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.