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.
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.