Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.
Summary
Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times
greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann.
The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study,
but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that
people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know
than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were
over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that
the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely
due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder
method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased
murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers
or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation
is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a
normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other
explanation fits the above facts.
Argument
Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection.
The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an
important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping
a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the
home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely
to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?
In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur
Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes
that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent
of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone
they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent
of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers.
However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the
cases.
Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent
were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide
(that is, self-defense).
After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs
and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of
getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than
without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was
ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.
Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun
advocates have fiercely attacked this survey. Kellermann's work
has been branded "junk science," "unpublishable,"
"biased," "seriously flawed," "fraudulent"
and "grand malpractice." The NRA also criticized the
Centers for Disease Control for continuing to fund such anti-gun
research, and the Republican Congress pressured the CDC to shut
it down completely. Thus, the reaction of Republicans and the
NRA to this controversial study was not to call for more studies
to clarify the issue, but to censor all further scientific research.
Pro-gun advocates respond that they are not promoting censorship,
only objecting to wasting tax dollars on blatantly biased, deeply
flawed research. Pro-gunners feel that the sound bites generated
by this study will become part of a popular mythology against
guns that will be hard to correct. But this objection is based
on a faulty view of the research method. The best way to correct
bad science is to subject it to expert criticism: namely, peer
review. Kellermann's study was, and it passed. Pro-gunners might
then wish to criticize the peer review process. For example, they
might accuse Kellermann's peer reviewers of sharing his bias (although
there are protocols in peer review to avoid this). The principled
response, then, would be to examine and reform the peer review
process. For example, Republicans in Congress might have called
for pro-gun criminologists like Gary Kleck to be included in all
future peer review of CDC-funded studies. Another principled response would be
for the NRA -- one of the richest organizations in America --
to start funding its own research by way of rebuttal. But to shut
down all further research is both censorship and anti-science.
It is apparent from the attacks on Kellermann's study that most
of his critics have not even read it. Simply reading the original
article in The New England Journal of Medicine (October
7, 1993) would answer 95 percent of their objections. The study
was well-designed and is entirely valid. Like any scientific study,
it has its limitations. It does not prove that guns cause a higher
murder rate in the home, only that the two are associated for
some reason. And there are more variables that need to be explored.
But the Kellermann study is a legitimate addition to the small
but growing scientific literature on the benefits and costs of
domestic firearms.
The rest of this essay will be divided into two parts: a detailed
description of the Kellermann survey, and a rebuttal of its criticisms.
The survey
Kellermann chose to conduct this survey using the "case-control
method" (or CCM). This method examines the differences between
two groups: one that possesses a certain trait, and another that
does not. For instance, a researcher may compare a "case
group" that has lung cancer to a "control group"
that is free of the disease. After asking them questions about
their behavior and environment, he may learn that the case group
generally smokes, but the control group does not. Conclusion:
smoking is correlated to lung cancer. In this instance, the arrow
of causality is easy to determine, because it is unlikely that
lung cancer causes people to start smoking. But sometimes the
arrow of causality is more difficult to determine, as in the case
of gun ownership and murder.
Kellermann's team identified 388 victims ("case subjects")
who were killed in private homes. Surviving members of the household
("proxies") formed the case group which answered the
survey. The researchers also gave an identical survey to a control
group of 388 other people, who were matched to the victims by
age, race, sex and neighborhood.
The homicides which were studied came from three metropolitan
areas. The first two were Shelby County, Tennessee (which includes
Memphis), and King County, Washington (which includes Seattle),
both from August 1987 to August 1992. The third was Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (which includes Cleveland), from January 1990 to August 1992.
King County is predominately white and enjoys a relatively high
standard of living. Cuyahoga County is 25 percent African-American,
as is 44 percent of Shelby County. The poverty levels of these
counties were 5, 11 and 15 percent, respectively. (The national
poverty rate in 1992 was 15 percent.)
The team originally identified 444 cases of homicide in the home,
about a fourth of the total number of homicides for those counties.
This number was reduced to 420 for the study for various reasons,
then to 405 because a control couldn't be found, and then to 388
because a proxy couldn't be interviewed. The high response rate
of case proxies (92.6 percent) and matching controls (80.6 percent)
is typically considered to have minimized nonresponse bias.
