4 ms·

Citation needed from a primary source.

dfsegoat 9y ago
Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim. In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s... [2] - https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Could you go to https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and deep link the section you are referencing? It's a long report and sounds like an interesting finding.
  - dfsegoat 9y ago
    No problem. See below link to proper page, section: "Impact of Having a Firearm at Home" https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40 https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I don't see where it shows there is an obvious overall protective effect from firearm possession. Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities. doesn't exactly sound conclusive.
      - dfsegoat 9y ago
        Except where it says: "However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."
        maxerickson 9y ago
        And the sentence before that is Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. I suppose the problem is that I read In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. and expected evidence showing that the benefits were greater than the risks, rather than a simple citation of research claiming there is a benefit.
        dfsegoat 9y ago
        Fair enough. I'll concede that - I could have phrased it more neutrally vs. cherry picking.
- vkou 9y ago
  Accidents and domestic violence can be attributed to ~6% of gun deaths. Looking at just the former, there are at least 500 fatal accidents/year.[1] These are just clear accidents - there are also accidents which are prosecuted, and convicted as homicides - and accidents which are categorized as homicides, but are not prosecuted. The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2] So, your gun is indeed twice as likely to kill someone in an accident, then a bad guy in self-defense. (Never mind that not all of those justifiable homicides prevented violence against your physical person. Killing a burglar who wanted your stereo is lumped in the same category as killing someone who wanted to murder you.) I don't have much of a horse in the legislature of gun control, but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ [2] http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
  - dfsegoat 9y ago
    > but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease. This is a ridiculous conclusion. Sorry, you can't just take numbers from one study, and divide by another to approximate relative risk or odds ratio. That isn't how public health statistics and policy works.
phd514 9y ago
That sounds like it might be a derivative of the oft-quoted statistic that gun owners in the US are more likely to be harmed by their own gun than to use it successfully in self-defense. The problem with that statistic is that it includes suicides as instances self-harm. Of course they are, but that is clearly a deceptive use of the statistic because after suicide cases are removed, it shows that gun owners are much more likely to use their own guns in self-defense rather than be harmed by them. One might be able to make the case that suicides should be included if those gun owners considering suicide would give it up if they had no gun rather than simply choose another method, but that has not been established.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim. In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. Sources: [1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s... [2] - https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...

maxerickson 9y ago
Could you go to https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and deep link the section you are referencing? It's a long report and sounds like an interesting finding.
- dfsegoat 9y ago
  No problem. See below link to proper page, section: "Impact of Having a Firearm at Home" https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40 https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    I don't see where it shows there is an obvious overall protective effect from firearm possession. Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities. doesn't exactly sound conclusive.
    - dfsegoat 9y ago
      Except where it says: "However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        And the sentence before that is Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. I suppose the problem is that I read In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. and expected evidence showing that the benefits were greater than the risks, rather than a simple citation of research claiming there is a benefit.
        dfsegoat 9y ago
        Fair enough. I'll concede that - I could have phrased it more neutrally vs. cherry picking.
vkou 9y ago
Accidents and domestic violence can be attributed to ~6% of gun deaths. Looking at just the former, there are at least 500 fatal accidents/year.[1] These are just clear accidents - there are also accidents which are prosecuted, and convicted as homicides - and accidents which are categorized as homicides, but are not prosecuted. The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2] So, your gun is indeed twice as likely to kill someone in an accident, then a bad guy in self-defense. (Never mind that not all of those justifiable homicides prevented violence against your physical person. Killing a burglar who wanted your stereo is lumped in the same category as killing someone who wanted to murder you.) I don't have much of a horse in the legislature of gun control, but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ [2] http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf
- dfsegoat 9y ago
  > but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease. This is a ridiculous conclusion. Sorry, you can't just take numbers from one study, and divide by another to approximate relative risk or odds ratio. That isn't how public health statistics and policy works.

phd514 9y ago

That sounds like it might be a derivative of the oft-quoted statistic that gun owners in the US are more likely to be harmed by their own gun than to use it successfully in self-defense. The problem with that statistic is that it includes suicides as instances self-harm. Of course they are, but that is clearly a deceptive use of the statistic because after suicide cases are removed, it shows that gun owners are much more likely to use their own guns in self-defense rather than be harmed by them. One might be able to make the case that suicides should be included if those gun owners considering suicide would give it up if they had no gun rather than simply choose another method, but that has not been established.