Yes indeed! The Kellermann 1993 study has been dug out once again, dusted and set out to amble into the interwebs to scare folks. If you ever heard the slogan “A gun in the house is 43/24/19/etc times more likely to kill the owner than a criminal” you are in the presence of the Kellerman Study. By their own admission, they studied three of the worst counties for crime in the US for a period of six months to a year and with lousy statistical analysis. If you feel like reading, you can dig in Serious Flaws in Kellerman, et al (1993) NEJM and Statiscal Misgivings and Lies or you can google it and find more.
The same people who praised Kellermans short time and shortsighted study, raised holy hell when John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime came out. Lott’s work examined 10 years (and he has been updating constantly) but across several counties in several states and not cherry-picked because they would give him a certain favorable data.
Moms objective is clear and it is the same old crap since congress put a stop to the use of the CDC for political crap related to guns: To present the “reasonable” idea that “gun violence is an epidemic and needs to be medically treated urgently. It does not matter that there were other CDC studies done (Including one paid by the administration and published in 2013) after Kellerman’s that signed off with the same sentence:
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
So, if study after study, including the one paid by the White House come back and say the same thing, why do they beat on this old horse? Two answers: To create the idea that we are hiding something (conspiracy theories require no thought process) and your basic tantrum demanding a recount as in “we want another and another and another until the numbers are in our favor and then the science is settled.”
If you want to read a study, go check the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article
A thought occurs.
So we all know that in most crimes where a firearm is used(as opposed to just the ones involving a firearm, such as those committed by the ATF), the criminal is using a handgun, and long guns are almost never used in the perpetration of a crime(as long as the government isn’t smuggling them to Mexican cartels, anyway).*
Are there any sort of statistics for defensive gun use of handguns vs. long guns? I assume that since the crime statistic is due to handguns’ greater convenience, most defensive gun use cases would also be handguns, but I’m just curious.
*This also gives us some insight into why anti-gunners are so fixated on banning long guns: they’re not much use in committing a crime they’re more useful for rebelling against a tyrannical government.
This is the thing the anti’s want to just play with numbers,because there is not any truth to their claims at all,so all they can do is try and twist numbers around to prove their ridiculous thinking.I think common sense should play a bigger part here and not numbers that you can make say anything you want them to say at the time.I think common sense tells you that people and places that are not protected are the most targeted,so it should go without being said even that if you are protected your changes are greater of no harm.