Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So what's wrong with home security systems? [View all]hack89
(39,171 posts)121. The Kellerman study is somewhat controversial
The ratio was numerically accurate but, according to pro-gun groups, misleading because it compared harmful life-taking uses of guns not to life-saving defensive uses (the benefit corresponding to the harms of lives taken with firearms), but rather only to the tiny subset of defensive uses that involve killing a criminal assailant, i.e. justifiable homicides. The NRA and other pro-gun groups argued the ratio that seemed to imply a sort of cost-benefit ratio for gun ownership was actually nothing of the kind because, allegedly, it did not take account of any benefits that corresponded to its costs.
As I said, you don't have to shot someone to defend yourself with a gun
As for the Branas study, peer review shows some flaws in how the study was done:
The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.
Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.
The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.
The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.
Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.
The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.
The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
155 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
There are almost as many tales of successful home defense as accidental gun-related homicides
Orrex
Jan 2013
#117
Saw a PBS documentary on the evolution of dogs from wolves a while back...
markpkessinger
Jan 2013
#139
If it takes the cops 15 minutes to get to your house, a home security system isn't going to get them
Brickbat
Jan 2013
#2
And we all know there are armed ruffians roaming about attacking schools
The Straight Story
Jan 2013
#16
He provided links to prove it. Guess *he's* not the one that's full of shit...
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2013
#136
If guns are the most important thing in the world to these people who will vote GOP
AndyA
Jan 2013
#39
I think you will find yourself in the minority among democrats if you are against the 2nd.
Puzzledtraveller
Jan 2013
#103
We have an ADT security system and guns ...by request of my wife ...who keeps track ...
L0oniX
Jan 2013
#5
Nothing that isn't fixed by the addition of claymore mines to the lot's boundaries
HereSince1628
Jan 2013
#8
What a clever way you have of ignoring the obvious point that I was making.
Arkansas Granny
Jan 2013
#38
He's not calling the poster a liar; he's saying that the anecdote is unbelievable
Orrex
Jan 2013
#65
I never claimed to know everything, but I can spot a fishy-sounding story a mile away
Orrex
Jan 2013
#104
Why would the phrase "he identified himself as a cop" make you think he was
Common Sense Party
Jan 2013
#110
That is one damned agile burglar, was it one of those portable televisions he was watching?
CBGLuthier
Jan 2013
#83
The more home security systems there are, the more often they will malfunction.
randome
Jan 2013
#30
They're expensive to buy, more expensive to keep, and they don't work. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Jan 2013
#45
What, do you sell them? Out here where I live, not one thing you said is true.
Egalitarian Thug
Jan 2013
#128
I'm rather fond of poisonous gas myself, "kill'm like cockroaches!" I'd say, but that's illegal.
hunter
Jan 2013
#56