Debunking the '3 times more likely to be the victim' myth

[X_Digger]

We've often heard the statement that just having a gun in a house makes one 2.7 times more likely to be the victim of gun violence.

The root of this statistic is a 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Arthur Kellermann et al

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084

The conclusion reads in part:

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.

Here are the problems that many have noted-

The authors note that "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects," This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6% of the households. No study was made of how many were killed by guns kept in the home versus those brought in by a perpetrator.

Five years later, Kellerman revised himself (quoting http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html):

A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police .") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 <2001>.)

Secondly, no correlation was made between "independent" factors that actually may have been factors related to each other- they treated illicit drug use, having an arrest record, living alone or not, renting, having a gun, and a history of domestic abuse as independent variables without any relationship to each other. No collateral multivariate analysis was performed. The correlation to each control was not predicated on other factors, just gun ownership. They gave the same weight to a gun death in a household with someone with a previous arrest as to a gun death in a household where an intruder brought their own gun to a home invasion and shot the occupant (each weighting was independent, not cumulative). No correlation was explored for similar situations with the only difference being gun ownership.

Thirdly, there were significant differences between the study participants and the control. There was a 30% difference between home ownership vs renting between subjects and control, and a 15% difference in living alone or not. Only 48% of the control subjects were interviewed in person. Never mind that there were more users of illicit drugs, alcoholics, and persons with a history of violence in the households of the case subjects than in the households of the controls.

Thirdly, correlation doesn't equate to causation. They state in one place, "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". "Associated with", not "causally related to". The possibility of why a gun was kept in the home was not explored nor accounted for- so a person who lives in a high crime neighborhood who may _already_ be at higher risk of homicide death was treated the same as a person shot in a "nice" neighborhood.

Further reading (some are related to Kellermann's previous work on the subject, just to show how tortured his conclusions are):

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30225.html

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html -- this one is an especially good article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association

quoting the above:

This association was at least partly attributable to confounding factors that are known to be strongly associated with both gun ownership and homicide victimization, such as dealing in illicit drugs (but not drug use) and membership in a street gang. Either of these confounding factors alone is associated strongly enough with gun ownership and homicide victimization to produce a spurious odds ratio of 2.8,<14> and neither factor was controlled by the researchers. Indeed, most factors that increase the risk of homicide victimization in a way that is evident to the subjects are likely to also motivate some of them to acquire a gun for self-protection.<15> Thus, a positive gun-homicide association is expected even if gun possession had no impact whatsoever on homicide risk.

[villager]

1. Glad the National Review, Reason, and "Guncite" are on the debunking trail!

You can't get more credible sources than that!

[X_Digger]

2. JAMA not good enough for you?

Most of the guncite linked articles are for pay journals- do _you_ have a subscription?

[virginia mountainman]

3. Great post..

But don't worry about the detractors in here, you know, the ones that run down the source....

Notice they wont come anywhere NEAR attacking the information posted, they will only attack the people that did it. They suffer from "intellectual cowardice"

They do that because they KNOW, that they cannot refute the information posted, so their ONLY RECOURSE is too attack the folks that did the study instead..

[jody]

4. I grow weary of explaining to anti-RKBA types that reports by the Scary Brady Bunch, VPC, etc.

are composed mostly of lies with just enough distorted facts to seduce anyone who is impressionable and ignorant into joining the anti-RKBA herd as they fight to disarm potential victims of violent crime while leaving violent criminals unopposed and well armed.

It's sad that a few wealthy foundations like the Annenberg Foundation and Joyce Foundation can use their First Amendment right to demand the prohibition of the Second Amendment right for 80+ million gun-owners and the families that are protected by arms used for self-defense.

[virginia mountainman]

5. You said it Jody...

It is like herding cats.....

We cover the same ground over and over and over and over......

I am beginning to think, many in here have followed, and worshiped the Republican ran Brady Campaign so much, they cannot think for themselves and are now just "lost causes" and just add them to my ignore list.

Save the effort for those who actually believe in the Bill of Rights. Or at least can understand basic concepts, without the need of a plumber's helper to shove it in...

[depakid]

6. It's most certainly not a myth- and there are other studies on point

Of course, it's always easier for the dishonest, the fearful and scientifically challenged to back to Kellerman in order to rationalize their obsessions -as if that's the only evidence that there is.

