It's like a bad dream, Bucky...
"A key go-to guy for many of the CDCs studies was their favorite gun researcher, Arthur Kellermann, the director of Emory Universitys Center for Injury Control. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his coauthors cited a book written by James Wright and Peter Rossi titled Under the Gun to support their contention that restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide. Yet the book actually says the opposite. With reference to that particular notion, it actually said: There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view."
Still more obfuscation by the CDC researchers:
"
CDC funded Kellermann and his colleagues to study whether guns in homes are a benefit or liability for protection from criminal intrusions. According to their examination of 198 incidents in which burglars entered occupied homes in Atlanta, they found that only three individuals (1.5%) employed a firearm in self defense, therefore concluding that guns are rarely used. Closer examination of their data, however, tells a somewhat different story.
In 42% of those incidents, there was no confrontation between the victim and offender because, as they admitted, the offender(s) either left silently or fled when detected. When the burglar left silently, the intended victim wasnt aware of the crime, and therefore had no opportunity to use a gun in self-defense, or alternatively, to call the police. The incidents where would-be intruders fled when detected, may actually indicate that that defensive gun ownership can be a crime deterrent, encouraging burglars to flee."
"A key go-to guy for many of the CDCs studies was their favorite gun researcher, Arthur Kellermann, the director of Emory Universitys Center for Injury Control. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his coauthors cited a book written by James Wright and Peter Rossi titled Under the Gun to support their contention that restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide. Yet the book actually says the opposite. With reference to that particular notion, it actually said: There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view."
Since the author doesn't have any way of refuting the substance of the research at the CDC, he brings up Arthur Kellermann. A guy who pro-gun activists view as pretty much the Devil. Here's the abstract from that article straight from the New England Journal of Medicine:
Abstract To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The medical examiner's case files were supplemented by police records or interviews with investigating officers or both, to obtain specific information about the circumstances, the scene of the incident, the type of firearm involved, and the relationship of the suspect to the victim. A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Handguns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths.
The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned. (N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 155760.)
I mean I haven't read that article, and honestly i'm not subscribing to the New England Journal of medicine just to read it, and I'm not purchasing it. So it seems like "that article is misquoting the conclusion reached by the scientific article it is "citing""""" < forgot how many degrees of quotation marks to use... this is that article that has the dreaded 43x more likely to die than homes without a gun statistic.... why didn't the author take a swipe at that? Kellerman even has some scientific detractors, who have an actual basis for refuting some of his claims, mainly because while his studies show acceptable methodology, he at times refused to provide raw data for his peers to review. I mean that's all speculation too because if it were true his findings wouldn't be published in peer-reviewed journals... but it's still something... I'll leave it up to you to buy the article, if you need help finding it it's New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 314 No. (24) published in June 12, 1986......