Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe Myth of Defensive Gun Ownership | Politico - guns are more likely to do harm than good.
January 14, 2015
"What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.
In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians.
The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively over 2 million times every yearfive times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes. Or, as Gun Owners of America states, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.
....................
"These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getzs estimates to make sense.
For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who werent sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey.
Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertzs paper is simply mathematically impossible."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P253G3Vf
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)that to be insulting, I say it because it is a fact.
Just like we have a problem with depression and alcoholism and drug addiction and teapartyism, we have a problem with gunness.
louis-t
(23,297 posts)the NRA and their admirers began adding the phrase "and most of the time, without firing a shot" to try and bolster the "2.5 million defensive gun uses" verbiage.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The CDC did not endorse Kleck, they just mentioned the study as being the only one, and criticized the methodology...but the lies will continue, this is one myth the gun crowd will cling to at all costs.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Because the CDC sponsored ER doctors who 1) wrote biased studies 2) many did not submit for peer review or release data to other researchers. 3) the ones who did were debunked by criminologists. One criminologist went as far as saying that they were about as scientific as NRA propaganda.
The DoJ on the other hand, funded criminologists like Kleck, Wright, and Rossi.
While it looks like a good take down by those who either have a case of confirmation bias, or don't have the slightest idea what they are reading.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Hemenway is regarded as a joke among criminologists. He speculates and provides no evidence, that is not a good take down. Not even the openly prohibitionist Marvin Wolfgang could take it down.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/906
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: Not even the openly prohibitionist Marvin Wolfgang could take it {kleck dgu study} down.
All marvin wolfgang did was compliment Kleck/Gertz on their methodology when applying a small sample size, that being recording 5,000 phone calls to random gun owners across the country.
wolfgang: I would like to make clear that I had been asked to write only a commentary, not an original research article. Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.
The first paragraph reads: I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country... I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows: The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.
johnston's link: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc
marvin wolfgang also noted this is Johnston's link, which corroborates what I've posted previously, that resistance to armed robbery will make you slightly less a victim of the robbery itself, but more prone to serious injury: In our second birth cohort in Philadelphia, of all persons-male and female-born in 1958, which numbered 27,160 persons who lived in Philadelphia at least from ages ten to eighteen, we uncovered 1,027 robberies and analyzed them in terms of the degrees and types of intimidation and degrees of resistance and of injury.
We have noted that there are more victims who acquiesce or offer no resistance than there are victims who resist. We have also found that being harmed is significantly related to resistance.
We can now see that it is resistance and not the instrument of the intimidating threat that promotes more and higher levels of injury.
For example, the least life-threatening form of intimidation is oral; when only oral threats are used initially in the robbery, few persons will be harmed. Among the 112 non-resisters, only one victim was later medically treated and only two received minor shoves, while 97% were unharmed.
In contrast, among the ninety-five resisters whose initial threat was only oral, eleven were hospitalized or medically treated and twenty had minor harm.
When a gun was the instrument of intimidation, only 5% of the non-resisters but three times (16%) as many resisters were seriously hurt. Unfortunately, I did not have information about the use of a gun to resist the robbery.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the 1958 study was by attacker, Kleck's study was defender. It was specifically robbery in one city in 1958. It has no relevance to other violent crimes. It also was how the robber was armed, not the defender. It made no mention of how the victim resisted. If the victim resists with a gun, his chance of being harmed is much less than if he uses his fists.
Of course, there are other violent crimes such as assault and rape. In those cases, not resisting is 100 percent harm.
Once again you show your lack of critical thinking and reading skills.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because Hemenway, an economist and gun prohibition activist, is the only critic. His counter also had no evidence to back it up, just speculation.
In criminology circles, Kleck received nothing but praise, even from Marvin Wolfgang who 1) hated the results, but cause he didn't like cops even have guns 2) could not find any flaw.
How did the American Society of Criminology receive this study of Kleck's? The resulting book won the Michael J. Hindelang Award in 1993.
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X
samsingh
(17,601 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)There is a big difference between Kleck's work and Hemenway. Kleck's work was peer reviewed and found without flaw even the most anti gun criminologists like Marvin Wolfgang. In fact, the work earned Kleck the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology.
Hemenway's "take down" was not peer reviewed. He is not taken seriously in criminology circles, although he did get an award from some gun control group for his activism.
He is a gun control activist who gets his funding from the same people who astro turfs the Brady Campaign. Kleck's was sponsored by the DoJ. His "take down" also provided NO EVIDENCE to back up his claim. That's the problem. None of his claims is based on evidence, including the claim that Gertz's pollsters falsified results to please what Hemenway thought was Kleck's desired outcomes.
To our knowledge, none of the interviewers knew anything about Klecks views on DGU or what results he expected, since Kleck did not inform them of those views. Hemenway did not claim to have communicated with even one of the interviewers, to find out what they knew prior to interviewing. Therefore, he had no basis whatsoever for this outrageous charge. It was apparently sufficient for Hemenway that the interviewers could have done such a thing in order to publicly hint that they did.
https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm
However, Kleck was not the first one to come up with such an astronomical number. His study was pretty much in line with several other studies dating back to the 1970s, including one by Joyce Foundation (same people who funds Hemenway and astro turfs Brady Campaign) funded Phil Cook study.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
beevul
(12,194 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)an intelligent, adult conversation with you is not going to happen.
http://criminology.fsu.edu/faculty-and-staff/college-faculty/gary-kleck/
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Politico article speaks for itself.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Hemenway has his job only because he is an alumni and the Joyce Foundation funds the department. He writes the studies to keep the place open. Also, Hemenway is still a joke that has been debunked by Larry Southwick and others.
