There is probably no better
example of junk-science that the studies of Kellerman and
co-authors. They are still widely quoted by Gun Control
despite having been soundly refuted many times.
The [Kellerman] study has been widely
criticised for the following reasons:
- The statement implies that the goal of gun
ownership is a body-count. Only 0.1% to 0.2% of the cases
of defensive use involves the death of a criminal. The
truest measure of the effectiveness of gun ownership is
in the lives saved, property protected, and medical costs
reduced.
- The study group did not represent a true
cross-section of the American public. CDC studies have
shown that the murder rate for minorities is about 5
times that of whites. Despite this sad fact, 62% of
Kellerman's group was black, compared to the average 25%
in the areas the study was performed.
- Furthermore, the study group had a very
high rate of social dysfunction. 52.7% of the households
had a member with an arrest record, 31.3% had a history
of drug abuse, and 31.8% had a household member hurt in a
family fight. This group can hardly be called
representative of the average household.
- It deceptively understates the protective
uses of guns. Ignoring data that shows at least 800,000
(and possibly as many as 2.5 million) protective uses of
guns each year, Kellerman chose to exclude any uses
outside the home from his study. In reality, as many as
75 lives are saved for every one lost to a gun
Copyright © 2001 Crimefree South
Africa, all rights reserved.