First off, I don't want this to become a debate about one particular page of Stupid White Men pertaining to guns.
The fact is that Stupid White Men is *full* of figures and statistics that don't match their references or are just plain wrong. The gun page contained just two examples.
But, as we are talking about the guns, I should try and make very clear the point that Moore is using statistics that I can find no evidence to support. I can see (or I think I can see) what original fact he has distorted, but that doesn't make what he does any better.
smooth
I did not erroneously phrase point (1).
Here is the Brady factsheet again:
Quote:
Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma....
... The statistic noted above bears repeating: a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting.
|
Top line says kill. Bottom line says "shooting".
So we need to go back to the original Kellermann study for an adjudication. Here's what the study says:
Quote:
|
For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
|
So the answer: It should be shootings.
This is a prime example of how a statistic gets warped.
Fact 1) A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to *shoot* someone in the family than to shoot the burglar. [- Kellermann study]
"Fact" 2) A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to *kill* someone in the family than to kill the burglar. [- Brady factsheet]
...
and now the Moore quantum leap....
"Fact" 3) "A *member of your family* is 22 times more likely to *die* from gunfire if you have a gun in your house than if you don't." [- Stupid White Men, p.76]
So if you lived in a rough area and you had a 5% chance of dieing from a gunshot, what is the effect of you buying a gun?
Answer: You now have a 110% (22 x 5) probability of being killed by a bullet.
Hmmm.
Now I don't get paid for reading Kellermann. Nor do I get paid for writing in TFP. Nor do I have the support of a publisher or a research team if i wanted one. Yet I managed with ease (it took me twenty minutes to find, read and check Kellermann's maths) to find the above out. Why couldn't Michael?
Furthermore,
smooth, I think I need to re-emphasise the 2%/98% point. Michael again:
Quote:
|
Among all the instances when a guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidently shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burglars take the gun and kill them with it.
|
Firstly, I don't find a logical inconsistency in what he says. I think he makes a clear statement that is obviously and intuitively wrong.
Secondly, there is nothing on the Brady factsheet that genuinely resembles Moore's claim. Nor have I found anything that would substantiate it. There are two places where the Brady factsheet uses the figure 2% or a pair of numbers that could used to reach 2%. But neither of these statistics translates into what Moore is claiming.
In other words Moore is just making up statistics that he thinks will look shocking (and of course they do look shocking, because they blow reality out of proportion) and suit his argument.