Using a firearm in defense will lead to your death?

[HES]

I thought I already started this topic, but I guess not. Ok here is the deal. On another board the following statement was made


Its a statistical fact that homeowners in possession of firearms have a higher rate of injury and death when it comes to burglaries/home invasion. You're just looking for trouble if you wield one.
To which my initial reaction is to call BS. I know its not true, but my google-fu is weak. I cant find any corroborating data to what Im saying. Are there any stats out there to back up my position?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The greatest affliction that Microsoft released on the world was Excel Spreadsheets and bogus statistics.

The main issue with all of these 'studies' is the sample of the population that is used. It is almost always misrepresntative, since the people are too lazy to get their own data, and just take number sets and plug-and-chug on them.

[parishioner]

That hurts my brain.

[four]

I thought I already started this topic, but I guess not. Ok here is the deal. On another board the following statement was made


To which my initial reaction is to call BS. I know its not true, but my google-fu is weak. I cant find any corroborating data to what Im saying. Are there any stats out there to back up my position?

"Statistics" might say that. They might also say that you're a banana. So even if you find a different set of statistics that say that Gun Owners are more handsome and better endowed than non-gun owners you've got exactly that. A different set of statisitics.

Really what you should be doing is asking who ever posted it where they got the data they're citing. unless you're arguing about the same data you might as well be debating Unicorns and Huggy Bears.

[Rider79]

Anti-gun groups have been using that statistic for years, I think the number they use is 42 times more likely to be injured or some BS like that. You could read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime for some stats to back up the pro-gun position.

[Zhurdan]

So even if you find a different set of statistics that say that Gun Owners are more handsome and better endowed than non-gun owners you've got exactly that.

Yeah, but I heard that one was true! ;)

[Gutshot John]

I'm sure that people that own an automobile are far more likely to die in a traffic accident. :rolleyes:

Such statistics are meaningless in the extreme.

[RogerinTPA]

I thought I already started this topic, but I guess not. Ok here is the deal. On another board the following statement was made


To which my initial reaction is to call BS. I know its not true, but my google-fu is weak. I cant find any corroborating data to what Im saying. Are there any stats out there to back up my position?

A metric ton of BS right there. I bet those who got injured just bought a gun and stuck it in there night stand, with no initial or recurrent training. I read a FL statistics on the leading cause of deaths in the state, at the range this weekend, firearms was WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY........down at the bottom of the list. According to the statistics, you are more likely to be killed in the bath tub, crossing a street, or in a choking accident, than you will with firearms. If folks are that concerned, I suggest "he" and "they", take a few pistol courses to even up the odds.

[11Bravo]

Anti-gun groups have been using that statistic for years, I think the number they use is 42 times more likely to be injured or some BS like that. You could read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime for some stats to back up the pro-gun position.

Yeah, 42 or something like that and it had something to do with the Seattle area, at least Pac Northwest area.
Do not remember the deal but it was WAY flawed to begin with.
Like gutshot said, if you have a firearm in your house you are more likely to be hurt with it than someone that does not.
Well no shit.
If you fly in airplanes you're 42 times more likely to ge sucked out the window at 35k than someone that never gets in an airplane.
If your name is Jeanine Garfoisglkanralow, you're 42 times more likely to be a fugly liberal POS snatch snacker than if your name is something else.
There, take that gun grabbers.

[Abraxas]

I forget the name of the specific statistic that started that BS line but the sample groups were not a apples to apples comparison. The group that had no guns were in upper class areas, while the group with guns were from some place horrible, Watts south central if I remember correctly. It is the equivalent of saying that you are 42 times more likely to die if you go to a hospital, because so many more people die there than at the mall.

[noops]

To OP/HES & Company

Do some google searching on "Kellerman et al"

It was his research that "showed" the statistic and has largely been fisked/debunked by all sorts of smart brains.

Here are some of the basics: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

P.S. For some years after the debunking, Kellerman refused to release his core data to audit, and even when he did, we got this:


Auditablitly

For roughly four years Kellermann refused to honor requests from legitimate scholars to examine his data, prompting law professor Daniel Polsby to comment that it was seriously debatable whether "the Kellermann results should be credited at all, because the data on which their work rests was neither deposited with the New England Journal nor otherwise made available to independent researchers" (Firearms Costs, Firearms Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge, p. 210).