The survey asked 31 questions about the subjects' environment
and behavior. The results are listed below. The first two columns
reflect the percentage of those who answered yes to the question.
The third column reflects the crude odds that a murder would be
more likely for those who answered yes. For example, for the first
question, murder was 2.4 times more likely in a household where
any member drank alcohol. An odds ratio of 1.0 represents no extra
risk. Keep in mind that the crude odds are confounded by other
variables, and by themselves do not tell the whole story. Another
analytical step is needed to arrive closer to the truth.
Case Control Crude odds Behavioral factors Subjects Subjects Ratio --------------------------------------------------------- Any household member drank 73.3% 55.9% 2.4 alcoholic beverages Case subject or control drank 62.8 41.9 2.6 alcoholic beverages Drinking caused problems 24.8 5.7 7.0 in the household Any household member had 9.0 0.8 10.7 trouble at work because of drinking Case subject or control had 5.5 0.3 20.0 at work because of drinking Any household member 11.4 2.3 9.8 hospitalized because of drinking Case subject or control 7.6 0.5 14.0 hospitalized because of drinking Any household member used 31.3 6.0 9.0 illicit drugs Case subject or control 20.3 4.2 6.8 used illicit drugs Any physical fights in the 25.3 3.4 8.9 home during drinking Any household member hit or 31.8 5.7 7.9 hurt in a fight in the home Any family member required 17.3 2.1 10.2 medical attention because of a fight in the home Any adult household member 29.9 18.8 2.1 involved in a physical fight outside the home Any household member arrested 52.7 23.4 4.2 Case subject or control 36.0 15.7 3.5 arrested Environmental Factors Home Rented 70.4 47.6 5.9 Public Housing 11.1 9.8 1.5 Case subject or control 26.8 11.9 3.4 lived alone Deadbolt locks 68.8 75.3 0.8 Window bars 19.2 20.9 0.8 Metal Security Door 25.4 26.8 0.9 Burglar alarm 7.1 11.1 0.6 Controlled security access 13.9 9.8 2.3 to residence Dog or dogs in home 24.2 22.4 1.1 Gun or guns in home 45.4 35.8 1.6 Handgun 35.7 23.3 1.9 Shotgun 13.6 16.8 0.7 Rifle 12.2 13.9 0.8 Any gun kept unlocked 29.6 17.8 2.1 Any gun kept loaded 26.7 12.5 2.7 Guns kept primarily for 32.6 22.2 1.7 self-defense
The above chart is an example of "univariate analysis,"
or a straight comparison between the two groups. But this analysis
is incomplete. There are many variables that simultaneously contribute
to the odds of a person being murdered: drug use, domestic violence,
criminal history, level of protection, etc. A person who answers
yes to the question "Does anyone in the house use illicit
drugs?" might be nine times more likely to be murdered, but
that doesn't eliminate all the other variables that also contribute
to the total murder risk. To isolate the risk attributed to drug
use alone, researchers need to perform "multivariate analysis,"
which zeroes out all these other factors. That way, we can learn
how drug use in and of itself raises the murder risk.
Kellermann's team found only six variables that were strong enough
to be included in the final model. They found that the following
variables were associated with the following increased murder
risks:
Murder risk, Variable Odds adjusted ratio --------------------------------------------------- Illicit drug use 5.7 times Being a renter 4.4 Household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home 4.4 Living alone 3.7 Guns in the house 2.7 Household member arrested 2.5
If there were a protective benefit to having a gun in the home,
this survey would have found it. After all, if the survey could
detect an increased murder risk from the presence of a
gun in the home, there's no reason it couldn't from the absence
of one as well. But the team found no protective benefits of a
gun in the home whatsoever, for any of the subgroups studied.
Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent
of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall
murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was
4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is
not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased
risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a
gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only,
not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because
it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary
family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder
victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun.
Alcohol was not included in the multivariate analysis, despite
its strong association in the univariate analysis, because alcohol
was also related to all the other variables in the final model.
Including alcohol in the final model did not substantially alter
the results. Furthermore, the odds-adjusted ratio of alcohol was
not significantly greater than 1.
The researchers also conducted a stratified analysis of their
final model, which found that the link between guns and homicide
existed in all 14 subgroups studied. This included women as well
as men, whites as well as blacks, and the old as well as the young.
