Le Kellermann est mort, vive le Kellermann!

I have been critical of Arthur Kellermann’s gun research in the past, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but in reading for my post on the validity of gun ownership statistics came across another reason Kellermann’s name is so often taken in vain by those defending the gun culture in America.


In their 1995 article on the validity of gun ownership surveys, Rafferty and colleagues write:

Kellermann and coworkers conducted a landmark study validating responses to the question, “Are guns of any kind kept in your household?” in a face-to-face survey in Memphis, TN, and Seattle, WA.

Well, “Kellermann” and “landmark” in the same sentence merits a closer look. Unlike the Rafferty study, the Kellermann study is not freely available on-line, but everything important can be gotten from the abstract.


Beginning with 75 homes of owners of recently registered handguns, they were actually able to make contact with 55 households (73%).

Of those 55 households, 36% refused to participate in the survey. The 35 participating households, therefore, represent just under half of the households selected for the study (47%).

Of the participating households, 88.6% admitted to having one or more guns in the household. Note that this proportion is quite similar to the 87.3% of handgun licensees in Michigan that Rafferty and her colleagues found.

What about the other 12.7% of households that presumably had guns because they were recent handgun licensees? Unlike the study in Michigan, none of the 35 participants refused to answer the gun ownership question, but 8.6% said they HAD guns before, but no longer do. Um, yeah. OK.

One respondent of the 35 (2.9%) “denied categorically” that guns of any kind were kept in the home. Denial – not just a river in Egypt.


According to the abstract,

The authors conclude that, at least among registered gun owners, respondent answers to questions about gun ownership are generally valid and that survey data of this type can be utilized with confidence.

In this case, the face-to-face survey yielded a gun ownership rate that is probably at least 12% too low, BUT what about those 53% of households who were selected for inclusion in the study but were not in the final sample?

If those households would be more likely to be provide “false negatives” than the households that agreed to participate – and it is not unreasonable to think they would – then the 12% under-reporting would need to be increased accordingly.

This data was also collected from June to August 1987, pre-Clinton, pre-Brady Bill, pre-Assault Weapon Ban, pre-Obama. So it does not include any increase in under-reporting that is happening since then.

Although it is not his conclusion, this study by Kellerman suggests that under-reporting of gun ownership in survey studies is in the double digits, at least 12%, and probably much more than that.


  1. “under-reporting of gun ownership in survey studies is in the double digits, at least 12%, and probably much more than that.”

    Kleck thinks the same:

    “Kellermann carried out a small-scale local check on the validity of responses to survey questions on gun ownership using lists of registered gun owners, a group who, by definition, had already shown themselves willing to let strangers (the legal authorities) know that they owned guns. Results indicated that even among this presumably candid group of gun owners, 11.4 percent of the known owners denied having a gun in the household, some claiming that they used to own guns but no longer did so, even though all of the sample members had registered handguns just 30-90 days earlier, while one even denied ever owning a gun (Kellermann et al. 1990). In a similar study, Rafferty and her colleagues (1995) found that 10.3 percent of hunting license holders and 12.7 percent of handgun registrants denied household gun ownership in interviews. Thus, 11 percent would seem to be a conservative estimate of the level of false denial of gun ownership to be found among gun owners. Among the residents of the high-crime areas from which the case-control samples were drawn, the denial level would almost certainly be higher.”

    Source: Gary Kleck, Michael Hogan – “National case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership”, Social Problems (1999)

    Liked by 2 people

  2. […] As I have discussed before, false negatives are certainly a problem in surveys of gun ownership. Basically, people not admitting to having guns in their households when they do. There is no way of saying with certainty how many false negatives there are, and these would also have to be weighed against the possibility of false positives. (Though I believe there is more incentive to falsely say “No” than “Yes.”) […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.