"43 times"

If you have a gun in your home, ARE you (as Kellerman claims) "43 times more likely to die from it"?

The CDC has historically been biased in favor considering gun ownership, and injuries/deaths resulting, as a disease.  This is the reason why CDC has been prohibited for the past ten years from researching the subject; they have exhibited a political bias toward skewing their research toward a pre-determined conclusion.

Let's take a look at the results of their study:


Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study:

(Center for Disease Control study: February, 2004)



Some of the research conducted to date has found a higher risk of a violent death in homes with handguns and unlocked and loaded guns (13, 17, 19). However, many studies have either not examined the risk associated with specific firearm-related characteristics (e.g., type of gun or storage practice) (14, 15, 18, 23, 24) or have found no significant differences (16). In our study, the risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide or suicide was greater in homes with guns, but this risk did not vary by specific firearm-related characteristics. Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home. Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear. Previous research suggests that proxy respondents and nonusers of firearms are not always knowledgeable about the number or types of guns in the household or the storage practice and may be inclined to give socially desirable responses (27–29). 

Note that the study is paying close attention to the question of "Homocide vs Suicide" ... which is not differentiated in the Kellerman study.  In other words, if you are bent on suicide, and there is a gun in your home ... you are more likely to choose that vehicle.  More on this later.



 A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. First, our study was based on data from death certificates and proxy interviews. The accuracy and completeness of information from these types of data sources can vary. With death certificates, for instance, there is the possibility of misclassification regarding the cause or manner of death. In the case of proxy interviews, knowing the outcome might have introduced bias in assessing behavioral or psychological characteristics of the decedent prior to death. The nature, degree, or direction of recall bias among proxies reporting on violent deaths versus nonviolent deaths is not known, however. Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death. This possibility seems less likely with suicide, but, with homicide, it is certainly plausible that someone brought a gun into the home. 

Which is to say ... their data is intrinsically unreliable;  people they interview might shade their testimony in an attempt to please their interviewer.  *(what they call "Proxy Interviews" .... not the person involved, but someone who is speaking for them, such as a family member.)*  Or they may have been confused by the passion and violence of the moment.



 Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures. 

Kellerman's study did not differentiate between societal factors.   If you live in a 'bad' neighborhood, you might choose to keep a gun in your home because somebody might break in to your house, and you might need to defend yourself.  Kellerman chose to list only deaths in homes with guns, without mentioning that it was a 'home defense' situation, and without noting whether the victim was a family member or an outsider ... your wife, your children, or a junky who is looking to score another high.


 Fourth, our analysis was restricted to violent deaths in the home. The dynamics of homicides or suicides occurring in other locations may be very different. However, the degree of bias with suicide is likely to be small given that over three quarters of all suicides (76.3 percent) in this nationally representative sample occurred in the home; of those that occurred outside the home, 52.7 percent were committed with a firearm. 

Another section of the study (not cited here) noted that firearms were an effective means of suicide; and in homes where guns were located, a majority of suicides used guns for that reason.  And yes, people tend to kill themselves in their home more often than any other location.

Finally, our study focused on fatal outcomes for a sample of decedents. We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership. 

The study was necessarily limited, as all studies are.  They didn't look at non-fatal incidents (if nobody died, they didn't consider the incident worthy of study).  Also, they didn't consider the protective value of having a firearm in the home ... which makes the study value-less if one is attempting to determine whether having a firearm in the home has a positive benefit!

See the last paragraph:


 Much of the debate in the literature has focused on the risks and benefits of gun ownership in terms of lives saved versus lives harmed. Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins (30, 31). However, guns are also involved in unintentional firearm shootings and domestic altercations in the home and are the primary method used in suicides in the United States (1, 32). The body of research to date, including the findings of this study, shows a strong association between guns in the home and risk of suicide. The findings for homicide, while showing an elevated risk, have consistently been more modest. They suggest a need for more research to better distinguish the risk and protective factors associated with guns in the home, including an examination of the risk posed by forces both internal and external to the home.

This is the money quote.

CDS acknowledges that there IS an important body of research yet to be made in the area of "... lives saved versus lives harmed" .. but they didn't do that.

It goes on to recognize that "... millions of defensive gun use incidents occure each year by people to protect themselves ....".

Compare that to thousands of deaths by guns.  And consider that the acknowledged majority of those "gun deaths" are caused by criminals.

Also, look at this statement:

The findings for homicide, while showing an elevated risk, have consistently been more modest.

SUMMARY:
The CDC has (reluctantly) acknowledged that in high-crime areas, where a resident is justifiably concerned about being assaulted in their own home, a gun might be used to kill someone on the premises.  Kellerman's study doesn't necessarily discriminate between a gun commonly kept in the home, and one which is brought into the home by an assailant.  The difference between the two studies is that the CDC study includes only those homes in which a firearm is kept; Kellerman's study only counts those incidents in which a person is killed in their home ... and in almost half of those incidents, a firearms is present. ... and although present, the firearm used in the shooting incident is not necessarily the one which was used.

Kellerman also doesn't not discriminate on the fact that the firearm used in the shooting might not have been the firearm which was actually fired.


So: the next time someone quoted the number "43" in relation to a shooting,  you can bet on the chances that they don't know what they are talking about.  Statistics are funny things.  In my college course on Statistical Analysis, I got a good grade even thought I never studied, because it's all about interpretation.

Just because someone can quote a statistic, doesn't mean it reflects reality.

after all, 73% of all statistics are just something that somebody made up on the the spur of the moment.

(I made that up!)