If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   "A gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense"   (npr.org) divider line 539
    More: Sad, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Rosa DeLauro, local church, Todd Tiahrt, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Biden  
•       •       •

2900 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jan 2013 at 10:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



539 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 06:50:35 PM
I can attest to the fact that this is true.
 
2013-01-14 07:05:43 PM
I was reading a similar statistic I linked a few weeks ago.
 
2013-01-14 07:17:09 PM
Well the solution is simple: Place armed teachers in every house.
 
2013-01-14 07:21:48 PM
Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.
 
2013-01-14 07:32:09 PM

Fark It: Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.


Let's allow people to see that full link more clearly.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/bruce-w-krafft/lies-damned-l i es-and-washington-ceasefires-statistics/
 
2013-01-14 07:53:55 PM

Fark It: Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.


But the people that don't buy the study are the same people that bought the Romney campaign (or Rove, or unskewered, or whatever) statistics.

I'm confused.
 
2013-01-14 08:10:06 PM
What if you use it to defend yourself against a member of your household?
 
2013-01-14 08:12:03 PM
Hm. I read this and thought, "you know, I seem to have some sort of vague memory clattering about my brain concerning guns and homes and the number 43. From wherever could that come." And it took me a bit, but I found this thread from back in 2009.

This could mean something.
 
2013-01-14 08:13:47 PM

Pocket Ninja: Hm. I read this and thought, "you know, I seem to have some sort of vague memory clattering about my brain concerning guns and homes and the number 43. From wherever could that come." And it took me a bit, but I found this thread from back in 2009.

This could mean something.


Who ARE you?
 
2013-01-14 08:16:03 PM

pudding7: Pocket Ninja: This could mean something.

Who ARE you?


No one to be trifled with.  That is all you ever need to know.
 
2013-01-14 08:17:15 PM

pudding7: Who ARE you?


Joe Biden is my guess. All of his genius posts fit.
 
2013-01-14 08:19:08 PM

hillbillypharmacist: pudding7: Pocket Ninja: This could mean something.

Who ARE you?

No one to be trifled with.  That is all you ever need to know.


So he's an 11th level paladin then?
 
2013-01-14 08:26:07 PM
Arthur Kellerman doesn't even believe that anymore.
 
2013-01-14 08:33:18 PM

clancifer: Fark It: Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.

Let's allow people to see that full link more clearly.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/bruce-w-krafft/lies-damned-l i es-and-washington-ceasefires-statistics/


I've got him marked as a NRA hack.  Easier.

That being said, Kellerman's data is quite out of date at this point, so use sparingly with more current data, assuming someone got some past the NRA.
 
2013-01-14 08:34:04 PM

Pocket Ninja: Hm. I read this and thought, "you know, I seem to have some sort of vague memory clattering about my brain concerning guns and homes and the number 43. From wherever could that come." And it took me a bit, but I found this thread from back in 2009.

This could mean something.


Nice to see you back on Fark. Hadn't see you in these parts for a bit.
 
2013-01-14 08:42:32 PM
My ex-girlfriend's dad accidentally discharged his 9mm in the house. There was a toddler living there at the time, but I can't remember if she was home.

/not CSB.
 
2013-01-14 08:44:45 PM

fusillade762: What if you use it to defend yourself against a member of your household?


img.photobucket.com

"Partial credit!"
 
2013-01-14 08:56:37 PM
Sounds like a self-correcting problem to me.

/aisle seat
 
2013-01-14 09:00:06 PM

YodaBlues: Well the solution is simple: Place armed teachers in every house.


But who will protect the teachers?
 
2013-01-14 09:30:36 PM
What else are you supposed to do with it when no one is breaking in?
 
2013-01-14 09:33:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: YodaBlues: Well the solution is simple: Place armed teachers in every house.

But who will protect the teachers?


Ninjas with assault rifles.
 
2013-01-14 09:54:57 PM
Seems the obvious answer is teaching gun safety... Who offers publicly funded free gun safety courses? Nobody that I know in tn.
 
2013-01-14 10:05:02 PM

Fark It: Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.


And apparently so does the writer of that article.

point 2 - The number of people who have been arrested doesn't matter. Are you not a real person if you have an arrest record?

point 3 - The killings didn't happen in the home. This is somewhat legit, but it depends on exactly what question you're asking, if your asking whether or not the gun is more likely to be involved in harm than in safety, it doesn't matter where it's used, if it's about danger in the home, it does.

point 4 - suicides. This is fair.

But the worst part is that the writer simply multiplies the above probabilities together, never once considering that a person with an arrest record might kill themselves outside their home with the gun, and therefore be counted in all three categories. Treating them like independent factors is dumb.

