— Donald”

Why are you playing the victim? Did I say anything about your national interests and loyalties?

Still does not change the FACT that the 43 to 1 Kellerman crap has beed debunked by dozens of reputable authorities as an egregous case of Selection Bias at its worst. Only people who haven got the memo or are intent on deliberatly distorting the debate continue to use it as it supports their preconcieved dogma.

“Nothing you and other gun owner appoligists say can change the fact that the country that allows the widest distribution of guns also suffers the by far greatest number of deaths due to gun use. Why this would be a surprise to anyone is beyond me. Now, I do agree that arguing that the theoretical benefits of gun ownership could outweigh the very real price is a ligitimate case to make, but the facts are what they are.”

What facts Donald? Saying something is true does not make it so. Correlation does NOT equal causation. Fortunately, we have thrid party government provided NIJ statistics showing that increased rates of gun ownership doe not provide increasing levels of firearms violence. Please check the following graph.

http://www.guncite.com/gsupply.gif

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

Blame the war on drugs, not gun ownership as the overwhelming majority of firearms related homicides are durggie on druggie related violence. Very few are Ward Cleaver blowing a fuse and going medieval.

As to your provided link, treating gun violence as a disease makes as much sense as treating the Avian Flu as a murder.

Perhaps you should also check out this chart:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Also note that Finland has at least as high rate of firearms ownership as we do as well as the ability to possess anything and everything including true fully automatic weapons. Switzerland issues fully automatic rifles to almost all adult males which are REQUIRED to be stored at home. They also allow the individual to purchase and own these weapons upon completion of their tenure in the militia.

So it is truth that more guns casue more homicide. Again, correlation does not equal causation.

Nothing you and other gun owner appoligists say can change the fact that the country that allows the widest distribution of guns also suffers the by far greatest number of deaths due to gun use. Why this would be a surprise to anyone is beyond me. Now, I do agree that arguing that the theoretical benefits of gun ownership could outweigh the very real price is a ligitimate case to make, but the facts are what they are.

BTW, while I have lived in Britain, I am as American as you or David could possibly be. I just happen to disagree with you. If that simple fact makes me “un-American,” our country has no future that its founders would have desired, guns or no guns.

— Donald

Check with any police department (at least honest ones). That said, I did slightly mis-state the statistic. It should have said, “However, it is statistically true that if you keep a gun in your home, it is far more likely to be used by an intruder or a member of your own family to kill you than it is to be used by you to kill an intruder.””

Donald, that is simply pure, unalduterated GARBAGE! It has been throughly disproven for years.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

Introduction

Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner’s gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore “the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.” The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, “Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home.” (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner’s gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, “for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.” Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios “nonsensical.” (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann’s methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let’s see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.

Refutation

First we need to understand how the ratio was derived.

Kellermann tabulated gunshot deaths occurring in King County, Washington, from 1978 to 1983. Table 1 below is taken from Kellermann’s paper (Table 3 on p. 1559).

Table 1. Classification of 398 Gunshot Deaths involving a Firearm Kept in the Home

Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3

Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9

As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

Let’s apply the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, for King County, Washington.

Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm

Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide1 50
Suicide2 347
Unknown 0

Total 397
Self-protection homicide3 4

This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.

So having applied Kellermann’s methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.

Please note, the purpose of this exercise is not to show that using a gun in the home is better than not using one. This exercise does no such thing. It is merely to show how deeply flawed Kellermann’s study really is. Further, a number of tremendously important factors are left unaccounted.

For example, another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a “nonsense ratio?” Regardless of how the number crunching had turned-out between gun and non-gun violent deaths in the home, we should be able to see that Kellermann’s approach contributes nothing towards establishing a general or personal risk factor for a gun in the home.

What is truly sad about the nonsense-ratio is how often it is cited and uncritically accepted.

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a “kill” ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research. (See How often are guns used in self-defense?)

