These ones Really get me scratching my head.
In that 2nd one our pet lobbyist even drops a citation to on Arthur Kellerman
I think we’ve all read the rebuttal studies, and read the flaws. Simply do a Google search for “kellerman study flaws” and you’ll have plenty of reading.
Still the big flaws I see as a scientist is Kellerman:
-Only counted dead bodies. Claiming it was impossible to defend yourself AND have your attacker live, either through medical intervention, them simply running or surrendering, or a shot missing.
-“Relationship” was defined as “Knowing the deceased”: This ties in with the next point…
-Criminals illegally owning guns and engaging in criminal acts were separated in any way: So a drug dealer shooting his competition or a junkie who wouldn’t pay his debts was counted the same a a father shooting his own son or wife by mistake. Also a criminal bringing a gun in a home invasion and killing the resident would count the same if the two knew each other, and the deceased would be counted as “Having a gun in the home”.
-Only encounters in a residence were discussed.
-Very small sample size, over a very narrow area were used.
-No Peer review.
So we have a 15 year-old-study with some deep flaws that were very likely intentionally rolled into the study to give the wrong impression, and look at both of those images. They’re citing the same study, and not only are they interpreting it incorrectly, but they are incorrectly interpreting it DIFFERENTLY.
Kellerman was paid by the Joyce Foundation to make an study that vilified gun ownership. He then cooked up a study where every gang-land execution and turf war would count toward his bottom line, and then implied that rather than gang soldiers killing rival gang members (obviously who are “Known to them”) was a lawful gun owner killing a member of their family either criminally or negligently.
And boy do the professional advocates of gun control cling to this study. They cling to it because their group paid good money for it, so they’re going to use it if its good or not, and because its one of the ONLY studies that come to this conclusion. The other being the equally Joyce-Funded Branas Study which steps outside the home, and counts criminal assaults, as well as non-fatal self-defense shootings, but still makes no effort to separate somebody who is legally carrying and owning a gun doing legal behavior from the gangs murdering each other.
Its really sad. Who are the “bitter clingers” here?
And flat out lying. If they are going to cite Kellerman, they need to say, “…than kill an assailant in self-defense”, and not “…than used in self-defense”