severin said:
I read somewhere that in the US, if you own a gun, you are more likely to shoot a member of your family or friend by accident than in intruder - can anyone substantiate this?
This may be the result of a study done by Arthur L. Kellerman, called
Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home (314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60, 1986). The study claimed that guns in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal, however the methodology employed in the study was far from sound. As noted by author/advocate Guy Smith in his rebuttal to Kellerman's claims:
Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad). Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminal activities. In his critique of this “study”, Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were “inaccurate”, and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities.
Others have, similarly, refuted Kellerman's claims.
I would be most curious to see objective data which would substantiate what you've read (and also to know precisely the source you were reading). If it were dependent upon this study in particular, there is insufficient or flawed evidence presented to substantiate the claim.
According to the
Centers for Disease Control, there were, nationwide, a total of 824 accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999, and 776 in 2000 ('00 = most recent data available). Unfortunately, the URL I provided does not break those numbers down any further, so it's not possible to isolate figures for accidental deaths of family members or bystanders versus those self-inflicted (accidentally, as suicide is categorized separately as being intentional), let alone the location of the incidents and whether or not they occurred in the home.
Researchers like John Lott and Gary Kleck have authored studies claiming millions of defensive gun uses each year (IIRC, Kleck claims 2.5 million DGUs, for example, and Lott 2.1 million), and critics have pointed out fatal flaws in their respective methodologies, with which I mostly agree; I'm skeptical of the extremely high numbers. Government estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest a much lower number of defensive gun uses annually, roughly 100,000 each year -- but even at that it's still a survey, not 100% accurate.
What I would like to see is an objective comparison of empirical data on this matter, rather than politically-motivated rhetoric or "studies" skewed to achieve a desired result -- which appear all too commonly on both sides of the argument. I also wish I were capable of expanding upon what I've presented above. I'm no statistician, and do not have access to the sort of data I'd like in order to perform a comparison between defensive gun usage and its result and injuries/deaths which occur in the home versus successful deterrent of an attacker (whether resulting in discharge of the firearm or not). I personally find it difficult to believe that a firearm in the home is more dangerous to its owner(s) or other members of the household than an unwanted intruder. Then again, I'm a responsible, experienced firearms owner, and realize there is certainly no shortage of Darwin Award candidates in this country.