Kellermann finally, purportedly, released some of his data in the form of the aforementioned ICPSR dataset as Kleck comments (personal correspondence with GunCite, Jan. 1999):

"Kellermann did finally release his dataset, or at least some version of it, submitting it to the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), a data archive used by researchers whose universities belong to ICPSR. Two things are notable about the data. First, there is no way to tell if all of Kellermann's data are in this archived version of the dataset. Most conspicuously, there is not a scrap of evidence in this dataset indicating whether the guns used to kill homicide victims were guns kept in the victim's home, even though K's whole point was that keeping a gun in one's home raises one's risk of becoming a homicide victim. Second, I would have been able to determine whether all of the pieces of information gathered by K. and his team were included in the ICPSR version of the dataset if I could have examined the questionaires used to interview victims and matched controls, and the coding forms used to record information from official files. When I requested, in writing, that K. send me these materials, he did not reply. Speculation: K. did in fact have his staff code information as to whether the murder weapon was kept in the victim's home, and found virtually no evidence of homicides involving such guns. I can think of no legitimate reason why K. would not provide his interview and coding forms, and so suspect that his archived dataset does not completely reflect all of the information he gathered or tried to gather."

Reason has some good stuff too: http://www.reason.com/news/show/30225.html

Noops

Edited for better cite:

[PRGGodfather]

Yes, this a completely debunked statistic -- yet the number of allegedly educated people who buy into this wholesale is truly astounding.

Read Lott's work. You'll be glad you did.

[John_Wayne777]

I thought I already started this topic, but I guess not. Ok here is the deal. On another board the following statement was made


To which my initial reaction is to call BS. I know its not true, but my google-fu is weak. I cant find any corroborating data to what Im saying. Are there any stats out there to back up my position?

JAMA study. They studied a little more than 400 cases in Baltimore...and if someone broke into the house with a gun in their waistband, they counted that as a "gun in the home".

In reality if this were all true, the gun controllers would want to disarm cops.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

At least here in Denver there have been a lot of commercials for home alarm systems. The go something like a BG breaking thru the front door and then the alarm goes off and he runs away. Love to see the NRA take it a step farther and show the BG continue into the house and the lady of the house pulls out her Lady Smith and puts five into his chest, while on the other half of the screen the alarm drowns out the woman's screams as she is bludgeoned and her kids are abducted.

One commercial has what is implied to be a former boyfreind attacking a woman's house after a date with another man. Like a loud noise is going to stop that kind of guy.

[cougar_guy04]

Its a statistical fact that homeowners in possession of firearms have a higher rate of injury and death when it comes to burglaries/home invasion. You're just looking for trouble if you wield one.
Guess they didn't tell the guy in Ormond (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volusia_news/091309_Man_shoots_home_invasion_suspects) Beach (http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/EastVolusia/evlHEAD03091409.htm), FL that one.

Heck, considering that my Engineering Statistics professor flat told us on the first day of class (and I'm paraphrasing here, it's been four years), "You give me a data set and tell me what you want it to say and I can get you there."

So as not to go completely OT. I've always kept the link for this source handy:
http://www.gunfacts.info/

[Alpha Sierra]

At least here in Denver there have been a lot of commercials for home alarm systems. The go something like a BG breaking thru the front door and then the alarm goes off and he runs away. Love to see the NRA take it a step farther and show the BG continue into the house and the lady of the house pulls out her Lady Smith and puts five into his chest, while on the other half of the screen the alarm drowns out the woman's screams as she is bludgeoned and her kids are abducted.

One commercial has what is implied to be a former boyfreind attacking a woman's house after a date with another man. Like a loud noise is going to stop that kind of guy.
I see those here all the time. They strongly appeal to the seeple instinct :rolleyes:.

Like you, I'd love to see one where the door kicker gets a blast of buckshot to the chest.

[Left Sig]

One of the realities of human existence is that you are much more likely to get killed by a family member or close friend than by a stranger.

So if there are guns in the home and you live with a murderous relative, you are much more likely to get killed with a gun. If no gun is present, you might be killed with a knife, or a rope, or a baseball bat, or just beaten to death.

What the OP statement fails to consider is whether or not you are more likely to get killed in a house with a gun, than in one without a gun. If no gun is present, you won't get killed with a gun, but that doesn't mean you are less likely to get killed.

[Gentoo]

At least here in Denver there have been a lot of commercials for home alarm systems. The go something like a BG breaking thru the front door and then the alarm goes off and he runs away. Love to see the NRA take it a step farther and show the BG continue into the house and the lady of the house pulls out her Lady Smith and puts five into his chest, while on the other half of the screen the alarm drowns out the woman's screams as she is bludgeoned and her kids are abducted.

One commercial has what is implied to be a former boyfreind attacking a woman's house after a date with another man. Like a loud noise is going to stop that kind of guy.

Ive seen those too. I get sick watching them because after working in LE I know exactly how long it will take for help to arrive.

People who place all their faith in these kind of head in the sand, someone come save me systems would be shocked at the truth.

