Statistics needed

Discussion in 'In the News' started by curtdiss, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. curtdiss

    curtdiss Member

    884
    2
    18
    I was have a discussion with my employer and he stated quote "I bet that personal handguns cause more accidental injury/death to children, family, friends etc then they cause to bad-guys. I would be interested in seeing some statistics on the subject".

    I told him that there were more injuries/deaths from general around the house accidents (falling, bike accidents etc) than firearms related accidents. But I have no proof.

    I told him that education is important when guns are in the home to prevent accidents especially when children are present and I keep mine locked up and away from the children.

    Help me convince an almost ANTI that guns are not a bad thing. Do you know any links to statistics that might show him that gun ownership is a good thing

    Thanks!
     

  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    John Lott's Washington Post article on subject:

    http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060705 ... -5245r.htm

    in which it is said:
    "Accidental gun deaths among children are, fortunately, much rarer than most people believe. With 40 million children in the United States under the age of 10, there were just 20 accidental gun deaths in 2003, the latest year with data from the Centers for Disease Control."


    and


    "While guns get most of the attention, children are 41 times more likely to die from accidental suffocations, 32 times more likely to accidentally drown and 20 times more likely to die as a result of accidental fires. Looking at all children under 15, there were 56 accidental gun deaths in 2003-- still a fraction of the deaths resulting from these other accidents for only the younger children."
     
  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    "Almost all products have illegitimate uses and undesirable consequences. In 2002, 45,380 people died in car accidents, 838 children drowned, 474 children died in house fires, and 130 children died in bicycle accidents. Luckily, local governments haven't started recouping medical costs or police salaries by suing car manufacturers, pool builders, makers of home heaters, or bike companies."

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/l ... 200913.asp
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    From the same article:

    "Data collected from doing a Nexis search on all accidental gun shot cases for children under age ten show that accidental shooters overwhelmingly are adults with long histories of arrests for violent crimes, alcoholism, suspended or revoked driver's licenses, and involvement in car crashes. Meanwhile, the annual number of accidental gun deaths involving children under ten — most of these being cases where someone older shoots the child — is consistently a single digit number. It is a kind of media archetype story to report on "naturally curious" children shooting themselves or other children — though in the five years from 1997 to 2001 the entire United States averaged only ten cases a year where a child under ten accidentally shot himself or another child.

    In contrast, in 2001 bicycles were much more likely to result in accidental deaths than guns. Ninety-three children under the age of ten drowned accidentally in bathtubs."
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    The citation most frequently comes from Dr. Kellerman, here at Emory. His work is highly flawed, in that he does not count repelling a criminal attack with a firearm in his statistics unless the gun is actually used to shoot and kill the attacker. Having used a firearm in self defense many times (as a police officer) I know first hand that it is almost never necessary to actually shoot somebody to get them to stop their offensive action.

    Check out this article http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html
    by David Kopel and Jarrett B. Wollstein, from which I obtained this quote:


    "A widely quoted study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that gun owners were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than non-owners. But does that mean that owning a gun increases your risk of being murdered? Or does it mean that people who are more likely to be murdered – such as those living in bad neighborhoods – are more likely to own a gun?

    The evidence is overwhelming that living in a dangerous environment is a key reason why many people buy guns.

    In fact, firearms are the most effective way to protect your home from criminals. According to firearms expert J. Neil Schulman, every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses his or her firearm in self-defense.

    1,145 times a day handguns are used against robbers. 416 times each day women use their handguns to protect themselves from rapists. Overall, a gun in the home is 216 times more likely to be used in self defense than to cause the death of an innocent victim."
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
  7. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Also about Kellerman's so called study;
    Take a few common facts and put them together to see how slanted the study really is.

    1. Suicides are most commonly attempted where the person lives and a firearm is the most common item in the US to use.
    2. Most people with firearms in the home for defense need only to brandish the firearm to deter a criminal (nothing says get-out like the sound of a round being chambered in a pump shotgun) yet the study does not count that
    3. Even if it comes to actually firing the weapon, to be included in this study the criminal had to die. A wounded criminal that fled but lived does not count.
    4. In a domestic violence case the use of a weapon is usually done with the intent to harm or kill.

    So for pretty much any year, if you take the total 1 and 4 where the person is activly trying to kill themselves or another and compare that to 2 and 3 where the person first must decide to shoot and then must hit the criminal in a vital area to actually cause a death, you will end up with similar findings.
     
  8. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,117
    70
    48
    Flawed Study

    Many anti-gunners claim something like: "A gun kept in the home is XY times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than to kill a violent criminal.

    I'm not sure if Dr. Kellerman's study suffers from this particular flaw, but it is very common.

    The flaw is that the study is premised on the faulty belief that everybody who gets shot is EITHER a "violent criminal" OR a "friend or family member." In real life, many violent criminals are relatives of the victims. In the real world outside of academia, most homicides, home invasion robberies, residential burglaries, rapes, and other serious felony crimes occur between people who know each other. Sometimes the attacker is the victim's uncle, cousin, half-sibling, step-sibling, in-law, classmate in high school, grandson, etc. Sometimes the attacker is a neighbor, co-worker, acquaintence, etc.

    The study is flawed because the only legitimate self-defense shootings that "count" in the study are the ones between complete and total strangers. Anything other than a total stranger is put into the "friend or relative" category, and cited as a reason that guns should be restricted.
     
  9. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Re: Flawed Study

    Actually I think Kellerman first published the XY times more likely quote that anti-gunners use everywhere.
     
  10. curtdiss

    curtdiss Member

    884
    2
    18
    Thanks, I am going to cut and paste and copy some of this info and send to my employer.

    I still don't think he will let me carry at work :cry:

    I will be working downtown soon and am alittle worried about the undesirables near where I will be working. :roll:
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    He'll probably just think it is safer to fire you. #-o
     
  12. curtdiss

    curtdiss Member

    884
    2
    18
    I am too valuable, he could never fire me... :lol:

    right???? :-s
     
  13. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Active Member

    1,923
    0
    36
    Curtdiss, let me let you in on a little secret. Georgia is not a right to work state, it is a right to FIRE state. Trust me, I know all too well from experience.