|
You don't need a dozen peer-reviewed articles for Kellermann's 93 study. Just read the drat thing. Its some of the shoddiest research I've seen. If you read the full text of the '93 study (cited in so many articles and threads) instead of just the summary you can see where the problems begin to arise. Instead of a nationwide randomized sample he kept using King County but also cherry-picked two other oddly specific areas as well- Shelby County, Tennessee and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. This led to a massive (and probably intentional) overrepresentation of African-Americans and those living below the poverty line; that means the study is comprised mostly of the poorest and most oppressed people in some of the most unusually violent cities like Memphis and Cleveland in order to produce a very specific result. Narrowing the data further to ensure a favorable result, it also only looked at homicides that occurred inside the home of the victim (which were only 23.9% of the total homicides in the case study area.) Diving into the body of the work you can also see it failed to find more than a very casual correlation between gun ownership and risk of death, with many other many things presenting a much higher odds-risk ratio than the 1.6 they found for "guns in the home." Table 3 shows far higher correlation between homicide and things like living alone (3.4,) living in a household where ANY member has ANY sort of arrest history (4.2,) renting a home instead of owning (5.9,) drug use (9,) alcohol consumption (as high as 20,) and many other common things. The fact that they only concentrate on gun ownership in the conclusion as "significant" while failing to frame it against their other findings goes to show you this was a study meant not to objectively identify risks but work towards a predetermined and leading conclusion. Many other problems and biases that have been pointed out by in works by people like Kleck and Schaffer include: The correlation they found with handguns was nowhere near as strong as the one between rifles and shotguns, which is... strange, to say the least, as there should be no mechanism that encourages others to kill you just for owning a pistol rather than a shotgun. This begs the question- even though there's a casual correlation between guns in the home and slightly elevated homicide risks, are they actually related? How? They fail to prove causation or even show a correlation more important than living in an apartment, which means it's far from a conclusive finding. It relied on self-reporting to determine gun ownership, when Schaffer looked at the data that Kellerman finally provided 5 years after the fact he found a large discrepancy between the amount of gun ownership reported between the cases and controls that was seemingly not adjusted for. It doesn't prove you're more likely to die FROM a gun, as per the study's own data less than 50% of the murders were with a firearm (which is lower than the national average of ~66%.) It doesn't prove that self-defense is likely to increase your risk of death as the majority of those killed (56.2%) were unarmed and there was no evidence of resistance. Of the 43.8% who lived in a household with a gun and who died attempting to defend themselves only 5% actually used a firearm, which is the lowest recorded death rate of any means of defense amongst the victims who tried to fight back. That could actually suggest it's the most successful method, although I can't use the evidence provided just here to prove that as it's not a comprehensive self-defense study but a very narrow and specific mortality study. At the same time, however, that narrow scope fails to prove Kellerman's point either. Unlike his previous studies where he was comparing actual self-defense to gun deaths here he included justifiable homicide by police and private citizens defending themselves in the gun death figure, in order to pad it as much as possible. He also DID still include illegal activities like drug-dealing, as is evidenced by the data in Table 1. If you dig into it, the study reads more like "20 years ago some really poor people who lived in the shittiest places we could hand-pick were murdered at home by their friends and family. Some of those people owned a handgun, although far more lived alone or in apartments or drank" rather than "there is firm evidence using a gun in self-defense will get you killed everywhere in all situations." They were able to find weak correlation in a tailor-made case study, not causation in a full study of the US. On top of that, a crime studies from two decades ago are incredibly outdated. Homicide rates have more than halved since then, and homicide amongst African-Americans (the primary group represented here) has dropped dramatically since '92. No matter what way you slice it it's not exactly convincing proof to use in an argument now, over two decades later. Any paper or study that cites him or in work in support of their conclusion does not exactly fill me with confidence; either they didn't examine the content of his work and they are incompetent or they are fully aware of his deficiencies as a researcher and used his work anyway because it supports their own predetermined conclusions. Forgive me for being incredulous.
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:most of your critique is the idiot stuff i've already rebutted, but this is particularly precious as the reason that the study is outdated is because the nra, upset with what science says about gun violence, banned funding science on gun violence Yes, because the NRA can magically enact a ban on studying gun violence. Oh wait, that NEVER HAPPENED. "B-b-b-but but the CDC budgets!" Oh yes, after the CDC wasted millions of taxpaper dollars on Kellermann's bullshit they got their wrist slapped and told not to waste money on obviously bad advocacy. Somehow, this stopped every federal agency from the FBI to the ATF to the CDC from doing anything gun related, forever. (Except it didn't.) Lie some more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:holy lawl Some people can see the difference between the NRA (who did call attention to the gross waste) and Congress, who wrote a new budget to address it. You can't. (Wait, I thought we were talking about a ban on all gun science? poo poo, I should have invested in goal-post moving companies.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:See, it's a gross waste because I don't like the implications of its findings. It was a gross waste because it was a terribly designed study. I wouldn't want millions spent on a study that makes universal claims about something when they purposefully select non-representational populations (right there is enough to toss the loving thing just by itself) and then furthermore ignore their own data to focus on a correlation effect orders of magnitude less than other factors, but gently caress it, its only taxpayer dollars right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do you think we only get to pass one bill a year or something Right, because the resources of the government are infinite so there is no problem spending them on things we can't demonstrate are effective. Excuse me a minute, I have to go advocate for spending education dollars on anti-bullying crystal installations and anti-tiger rocks. evilweasel posted:also guns do not merely cause murders, Oh man, if only we could go back to the time before murder was committed, a time before the invention of guns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'm quoting two posts he made in a news thread. Go ask him for the story yourself, this isn't the sky shark thread. Are you kidding? This is a lot easier for them than actually addressing the points made in his post.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:
Thanks for reminding us that gun-control advocates seek a return to rule by the strong and all related barbarism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 05:13
|
|