Multiply it by the risk of being murdered if you lived in a home where a gun wasn't kept. The 95% confidence level meant this finding was statistically significant. Usually a finding is rejected if you can't be at least 95% confident that it's not just statistical noise.
What other factors play a roll in these gun deaths in homes with guns? I have lived with guns my entire life as have most the people I know. Yet I know no one personally who has been murdered or has murdered anyone. There has to be some other factor than just the presence of a gun. I would actually think these stats would make all the anti-gun people very happy. I would believe that in most households where guns are located the residents would be pro gun. If that is the case, every time someone in one of those homes is killed it takes out one more of the opposition.
So a very very tiny percentage of the risk of dying each year, behind such risks as driving, living alone, renting, drinking, etc. Did you notice that right at half of the homicide victims in the study were not killed by a firearm? Given that the overall homicide rate by firearms is somewhere around 70% of all homicides, why is a lower percentage of homicides in the home, even in homes where guns are?
Bovine excrement. Kellermann only counted it as a DGU if the assailant was killed. If an honest citizen shot a home invader and dropped him, but the attacker survived to be arrested and prosecuted Kellermann didn't count it in his figures.
And if the assailant was killed, Kellermann just added it into the homicides in the home data. Nice BOGO.
The study was done incorrectly, because it did not exclude those who have criminal records, and thus cannot legally possess firearms to begin with. Nor can the study actually demonstrate that firearms ownership is a greater risk of homicide than engaging in criminal activity.
That 95% confidence interval covered a range where 25% of the range was not statistically significant. What is the risk of being murdered in a house with no guns?
The people who would be the most in interested in this study, the insurance industry, evidently don't see that same risk. My homeowners insurance company didn't even ask if I own guns. If guns in the home were such a risk, wouldn't they at least ask about them?
People with guns in their home were more likely to be murdered. So whatever defensive gun uses those people engaged in did not result in their overall risk of murder being lowered. There could have been 1,000 defensive gun uses among those who owned guns but those defensive gun uses did not result in a lower murder risk. So as far as the risk of murder is concerned, those defensive gun uses didn't do much good.
A 95% confidence interval means that you can be 95% confident that the true value is somewhere within the interval.
"Gun ownership was most strongly associated with homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance (adjusted odds ratio, 7.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 23.2). Guns were not significantly linked to an increased risk of homicide by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 So gun ownership only increases your risk of being murdered by someone you know well. Furthermore, gun ownership is much more strongly linked to women being murdered than men being murdered: "Women in states with higher rates of gun ownership are at greater risk of being killed by people they know than those in states where a smaller percentage of people own guns. And ownership rates alone explain 40 percent of the variation in women’s homicide victimization rates, compared to only 1.5 percent of the variation in men’s victimization rates, according to a new study by School of Public Health researchers... "The researchers found a 'substantial' association between state gun ownership rates and killings of women by guns, concluding that while there are multiple factors that predict rates of gun deaths in which males are the victims, 'the prevalence of firearm ownership alone is enough to predict the rate of firearm-related homicide of females in a state quite well.' " http://www.bu.edu/sph/2016/01/26/link-between-gun-ownership-rates-and-murders-of-women/ This is probably due in large part to women being shot by their husbands/boyfriends in domestic violence incidents.
I find fault with the first sentence of your linked information: How the hell does keeping a firearm increase the risk of violent crime? Does someone in the home look at the gun one day and think "hey maybe I will kill someone or rob someone"? The propensity for violence is already there if someone becomes violent. The presence of a gun does not create violent crime or make someone a violent criminal. The gun may result in death but I say if some guy was going to beat his significant other that makes him violent. Having the gun does not make someone violent. It may make them a murderer but it does not instill violence.
I'm aware of that. A statistically significant portion of the range of risk lies outside of the risk level that's statistically significant. Why don't insurance companies ask their insured if guns are kept in the house? What else is this study good for?
I suspect that those numbers are indeed fpdriven by domestic violence, which is why Lautenberg was passed. I do know that 45% of adult female homicide victims are killed with means other than firearms, which tells us men don't need guns to kill women.
According to the study by Arthur Kellerman, only those who were engaged in criminal activity, or who chose to live with those who have a criminal record. Those who have no association with criminal individuals do not face the same risk, regardless of the number or type of firearms they own. Because Arthur Kellerman only counted instances where the assailant was killed rather than injured, and only in incidents that occurred within the home. The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such make, that would be relevant to the discussion?
"The NRA has, meanwhile, reportedly been subject to an FBI investigation concerning its Russian donors.... "Currently, the organization appears to be preparing for further investigation by setting aside years of documents related to Alexander Torshin, a Russian banker and NRA member with ties to the Kremlin, and possibly the Russian mob, who was recently put on a sanctions list by the Treasury Department.... "Even if we take at face value the NRA’s blanket denials that there was any Russian money spent on its effort to support the Trump campaign, the fact that the American public knows so little about who funds campaign spending is a problem that the NRA has helped to create. For years, the NRA aggressively pushed for donor secrecy, fighting against any rules that require additional disclosure of the sources of campaign funds.... "Fortunately, there are ready solutions to these problems. The DISCLOSE Act has made a comeback, with a new sponsor in Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and without a loophole for the NRA.... "The NRA’s ads say they 'fight [the] violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.' They should think about applying that tough-guy attitude about truth and disclosing the true source of their funds." https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...e-about-its-russian-donors-because-ncna871216 What is the NRA hiding?
If the Russians gave Money to N.R.A. they must love flushing it down the toilet too. Fat lot of good it would do. Zilch, NADA......nothing !
the Hillary fan boys just cannot fathom how their beloved goddess lost. after all the DNC rigged the election to take out goofy Bernie and the Media did everything possible to undermine Trump and still, the lying bitch lost. So her worshippers have to come up with some nefarious reasons how their modern day Joan of Arc went down in flames.