[2W1 Loader]

"Statistics" might say that. They might also say that you're a banana. So even if you find a different set of statistics that say that Gun Owners are more handsome and better endowed than non-gun owners you've got exactly that. A different set of statisitics.

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 types of lies: White lies, Damned lies, and statistics."

[John_Wayne777]

(CBS/AP) The two men accused of a brutal Connecticut home invasion may not have had violent crimes in their long lists of prior convictions, but sources tell local newspapers the pair's record changed when they invaded the home of a prominent doctor early Monday morning.

"This is everyone's worst nightmare," Lt. Jay Markella, Cheshire police spokesman, told the Waterbury newspaper. "It's by far the worst thing any of us have ever seen."

Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, of Cheshire, and Steven Hayes, 44, of Winsted, were arraigned Tuesday on charges of assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children. More charges are pending, state police said Tuesday night. The two men could face the death penalty.

Prosecutor Michael Dearington said he had not yet decided whether to pursue the death penalty.

"I know the public consensus is they should be fried tomorrow," he said.

The state medical examiner confirmed that Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, was strangled and that her daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, died of smoke inhalation. The deaths were ruled homicides.

The girls' father, Dr. William Petit Jr., a prominent endocrinologist, remained hospitalized with head injuries.

All three women were raped, sources familiar with the investigation told both the Waterbury Republican-American and Hartford Courant. Petit was beaten with a baseball bat, thrown down the basement stairs, and then tied up in the cellar.

The girls, sources told the Courant, were tied to their beds and raped repeatedly, then left to burn after gasoline was poured around their beds and ignited.

The suspects entered the Petits' Cheshire home at about 3 a.m. Monday, planning to burglarize it, state police said.

Sources familiar with the investigation tell the Republican-American that Hawke-Petit and Michaela were followed home from a supermarket Sunday by the suspects. The men then went to a Wal-Mart to buy an air rifle and a rope, and then waited about a mile-and-a-half away

State officials are re-examining their parole policies, but Robert Farr, chairman of the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, said the task would be difficult because neither suspect had a history of violent crimes.

"That's why this is sort of shocking — because it doesn't fit a normal mode," Farr said.


Now if we could go back in time and offer Mr. Petit a Glock while the faint sounds of his wife and daughters being raped were wafting down into the basement from the upstairs, does anyone think he'd reject it?

[Rider79]

At least here in Denver there have been a lot of commercials for home alarm systems. The go something like a BG breaking thru the front door and then the alarm goes off and he runs away. Love to see the NRA take it a step farther and show the BG continue into the house and the lady of the house pulls out her Lady Smith and puts five into his chest, while on the other half of the screen the alarm drowns out the woman's screams as she is bludgeoned and her kids are abducted.

One commercial has what is implied to be a former boyfreind attacking a woman's house after a date with another man. Like a loud noise is going to stop that kind of guy. But she yelled "GET OUT" too! :rolleyes:

I laugh every time I see those commercials, especially since according to them, only white people break into houses. The other one I like is the one for the other alarm company, where the mom and daughter come home to the burglar in the living room, the lady just hugs the kid, and the guy slinks out the door, like "my bad, you caught me". The reality of an alarm system, at least here, is that the automatic alarm is going to go off, the woman isn't going to get a chance to answer the phone when the douchebag from the alarm company calls, and its going to be sent to Metro as an automatic alarm, to which Metro will take their sweet time responding to.

[stipilot]

I see those here all the time. They strongly appeal to the seeple instinct :rolleyes:.

Like you, I'd love to see one where the door kicker gets a blast of buckshot to the chest.

There is a video like that floating around on the web. Woman sees some guy trying to break in her door and dumps a magfull off AR goodness into him. Can't find it now but I'll look around some more.

[blade_68]

LEO

Response times
1. dial "911" 1-5 min...... hmm "1911 45 ACP"
2. dispatch response time.... 1-10 min.
3. patrol in route to 1-????? min.

time to bleed out 3 min or less depends on place of wound(s)

Response time where I work 19 min or less = needed less patrols... done away
with 3 patrols.

[HiggsBoson]

There is a video like that floating around on the web. Woman sees some guy trying to break in her door and dumps a magfull off AR goodness into him. Can't find it now but I'll look around some more.



This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE7FnrvgLQE)?

[mmike87]

I thought I already started this topic, but I guess not. Ok here is the deal. On another board the following statement was made


To which my initial reaction is to call BS. I know its not true, but my google-fu is weak. I cant find any corroborating data to what Im saying. Are there any stats out there to back up my position?

Even if it was true, I'd rather die on my feet than live cowering in the corner.

[Robb Jensen]

That fact that you're alive means that you will die. Death is the end of the life cycle. You can't have death without life.