Why Your Gun Likely Won’t Make You a Victim

In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann and several coauthors released a study in the New England Journal of Medicine comparing the ownership of firearms and likelihood of a homicide occurring within the home. In his findings, Kellermann reported that firearms ownership carried a 2.7 times greater risk of homicide in comparison to homes where firearms were not present. Since this is probably the closest thing to a legitimate study that gun control groups have, its findings are often recited like gospel anytime the issue is brought up in debate. Unfortunately for these groups, the study has some serious flaws that jeopardize its legitimacy and which have been well exposed by other researchers, such as John Lott, Ph.D.

In Chapter 2 of his book More Guns, Less Crime, Lott dedicates several paragraphs to a thorough critique of Kellermann’s work. The first and most significant of these criticisms is that Kellermann’s study fails to report that in only 8 of the 444 examined homicides could it be determined that the gun involved in the crime had been kept in the home and not brought in from outside. Part of the reason for this is that Kellermann only asked relatives of homicide victims whether or not a gun was kept in the home. He did not take this a step further to see if the gun that had been kept in the home was actually used in the commission of the homicide. Kellermann found some correlation between homicides and gun ownership, but never investigated whether or not the victims were shot with the gun held in the home, nor did he sufficiently establish whether the individual legally possessed the firearm or if that person had been involved in any other high risk/illegal activities. While he did ask relatives and neighbors of victims about potential drug or alcohol problems in the household, he did not thoroughly investigate other contributing factors that could have led to the crime.

In the same chapter, Lott compares the Kellermann conclusion to a hypothetical study assessing mortality rates between those who had recently visited a hospital and those who had not. Lott explains that such a study would likely find a very strong correlation between those who had recently visited a hospital and those who had died. Such an assessment could lead someone to think that visiting a hospital increases a person’s chance of untimely death. It is clear that this is not the case and such correlations should not be represented as causation. Likewise, the presence of a firearm in the house is unlikely to have caused the reported homicides. Without answering why these individuals owned firearms or whether or not these people were more likely to be attacked, it is impossible to fully determine the gun’s role in the crime.

Using the set of cases Kellermann looked at, it might be accurate to say that victims of homicides were more likely to have owned a firearm. Since homicide victims were Kellermann’s starting point, he could make such a claim. However, he cannot state that firearm owners are more likely to be victims of homicide. He did not obtain the random sample of gun owners that would have been necessary to test such a claim.

Lastly, Kellermann was extremely slow to release the data for his study. While we should not discount the study solely because of this, the fact that it took him 4 years to release a portion of the data is questionable. Such opacity substantially delayed effective analysis of his methodology and inhibited proper peer review at the time of its release.

While we should never be too quick to dismiss studies that produce undesirable results, we do need to critically review both pro- and anti-gun publications. In this case, the Kellermann study does not fare well against such examination.


Excerpt from More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, Ph.D: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Screen-Shot-2014-01-15-at-Wednesday-January-15-11.17-AM.png

More Lott: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Lott-Whitley-Safe-Storage-Laws.pdf

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, Dr. Arthur Kellermann et al.: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506




2 thoughts on “Why Your Gun Likely Won’t Make You a Victim

  1. Another major problem with the anti-rights cultists (aka gun control advocates) using the Kellermann study is they ignore those factors which have a higher association with being killed.

    Illicit drug use 5.7
    Home rented 4.4
    Any household member hit or 4.4
    hurt in a fight in the home
    Case subject or control 3.7
    lived alone
    Gun or guns kept in the home 2.7
    Any household member arrested 2.5

    Stopping people from using illegal drugs would be twice as effective as getting firearms out of the home — even if we didn’t know that Kellermann excluded every defensive gun use that didn’t result in a fatality !

    Hey…we could save lives by making everyone buy a home versus renting ….or not living alone.
    Really makes you wonder why the antis focus on the 4th leading factor, eh?

    Bob S.

    • Bob,

      Thank you for your comment. You have an excellent point about the relative effects of the other factors. You are also correct that using Kellermann’s logic, it would necessarily follow that renters are more likely to be homicide victims than those who live in a home they own. This is truly absurd logic at play here and I am not entirely sure that he understands the differences between correlation and causation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s