This would be version 397 of the well-laughed Kellerman study from 1986. By now even Kellerman does not want to be associated with it. The original stat was something like 22 or 24 times which was so laughable it started to got downgraded by Anti Gunners. Still, anybody with a semester of statistics is actually shocked that the study was even published, specially since Kellerman refused to peer-review it, but that does not mean that the Gun Control Cultists will stop repeating it.
With 350 million firearms in the hands of U.S. Citizens, it would mean that the chances of “you or someone you love will be murdered” is about 1,050,000,000 or just above the one billion murders mark. If the Kellerman study was right in any way shape or form, it would mean that before Saturday noon, the population of the United States would be murdered three times over and we had to include some Canadians in the mix to complete the numbers.
Math is logic and logic is anathema to those who exist purely on feelings and are intended to do stuff for our benefit whether we like it or need it.
After a great deal of pressure from some Commies (who REFUSED to cite studies) I actually did go looking and find a study that showed a home with multiple occupants and firearms present had a higher chance of a homicide, while a home with a single occupant and firearms present showed a massive reduction in homicide chance. Keeping your guns unlocked served to increase the contrast, but not the rate of homicide.(live alone? Buy a gun, and keep it out in the open. Your chances of getting killed are now about the same as your odds of being in an airplane crash. This is why I sleep with guns next to my head.)
Suicides were a clear statistical outlier, which suggested(as the study itself said) that people probably buy a gun with which to commit suicide.
It never occurred to me that I should run a sanity check on the numbers.
Blanket statistics don’t help anyone.
I wonder if it’s possible to cross-check their conclusion with the effect having a violent criminal, thug, or gang member in the home has on the likelihood of being murdered.
Or bothering to check if the “gun in the home” is a legally-owned one (see previous sentence).
I remember reading that the US homicide rate is something like 6.5 per 100,000 overall (blanket statistic), but the US homicide rate outside of California, Chicago, New York, and Washington DC is something like 2 per 100,000. I’ll need to find that analysis, but the long and short is that by living in those places, ahem, “you’ve made it THREE TIMES more likely you or someone you love will be murdered”.
Like I said, blanket statistics don’t help anyone. It’s far more important and effective to seek out the root causes than to state the overall effects.
Totally true. Our crime rate is actually fairly average in the grand scheme of things(and our per-gun crime rate is among the lowest in the world), but if you exclude Liberal hotspots, the national average drops to basically nothing.
Ban Liberals.
Further Kellerman as wells as Branas et al NEED to pool criminals engaging in criminal acts and ILLEGALLY possessing guns in with lawful citizens legally possessing guns to make this work.
So yeah if you’re a drug dealer, dealing drugs out of your home, and you “protect” your business (from other dealers and gang affiliates) with an ILLEGALLY owned gun, yeah chances are when you shoot somebody that’s going to be a pretty serious crime.
If you’re a citizen with a lawfully owned gun that you keep to protect yourself and your family (possibly from your neighbor who’s decided gang-distributed drug dealing is a valid vocation) the odds are your gun will just sit there unless you take it to the range, and if you shoot somebody you’ll have done a good deed for society.
Hence why they need to under-sample legal gun owners while padding their “Study” with known criminals who could be arrested at any moment simply due to the plethora of felonies they do every moment.
[…] Go to this article […]