Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

Perhaps the fine doctors can focus on an issue that the American people actually endorse such as getting rid of the infected illegal immigrants who waltz across the borders carrying multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.

1) These research papers used high-risk populations with extensive histories of drug-abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and criminal records. The research has little to offer about the risks of keeping a firearm in a "normal" American home.

2) Correlation does not prove causation. This is like doing a study to determine how diabetics differ from non-diabetics, noting that diabetics are more likely to possess insulin, and concluding that insulin possession is a risk factor for diabetes.

3) American suicide rates actually compare favorably with other nations where firearm ownership is lower. People bent on self-destruction will find ways to do it even if firearms are not available.

4) A majority of American homicide victims (up to 80% in some surveys) had criminal records, or had traces of narcotics in their systems when they arrived at the ER. Most homicide in the U.S. is criminals killing other criminals.

Most medical studies are unusually one sided. They also tend not to check facts like it wasn't the homeowners gun used and cherry pick data high crime areas used. They also do not take into account the estimated 1-2.5 million self defense uses per year where in most cases the firearm is not even fired. Kleck's study found a much higher value to the positive use of the firearms and it has been reviewed and proven to be highly accurate by both sides pro and anti gun people.

A firearm is just a tool, much like a car (which are 20-50 times more likely to kill you than firearms are, depending on whose statistics you're using). Any misuse of a tool is the fault of the operator, not the tool. So spend your time/money/energy educating people on the proper use of firearms. That way we can all be both safe and free, rather than just unharmed slaves.

On the other hand, doctors have killed more people than firearms. Perhaps we can conclude that doctors are a real danger to society. We can also conclude that more people die in hospitals than in the home and therefore hospitals are a danger to society. Any data set can be tortured and misapplied to reached a pre-determined conclusion ("self fullfilling prophecy"). In my years of research I have seen several colleagues and students abuse statistics in this way. Nice try guys but most rational thinking adults see through the political agenda.  

Typically for an author with a pre-existing anti-firearms ownership  agenda, Dr. Lippmann goes to great lengths to establish causation for an inanimate object (firearm) incapable of independent action, with complex social problems such as suicide. In Australia the draconian imposition of gun prohibitions saw a decline of firearms-involved suicide, but no change in the thirty year gradual decline in suicide rates. In other words, guns cannot "cause" suicide. Much the same can be said for incidents of domestic violence involving firearms. Any study purporting to demonstrate causation must deal with the vast number of firearms in society which are not involved in any sort of violence. Any attempt to blame an object for medico-social problems is destined to fail upon closer inspection.

For the good doc's information, the V.T. shooter did indeed pass his background check when purchasing his firearms - because patient confidentiality forbade release of his records pertaining to mental instability. This has since been remedied by the Virginia Legislature.

True, a firearm in the home is far more dangerous than not.  But the same goes for drugs, alcohol, kitchen knives, electricity, 2nd floor windows, picket fences, German shepherds, fireplaces, gas stoves, space heaters, over eating in the home etc.  The president recently referred to an estimated 5 BILLION dollar savings by implementing proposed tort reform being too little, so why would 4 billion dollars in firearm injuries come to question?  How about the many lives a firearm does save?  Is the doctor saying the expense outweighs those lives.  I appreciate the effort, but hope those responsible for this report, also investigate other dangers in the home. BTW:  Proper education and respect for firearms will go a long way.  No different than a proper drivers education.   I can't argue the impulse of someone choosing to kill themselves by firearm, but they also use other methods.

Curious to know exactly what the "scientific data" is that these conclusions are based upon. Who was in the study. When was it conducted? How many households? What correlative data was used to tie the gun ownership into the hospital visits and death stats. What studies were shown to compare non-gun-ownership and hospital visits and deaths. What data was used to compare deaths from break-ins, home-invasions, burglaries, and assaults in homes without protection vs homes with protection? Who funded this study? Was it George Soros and his group who is extremely anti-gun? Or was it a double blind study that was looking at many factors without the bias against guns being part of the questions and the research?

Recent FBI data shows that gun deaths have DECREASED every year in the past 4 years. This is at a time when gun purchases and gun club memberships have RISEN steadily in the same four years. The deaths tracked were both for accidental gun deaths and gun deaths during a crime.

And, in fact, as these statistics show - Doctors are 9,000 times more likely to cause a death than a gun in the home. Perhaps we should control doctors better. www.americanconservativedaily.com/.../

There is absolutely no truth to the statement that guns in the home put you at more risk! None whatsoever! The figures used include people who own illegal guns and people who were involved other illegal activities. The suicides? Please, firearms are not the only way one can kill their self. That's just sheer stupidity! This is so obviously a manipulation of data that the ones conducting this "study" are engaging in an act of fraud.
Unarmed people are the cause of increased criminal activity and should be charged extra taxes in order to pay for an increased police presence. You are more likely to be shot by a police officer than your own firearm or another permit/license holder. I'm glad to see that most of the commenters here can see this this article as horse$#!@.

How utter ridiculous all the 'counter arguements' - if one has to grace them with that term -are.  Statistically you are 12 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member with a gun in your house - and you're very unlikely to kill an intruder because bluntly you're not trained in how to do so.  Law enforcement officers spend weeks learning how and when to use firearms and your Dirty Harry fantasies just won't come true.  You'll either end up shooting yourself in the foot (or worse) or end up shooting a family member, innocent bystander or neighbour coming to check you're OK after seeing an intruder flee.

To the naysayers, these data can be borne out by death certificate and police records. But don't let facts get in the way of your mythical lives.

Right, because the second you kill an intruder, it's counted as "firearm-related violence". It really gets old bogus stats from both sides of the argument keeps getting supported by the "press".