Bottom line, I have no idea who is right, but it seems from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that "X accidentally shoots Y" is far more common than "X successfully defends against Y with gun."
 
2013-01-14 10:22:22 PM
It's also statistically likely that it will be owned by someone that self-identifies as 'pro-life"... unironically.
 
2013-01-14 10:29:35 PM
CSB:

Watched my dad shoot himself in the stomach because he was upset my mom was divorcing him. He had found the gun that she kept hidden. I was six, and my sister was five at the time. He did live, but my mom got rid of the gun. I won't have them in my house now.

/end csb
 
2013-01-14 10:31:58 PM
Neither shooting your family members nor personal self-defense are covered under the second amendment, I'm afraid.
 
2013-01-14 10:31:59 PM
Um, maybe because the other member of the house tends to live there... all the time? The errant thief or intruder comes quite infrequently.

//not pro-gun, just pointing out the apples / oranges nature of the headline.
 
2013-01-14 10:32:00 PM
evans-politics.com
 
2013-01-14 10:33:24 PM
Pfft... they were the irresponsible gun owners.
 
2013-01-14 10:35:37 PM
good, weed out the imbeciles
 
2013-01-14 10:36:04 PM

nmrsnr: Fark It: Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.

And apparently so does the writer of that article.

point 2 - The number of people who have been arrested doesn't matter. Are you not a real person if you have an arrest record?

point 3 - The killings didn't happen in the home. This is somewhat legit, but it depends on exactly what question you're asking, if your asking whether or not the gun is more likely to be involved in harm than in safety, it doesn't matter where it's used, if it's about danger in the home, it does.

point 4 - suicides. This is fair.

But the worst part is that the writer simply multiplies the above probabilities together, never once considering that a person with an arrest record might kill themselves outside their home with the gun, and therefore be counted in all three categories. Treating them like independent factors is dumb.

Bottom line, I have no idea who is right, but it seems from my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that "X accidentally shoots Y" is far more common than "X successfully defends against Y with gun."


And what TFA was really about wasn't the "43 times more likely" stat, but that the NRA and GOP have made it really hard to do any better follow ups to that. Who knows? Maybe a new study would show a more favorable ratio, but the NRA seems to think it's not worth risking it.

/If you can't study it, it's not really a threat
//Peril sensitive sunglasses anyone?
 
2013-01-14 10:38:35 PM
So, having a car is probably makes you 1 million times likely to cause an auto accident that kills a member of your family too. Stupid reason to ban guns.
 
2013-01-14 10:39:21 PM
A central tenet of the scientific community is if you have to get the government to impose an answer to a question through force of law or by cutting the research funds of anyone who might give an answer you don't like, you lose automatically. If you're so confident that you're correct, you'd let the research happen and, if the study is done properly, the findings will bear you out.

So, if the NRA is getting gun-control studies shut down, the NRA automatically loses the argument.
 
2013-01-14 10:40:19 PM
i48.tinypic.com

i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-14 10:40:43 PM
that in homes without a firearm you are ninety-nine times more likely to suffer a non-firearm related killing than you are to kill an intruder without a firearm . . .

I hope people looked at the guys citation for this claim. People who can not even farking read should be ridiculed without mercy. Jesus farking Christ!!!!!
 
2013-01-14 10:41:09 PM
i48.tinypic.com.
 
2013-01-14 10:41:12 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: It's also statistically likely that it will be owned by someone that self-identifies as 'pro-life"... unironically.


have you been just letting this account marinate for a while?
 
2013-01-14 10:41:27 PM
My grandfather used to tell me and my brother a story about watching his childhood best friend die, and having blood and brain matter stained into his shirt, because they were playing with his father's gun when they were kids.

The story lost all impact when I realized that my grandfather owns about 20 guns, most of them illegal (at the time).
 
2013-01-14 10:42:23 PM
Kellermann found people turned those guns on themselves and others in the house far more often than on intruders. "In other words, a gun kept in the home was 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense".

danceswithfat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-14 10:43:01 PM
So should we buy guns and start wandering around in bad neighborhoods so we can use them in self defense and get this statistic altered?
 
2013-01-14 10:43:26 PM
This bears repeating:

evans-politics.com
 
2013-01-14 10:43:32 PM
What I hate about such studies, regardless of the topic: They compile an aggregate reply then presume the aggregate is actually meaningful to both the total population and individual.