Fact is- you put yourselves and others in the household at a much greater risk of harm by keeping guns around- whether you accept that -or not.

And that doesn't even touch on the harms that you're so willing to inflict on American society,

[X_Digger]

7. Care to cite another source that we can explore?

The 87 Kellermann study, the 93 Kellermann study, the 2003 CDC study?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml

AP) A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws — including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons — found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I notice that you didn't actually address the OP. Why is that?

[depakid]

11. Done it many times before- but some folks (not all) are like global warming deniers

Wouldn't matter how much info you put in front of them.... they're wedded to a position which isn't based on reason- and so reviewing the science is unlikely to change it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x207734#207750

[X_Digger]

13. First glance at the linked study..

1) not case-control (hard to do with this sample size, but makes for better comparisons)
2) did interrelated multivariate analysis, with proper cumulative weighting. Good! but..
3) did not include previous arrest record
4) did not include crime rate of neighborhood or state

The previous two are acknowledged:

Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.

5) alcohol use leads to suicide / homicide - duh! ban alcohol!
6) suicide with a gun more often 'works' - no comparison to attempted suicide that did not result in death
7) proxy interviews with next of kin for suicides will always be a hard proposition- what family member is going to admit to signs of depression / anxiety / suicidal ideation that they failed to do something about? *ah, they even mention this..

In the case of proxy interviews, knowing the outcome might have introduced bias in assessing behavioral or psychological characteristics of the decedent prior to death. The nature, degree, or direction of recall bias among proxies reporting on violent deaths versus nonviolent deaths is not known, however.

8) no control for whether the gun used in a homicide was actually one of the ones kept in the house or not.

Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death. This possibility seems less likely with suicide, but, with homicide, it is certainly plausible that someone brought a gun into the home.

I'll look through the other studies as I have time.

[rl6214]

9. You throw those "facts" out there

But don't cite where they come from. Are they really facts or opinions?

[Taitertots]

10. Another beetle

Where are these other studies you claim so loudly exist?

Where are any studies that show you put everyone in America at risk?

[depakid]

12. "...everyone in America at risk?"

You have mass shootings in America just about every week- sometimes many times a week!

You don't need a study see that. Australia, on the other hand, hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996, when they initiated their gun buyback program and put in place responsible gun regulations. Any shooting down under makes front page news... as do most homicides that go unreported in many cities- due to the sheer numbers.

[Taitertots]

14. Crime is down despite the continued increase in firearms

So how are you more at risk when crime is going down and the available number of firearms is increasing? Not only are the numbers increasing, but more people are carrying guns.

In Mexico they have restrictive gun laws and terrible crime rates.

[raimius]

15. Interesting

(looking at the studies you linked)

There is correlation between firearm ownership and suicide/homicide rates. However, the causal aspects of such ownership have not been determined. As the first study pointed out, firearms may be purchased due to being more likely to experience violent crime or other factors.

I'll agree that the data would suggest a higher probability of dying via a self-inflicted gunshot wound, if one has a gun in the home. This makes perfect sense to me. People are more likely to shoot themselves with a gun they or their cohabitants posess than by using someone else's gun. (How often do we hear about people going to their neighbors to shoot themselves?)

So, when looking at homicides, the claim is flimsy at best. There are far too important external factors in play.

When looking at suicides, it is very possible. Frankly, no one living with me is at high risk for suicide, so that's not a big factor. Now, I know of a home where a resident was suffering from depression, and I did recommend that he sell his pistol. This becomes a risk/benefit analysis that should be done at the household level. For me the risk of suicide is low and my enjoyment of my hobby fairly high--so the benefit outweighs the risk by a large margin. I'll keep my firearms. For the man suffering from depression, his risk of self-harm was decent, and he did not shoot as a hobby. Therefore, we agreed it would be best to get rid of his firearm.

[Israfel4]

8. So lets see

12,000 people were murdered by firearms in 2005, what percentage of those who killed DIDN'T have a criminal record???? Divide that by the number of gun owners, lets say 90 million and see what number we get. Let's make it a 1:1 ratio, 12,000 murdered, 12,000 murderers without a criminal record, even going by THAT the number is 1.3%e-4 or .00013%(????).