias much?

- Next, those cases were included regardless of whether a gun was the method used to kill the person. There's no mention in the study about whether the gun was readily accessible during the event, or stored away. Only 49.4% of the victims died from a gunshot wound. The others died from stabbing, bludgeoning, etc.

- Finally, they conclude

Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry.

So if anyone would like to say I'm wrong on my analysis, please do. However, it seems this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty the other side employs.

You can make the numbers say anything if you pick the right sample group. I'm from Tennessee and lived in Washington state for a while. I can tell you that Shelby county (AKA Memphis) is a shit hole. I wouldn't go there after dark. King county in Washington is almost as bad. Cuyahoga county is where Cleveland is. Cleveland is notoriously crime ridden. Neighborhood scout gives it a rating of 2. 100 is the safest and they scored a 2.......

They should do the same study focusing on urban counties that aren't crime ridden and infested with the FSA crew. The results would be surprising for them.

 

[jkelly1229]

They need to differentiate between legal ownership and illegal ownership and not. Generally you don't illegally own a gun for the fun of it. Usually it's because your doing something to get you killed

 

[Synyster]

You get a pool in your backyard you immediately increase your odds of drowning in your backyard.

 

[Horrible]

You get a pool in your backyard you immediately increase your odds of drowning in your backyard.

You buy a car. You immediately increase the probability of dying in it.

There are 254.4M cars in the US. Almost 34,000 people died in 2012 from auto accidents (down from over 40K earlier in the 2000's)

There are ~ 310M guns in the US. 30,000 people die each year from guns according to the Brady fools.

 

[PaulD]

You buy a car. You immediately increase the probability of dying in it.

There are 254.4M cars in the US. Almost 34,000 people died in 2012 from auto accidents (down from over 40K earlier in the 2000's)

There are ~ 310M guns in the US. 30,000 people die each year from guns according to the Brady fools.

That's actually what they're trying to claim. Logically though, this would be like basing the probability purely on a pool of people who died in auto accidents, as opposed to everyone who currently owns and drives a car.

 

[Horrible]

That's actually what they're trying to claim. Logically though, this would be like basing the probability purely on a pool of people who died in auto accidents, as opposed to everyone who currently owns and drives a car.

Exactly. But, it doesn't sound as scary when you have a .00967% chance of dying from a gun. For those keeping score at home, that is less than 1/100th of a percent!

 

[Bonesinium]

No, your wrong. They diluted it by 50%.