/ fark your statistical average
// I am not the imaginary mean of some statistical result
/// not a gun owner
 
2013-01-14 10:43:52 PM
I grew up in a house with a lot of guns. My dad was NYPD and had a number of handguns and rifles. Not once was he ever drunk messing around with his guns. Not once did I get the urge to show them to my friends did I succeed in showing them to my friends without supervision since they were kept in a safe. No one was ever accidentally shot nor threatened with one of these weapons without reason.
Ya'll sound like a bunch of hayseeds
 
2013-01-14 10:44:21 PM
How, exactly, was "used in self-defense" determined? Did the study include firearms possessed unlawfully?
 
2013-01-14 10:44:43 PM

theknuckler_33: that in homes without a firearm you are ninety-nine times more likely to suffer a non-firearm related killing than you are to kill an intruder without a firearm . . .

I hope people looked at the guys citation for this claim. People who can not even farking read should be ridiculed without mercy. Jesus farking Christ!!!!!


Just in case people didn't bother to follow his links.

Unintentional deaths from homes with a firearm: 12
Unintentional deaths from homes without a firearm: 0

The inclusion of suicides is a nice touch since they aren't listed as being the result of the use of a gun. I wonder how many suicides in households with a gun were performed WITH THE GUN and how many suicides in households without a gun were performed with a gun?  oops... no info on that... shocking.

People trying to refute statistics by their opponents would be wise to treat those statistics more carefully than those they are trying to refute.
 
2013-01-14 10:45:17 PM

Fark It: Why the Kellerman study is bullshiat


Holy shiat what a load of whiney rationalization. The most glaring error to me is that none of his "adjustments", assumed valid, would *not* apply in exactly the same way to defensive uses of guns, therefore leaving the ratio basically unchanged.

In the end, he's basically arguing that if you compare the number of deaths caused by guns in a home which are 1) owned by a current resident, 2) not used by criminals, 3) only used inside the house, and 4) not used for suicide to the number of defensive uses, not subjected to any of these corrections and apparently increased by some additional Freedom Factor to account for "brandishing", THERE ARE STILL 50% MORE INSTANCES OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS DYING THAN DEFENSIVE USES.

I bet the NRA's statisticians could've come up with some less laughable bullshiat.

If you buy Kellerman's 'study' then you have about the same level of understanding of statistics as the Romney campaign did.
 
I have a math degree, tyvm.
 
2013-01-14 10:46:53 PM

theknuckler_33: theknuckler_33: that in homes without a firearm you are ninety-nine times more likely to suffer a non-firearm related killing than you are to kill an intruder without a firearm . . .

I hope people looked at the guys citation for this claim. People who can not even farking read should be ridiculed without mercy. Jesus farking Christ!!!!!

Just in case people didn't bother to follow his links.

Unintentional deaths from homes with a firearm: 12
Unintentional deaths from homes without a firearm: 0

The inclusion of suicides is a nice touch since they aren't listed as being the result of the use of a gun. I wonder how many suicides in households with a gun were performed WITH THE GUN and how many suicides in households without a gun were performed with a gun?  oops... no info on that... shocking.

People trying to refute statistics by their opponents would be wise to treat those statistics more carefully than those they are trying to refute.


you want info on how many people who didn't have a gun killed themselves with a gun?
 
2013-01-14 10:48:07 PM

skullkrusher: I grew up in a house with a lot of guns. My dad was NYPD and had a number of handguns and rifles. Not once was he ever drunk messing around with his guns. Not once did I get the urge to show them to my friends did I succeed in showing them to my friends without supervision since they were kept in a safe. No one was ever accidentally shot nor threatened with one of these weapons without reason.
Ya'll sound like a bunch of hayseeds


I guess all gun owners are NYPD. Obviously.
 
2013-01-14 10:48:28 PM

Livingroom: Seems the obvious answer is teaching gun safety... Who offers publicly funded free gun safety courses? Nobody that I know in tn.


Mandating training is like mandating everyone form a militia to be a law abiding gun owner.
Always supported by the antis until you actually start to do it, then they complain you're doing it wrong.

I suspect they only want these things as an additional hurdle to ownership. If reducing accidents was the goal, they'd put firearms safety courses back into the schools.

/To the topic, statistics are always off because successful use of a gun in self defense often goes unreported.
/I'd wager that the accident, ownership, and carry rates are higher too.
/Since snitches tend to get stitches when dealing with government bureaucrats, its not uncommon for gun owners to keep the details to themselves.
/So the kinds of things that get reported are skewed to the worst of it.
 
2013-01-14 10:48:34 PM
It would be nice to have a more systematic study. Too bad the CDC is legally barred from dealing with the subject. I'm sure that restriction has nothing to do with what they would find if they were allowed to collect the data. Just a coincidence.
 
Displayed 50 of 539 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report