----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States, now "43 times"
> Robert Seeberger wrote: > ... > > Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy > > ...a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the > > June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. > > 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more > > likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal > > intruder. > > Most of the criticisms are valid, but there are a couple of > flaws. (I've snipped all but the flaws.) > > ... > > How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the > > criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law > > and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of > > firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in > > only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. > > But this isn't fair either, since the intent of the criminal is > unknown. The factor of 1000 is used as if all of these were prevented > homicides. A large fraction were probably "prevented burglaries", > which should not be counted as high as human life. (Possessing a gun > would have to foil MANY burglaries for that to be worth a sizable > risk of killing a family member!) > > ... > > "Reverse causation" is a significant factor that does not lend itself to > > quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial > > number of additional homicides in the home. A person, such as a drug dealer, > > who is in fear for his life, will be more likely to have a firearm in his > > home than will an ordinary person. Put another way, if a person fears death > > he might arm himself and at the same time be at greater risk of being > > murdered. Thus Kellermann's correlation is strongly skewed away from normal > > defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid than a > > finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet foods in their > > refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods "cause" obesity, or that > > because so many people die in hospitals we should conclude that hospitals > > "cause" premature death. Reverse causation thus further lowers the 0.006 > > value, but by an unknown amount. > > This is often called a "confounding variable", one factor that > increases the likelihood of both the "cause" (explanatory) and the > "effect" (response) variables in a study. They seem to be proposing > "fear of death by homicide" as a confounding variable, but it is > not stated very clearly. > One can successfully argue for some connection here. > Certainly people at high risk of being killed by homicide tend to > know this. And if one is "afraid of homicide", one is more likely > to shoot people without carefully verifying they are strangers, > leading to more accidental killings of family members. > But it doesn't seem to me to be a very strong effect, and > it could well be countered by people in an armed household knowing > enough not to do things like "climb in the window when you forget > your keys, rather than knock and wake everybody up". > I wish I'd seen this one first: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html xponent The Mood Struck Me Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