For a different approach in critique of Kellermann’s study see The 43: 1 Fallacy by Dave Kopel.

For Further Reading

GunCite’s critique of Kellermann’s “3:1″ study. More generally, see GunCite’s Gun Control Research.

A criticism of Kellermann’s subsequent research, and the bias of the Center for Disease Control’s firearm related research: Kates, Schaffer, and Waters, Public Health Pot Shots: How the CDC Succumbed to the Gun “Epidemic”, Reason Magazine, April 1997.

Scroll down to part part XV:”Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home”: Kates, Schafer, et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

Letters to the New England Journal of Medicine regarding Kellerman’s paper titled: “Guns and Homicide in the Home”.

Kellermann responds.

Kleck, Gary, What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.

A differing view from Kleck’s: Peter Cummings; Thomas D. Koepsell, Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?, JAMA, August 5, 1998.

Letter to the editor and a response from Kleck, JAMA, July 14, 1999.

Notes:

1. Non-gun criminal homicide calculation:

According to Kellermann, firearms were involved in 45 percent of all homicides in King County.

41 firearm criminal homicides / .45 = 91 total criminal homicides.

Non-gun criminal homicides = 91 / (1 – .45) = 50 non-gun criminal homicides.

2. Non-gun suicide calculation:

According to Kellermann, firearms were involved in 49 percent of all suicides in King County.

333 firearm suicides / .49 = 680 total suicides.

Non-gun suicides = 680 / (1 – .49) = 347 non-gun suicides.

3. Self-protection calculation:

According to the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report (p. 24), from 1993 to 1997, non-gun justifiable homicides were 13% of all justifiable homicides. 30% was used instead of 13%.

9 firearm justifiable homicides / (1 – .3) = 13 total justifiable homicides.

13 total justifiable homicides – 9 firearm justifiable homicides = 4 non-gun justifiable homicides.

Hypothesis: the English Establishment pushed gun control during the 20th century in an effort to disarm the Irish independece movement.

That’s one reason why there it’s a good idea to shoot the missile attacker down while it is ascending and has not yet released its payload. Midcourse interception has drawbacks.

So it’s not that deterrence is a good solution or a moral solution. It’s the only solution.

Aside from a pre-emptive first strike.

Gun control or no gun control, it is a basic lesson of adulthood that collective deterrence is your main source of personal protection. It’s what keeps large, armed gangs from kidnapping you for ransom.

No, your main source of personal protection from thugs are armed men who go and arrest the criminals, perhaps shooting it out with the thugs in the process. … As is your capability to defend yourself with deadly force.

I use “your” here in the generic sense. Progressive-minded Americans and Brits, oh-so-enlightened, rely on other men to protect them and call that progress.

Robet Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society.”

I also claim that strict, determined law enforcement that uses deadly force when necessary is a type of pre-emptive first strike on criminals and would-be violent criminals.

///////////////////

Btw, long range missile defense is also needed for non-nuclear war. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force has talked about shooting down American GPS and communications satellites. Even in a conventional war, these US space-based assets require defense.

Laser enthusiasm dominated in the early days. It was only when the charm of the Teller-Livermore posse’s nuke-pumped X-ray laser faded, and the mass-to-orbit cost for chemical lasers looked out of reach, that kinetic kill came to the forefront.

Even for that the mass-to-orbit cost looked out of reach, until SDIO — a lean, mean development organization free of NASA’s innumerable faults — came up with aggressive SSTO designs and Timberwind nuclear-thermal and improved laser launch designs, which as we all know have
yielded more CATS than we know what to do with.

“But they are not what MDA (formerly NMD, formerly BMDO, formerly SDI) is about. MDA is about shooting a bullet with a bullet.”

MDA is the Missile Defense Agency. If I am not mistaken, what you mean is currently called Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD). Also BDMO is the Balistic Missile Defense Organization. You kinda have a mis-mash of agencies and their programs.

Also, SDI didn’t so much center around the kenetic kill vehicle as space based lasers and such.