Most tellingly, they found the strongest association between guns
and homicide among family members and intimate acquaintances (7.8
times more likely). Guns were much less associated to homicides
by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers (1.8 times).
Again, this supports the interpretation that guns allow family
fights to turn deadly. Here is a complete list of the murder risk
by subgroup:
Murder risk, Subgroup Adjusted odds ratio --------------------------------------------- Sex Female 3.6 times Male 2.3 Race White 2.7 Black 2.9 Age 15-40 3.4 Over 40 2.3 Suspect related to or intimate with victim: Yes 7.8 No 1.8 Evidence of forced entry Yes 2.5 No 2.8 Victim resisted assailant Yes 3.0 No 3.1 Method of homicide Firearm 4.8 Other 1.2
Also revealing are the circumstances surrounding the 420 homicides:
Characteristic Percent of victims --------------------------------------------------- Scene Inside residence 88.8% Within immediate property 11.2 Sex of victim Female 36.9 Male 63.1 Race or ethnic group of victim White 33.3 Black 61.9 Native American, Eskimo, Aleut 1.0 Asian or Pacific Islander 1.7 Other 2.1 Age of victim (years) 15-24 13.8 25-40 40.7 41-60 25.2 Over 61 20.2 Circumstances Altercation or quarrel 44.0 Romantic triangle 6.9 Murder-suicide 4.5 Felony-related 21.9 Drug-dealing 7.6 Homicide only 13.3 Other 1.7 Relationship of offender to victim
Spouse 16.7 Intimate acquaintance 13.8 First-degree relative 9.5 Other relative 2.9 Roommate 2.9 Friend or acquaintance 31.0 Police officer 1.0 Stranger 3.6 Unknown (unidentified suspect) 17.4 Other 1.4 Method of homicide Handgun 42.9 Rifle 2.4 Shotgun 3.6 Unknown firearm 1.0 Knife or sharp instrument 26.4 Blunt instrument 11.7 Strangulation or suffocation 6.4 Burns, smoke, scalding 2.4 Other 3.3 Victim resisted assailant Yes 43.8 No 33.3 Not noted 22.9 Evidence of forced entry Yes 14.0 No 84.3 Not noted 1.7 Legally excusable homicide Yes 3.6 No 96.4
Several points about this chart are noteworthy. The first is that
at least 76.7 percent of the murderers were relatives, friends
or acquaintances of the victim. In fact, the victim's murderer
was 21 times more likely to be a relative or acquaintance than
a stranger. Even in the 14 percent of the cases involving forced
entry, the vast majority of the intruders were known to the victim.
The threat of forced entry is the most commonly cited reason for
possessing a domestic firearm, but the researchers found no protective
benefit for this subgroup either.
The researchers write: "Efforts to increase home security
have largely focused on preventing unwanted entry, but the greatest
threat to the lives of household members appears to come from
within."
Of the 388 homicides surveyed, 21 victims died while unsuccessfully
trying to defend themselves with a gun. Only 15 of the deaths
were ruled justifiable homicide or legal self-defense, and four
of these were by the police.
The authors did present their study with several limitations.
First, they acknowledged that they limited their study of homicides
to those which occurred in the home, their goal simply being to
measure the effectiveness of gun protection in the home. Homicides
at other locations (such as bars, work or the streets) were not
counted. Therefore, the dynamics of homicide in these locations
might be quite different.
Second, they acknowledged that their research was conducted in
urban settings that lacked a substantial Hispanic population.
The dynamics of homicide in that community therefore might be
quite different.
Third, they acknowledged that the arrow of causality could point
in the opposite direction in some of the cases. For example, a
person might acquire a gun in response to a specific threat. If
the threat was then carried out, the correlation between the gun
and the murder could be partly attributed to the failure of the
weapon to provide protection.
Fourth, they acknowledged that a third, unidentified factor might
be responsible for both gun possession and murder risk.
For example, the victims may have had violent, aggressive personalities
or some other psychological disorder that predisposed them to
both greater gun possession and murder. The authors note that
they included several behavioral markers for aggression and violence
in their survey, but they did not conduct a full "psychological
autopsy" given the impractical nature of such a task. Still,
they note that "a link between gun ownership and any psychological
tendency toward violence or victimization would have to be extremely
strong to account for an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7."
So, what are the study's conclusions? The authors write: