Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Reality from RESPECTED Academics.
Emory Magazine: Arthur Kellermann
Actually, Kellermann found an almost absolute void in the consideration of that question. The most relevant item he discovered in the medical literature was a one-line mention in an old issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that asserted that a gun in the home was six times more likely to be involved in an accidental death of a family member than to be used to kill an intruder in self-defense. "I saw that observation quoted repeatedly in subsequent editorials or medical reviews but no additional research on the question," he says.
Kellermann has spent much of his professional life trying to fill that gap. His studies have found a strong link between guns and violent death. For example:
In a 1986 study that examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an [intruder]."
Kellermann and several colleagues published a study in 1988 that examined the link between handgun regulations and handgun homicide and assault in Vancouver, a city that had adopted "a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns," and Seattle. The study found that "the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver."
In 1993, Kellermann was the lead investigator in a study that looked at homicides that occurred in homes in Cleveland, Memphis, and Seattle over five years. The results showed that homicides occurred nearly three times more often in homes where guns were stored than in otherwise comparable homes where there was no gun.
So, Joe, you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.
Need I go on?
Exccept - "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.
What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.
And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".
And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.
If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.
We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.
But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.
That would probably put the figure at 160-1.
Since when did you get your degree in criminology? Yes, the number of suicides is correct, but not all of them were committed with a firearm. Not all murders are committed with firearms, and yeah, gun accidents which counted as how much of a percent of the population as a whole? You're being blatantly dishonest, and so was Kellerman.
In 1994 (after the publication of his paper), Kellerman was taped giving a presentation at a seminar. At this time he states on the tape that a person is 18 times more likely to be murdered if they keep a firearm in the home! Guess who was at the seminar, Joe? None other than Janet Reno. She loved quoting him when speaking about gun control in her capacity as Attorney General during the Clinton Administration.
[
First it was 43 times, then it was 2.7 times, then it was 18 time. His numbers were wrong, and so are you, Joe.
In 1996, his junk science was defunded by congress. Because it was junk science. Given that he can't just use those cities to extrapolate the trend for the rest of the country, that is also dishonest.
Sorry Joe, I have you cornered.
[
Sorry, you have nothing to back that statement up. I know you don't. Last time I checked, my grandmother was never caught running moonshine back in the day, her mom didn't, nor did her father, or their fathers and so on and so forth. So not everyone has an arrest record, Joe. That is another unsubstantiated claim.
You see the "logic" because it's Kellerman's paper you're attacking. You're pathetic. Only a liberal can understand the musings of another.
Depends how you define "an arrest record".
My brother has an arrest record. he stole a light bulb off someone's lawn when he was 19. No charges were pressed, and he apologized, but it was an "arrest record".
Point is, you are like the upset baseball player who kicks dirt on the base...
Nothing you've said have debunked Kellerman's main finding... that you are far more likely to be killed by your own gun than kill that bad guy you are soooo afraid of.
More erroneous claims about Kellermann ? Deltoid
Kellermanns studies on guns frequently get criticized by people who do not seem to have read them. The latest to do so is Michael Krauss, who writes
Notwithstanding all this data, the press gave extraordinary publicity to a 1993 article by one Arthur Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine. Kellermans study concluded that the presence of a gun in ones home dramatically increased ones chances of being killed by gunfire. As has since been widely noted, though, the study had stupendous methodological flaws that would surely have precluded its publication, were the NEJM not blinded by its fear and loathing of guns.
As we shall see below, Krauss doesnt seem to have actually read Kellermanns study.
The study consisted of going to homes where a homicide occurred, and asking whether there was a gun in the house. Such a study by design and definition excluded successful uses of the gun (i.e., where the attacker is scared off and no one is killed).
Not so. Krauss is apparently unaware that the study was a case-control study. That means that as well as visiting the houses where there was a homicide (the cases), they also found similar homes where there wasnt a homicide (the controls). Successful uses of guns that prevent homicides show up in the controls.
Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.
Buh bye! I've never whipped anybody this badly before.
:
only in your own mind.
Kellerman is established fact. The CDC accepts his study, so do most scientific and academic bodies.
[
And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.
Expect the two reasons you give for WANTING The gun, wanting to kill a bad guy (almost never happens) and wanting to fight the government (Just batshit crazy) are statistically MORE unlikely than you or a member of your family or your neighbor being shot because one day, you lost your shit.
On the other hand, a car is going to do exactly what it is designed to do most of the time, get me from point A to point B.
I don't need a reason Joe. That's the way free society works. Deal with it.
[I didn't personally commit the kiling, you dumbfuck.
Just like I don't personally dispose of my garbage.
If you get your jollies out of killing an animal, you have serious issues.
Oh I get it. it's okay for you to consume meat because you have someone else kill it. It's not okay for me to eat meat that I have killed myself. Yeah, that makes complete sense.
You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat
And you are a typical hunter. Joe is a typical liberal. He eats animals that were confined for their lives in small areas and murdered by someone else for him when their flesh was optimal for mass market consumption. Then he looks down his nose at the heathens who "hunt" and kill their own food because that's unsavory. He probably ate at McDonald's for lunch...
Actually, I ate at boston market for lunch, and had the assurance that my lunch was raised on a farm, kept free of disease, and humanely dispatched.
Getting a liberal to admit being wrong is rare or near impossible. Conservatives tend to be more correct especially Constitutionally. As a Conservative, I have once in a great while been wrong and admitted it. I try to see things from all sides, but you won't catch a liberal doing that! That makes them lying scum!
[
And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.
Expect the two reasons you give for WANTING The gun, wanting to kill a bad guy (almost never happens) and wanting to fight the government (Just batshit crazy) are statistically MORE unlikely than you or a member of your family or your neighbor being shot because one day, you lost your shit.
On the other hand, a car is going to do exactly what it is designed to do most of the time, get me from point A to point B.
P.S. still waitig for you to tell me why muy way of getting meat is so sadistic and yours is not.
I didn't personally commit the kiling, you dumbfuck.
Just like I don't personally dispose of my garbage.
If you get your jollies out of killing an animal, you have serious issues.
72 pages and not one post by the gun grabbers addressing the Ops question.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.
Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.
[
Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.
We are done here. Good morning.
Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.
Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.
No, nothing you said debunks his central claim.
What you said is 'those people' are more likely to kill. Which really is completely irrellavent to the point. Those guns that were responsible for 43 times the number of gun deaths were in the house, owned by someone in the house that bought them for protection.
Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.
Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.
No, nothing you said debunks his central claim.
What you said is 'those people' are more likely to kill. Which really is completely irrellavent to the point. Those guns that were responsible for 43 times the number of gun deaths were in the house, owned by someone in the house that bought them for protection.
[
Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.
We are done here. Good morning.
Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.
The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.
[
Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.
We are done here. Good morning.
Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.
The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.
The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded. So why are you lying again?