Oh, your researcher is an economist by professional training. So is John Lott. So are the climate science denial "researchers".
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)In other words you didn't even read the article you posted in the OP you just gleefully posted it without any critical review because it supports your narrative.
Hemenway is the article's entire center of the supposed rebuke of Kleck.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)My pleasure:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026102446
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)As has been evidenced, Hemenway makes specious, unsupported claims so much so that his work is only accepted by those with an agenda.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: {Hemenway} is a gun control activist who gets his funding from the same people who astro turfs the Brady Campaign. Kleck's was sponsored by the DoJ.
Was kleck's dgu study sponsored or funded by DoJ? I have it that the different NSPOF (nat survey on private ownership of firearms) was done by a supposed unbiased firm 'chiltons' & Police Foundation, funded by NiJ, under auspices of DoJ, and Johnston knows this cause I've witted Jackson & him on it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=155120
Why Johnson, since you knew of this, do you continue to intentionally try to mislead that this nspof study, or here you say the kleck study, was funded & sponsored by the Dept of Justice, without revealing that the study itself was done by a private firm?
guncite: .. the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms {NSPOF}. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
Is the following the same one? done, not by the Dept of Justice or National Institute of Justice, but evidently by the Police Foundation : Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals..
factoid: NIJ {Nat Institutes of Justice mentioned just above} is the research, development and evaluation agency of the Department of Justice. NIJ's mission is to advance scientific research, development, and..
So does that mean you were intentionally trying to mislead Johnston? or unintentionally trying to mislead? - that the DOJ conducted the dgu study.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)NIJ is a branch of DoJ.
Also, you misused the term "factoid"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston's: distiction without a difference .. NIJ is a branch of DoJ.
Just by repeating what I provided in my post to you, Johnston, does not a convincing rebuttal make.
Please reply to the following questions I asked you, yes or no will do, but feel free to elaborate:
1 Was kleck's dgu study sponsored or funded by DoJ?
2 Why Johnson, since you knew of this, do you continue to intentionally try to mislead that this nspof study, or here you say the kleck study, was funded & sponsored by the Dept of Justice, without revealing that the study itself was done by a private firm?
3 So does that mean you were intentionally trying to mislead Johnston? or unintentionally trying to mislead? - that the DOJ conducted the dgu study.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because the drunk that shouts obscenities from the back never gets in the ring.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)vaudevillian Johnston: you can't be on the ropes because because the drunk that shouts obscenities from the back never gets in the ring
Translation: I'm hoisted on my own petards & can't answer jimmy's concerns without making a fool of myself, so I'll do it another way.
THIRD REQUEST:
Please reply to the following questions I asked you, yes or no will do, but feel free to elaborate:
1 Was kleck's dgu study sponsored or funded by DoJ?
2 Why Johnson, since you knew of this, do you continue to intentionally try to mislead that this nspof study, or here you say the kleck study, was funded & sponsored by the Dept of Justice, without revealing that the study itself was done by a private firm?
3 So does that mean you were intentionally trying to mislead Johnston? or unintentionally trying to mislead? - that the DOJ conducted the dgu study.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Q: Was kleck's dgu study sponsored or funded by DoJ?
Johnston: .. to the best of my knowledge it was.
You shouldn't be speaking authoritatively, Johnston, you don't know jack.
.. a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993... . Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Dept of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
First, why would Dept of Justice DoJ, fund back to back dgu studies, first one by kleck, then the NSPOF by Chilton & police fdtn?
Then, why would Florida State ask the DoJ to fund two of their faculty (or students etc) to do this study, when the uni was paying them? I suppose possible tho:
... the DGU estimate was calculated by researchers affiliated with a major research university (Professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz of Florida State University). .
The DoJ published a dgu study NCVS vastly lower than the kleck/gertz canard:
Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. .. the Bureau of Justice Statistics continues to disseminate their DGU estimates as if they were valid...
... data from the US Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which in 1993 yield only about 108,000 DGUs per year.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)done by the Census Bureau, not DoJ.
Other than that, I don't give a rat's ass if you buy it or not.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You even said you had never heard of Hemenway before this thread even though Hemenway is the basis for the article in your OP.
Your ability to adjudicate based on a presentation of evidence is questionable, at best.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)perhaps you should read their report on guns from last year. They say DGUs are common and effective.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And they said no such thing, that is what the debunked Kleck report claims and the CDC merely reprints it and is actually critical of the conclusions, for reasons obvious in the Politico take down.
Sorry to blow all up all the NRA tires at the same time, but I had no choice, self defence.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Kleck was not the primary focus of their study. Perhaps you should read it. After all controllers have been bitching that the NRA has been blocking the CDC from studying guns. Now that you got your wish shouldn't you be paying attention to what they say?
"After all controllers have been bitching that the NRA has been blocking the CDC from studying guns. Now that you got your wish shouldn't you be paying attention to what they say?"
I may just have to quote that at some point.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I don't think you have any business, the way you behave, pointing fingers, buddy.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and again you would be wrong. how many times now have you been proven wrong? I feel you will run away from this thread like you have in so many when confronted with your incorrect statements.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)do not know what the hell you are babbling about again, but OK. Seems like you do that a lot lately though.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)would run away from an armed attacker.
Apparently we have Superman in our midst if he can run faster than a speeding bullet (although, it should be noted, Superman ran towards criminals, whereas our interlocutor seeks to provide home invaders and rapists a playground free of obstructions and challengers).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...my shoes need a good cleaning.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...that long of a visit or going that deep. In fact, I'm done.
hack89
(39,171 posts)7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008, says the report. The three million figure is probably high, based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. Furthermore, Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)interview with gary kleck; kleck is a democrat btw, aclu too, likely turned gun for hire imo, there's more gold in them thar hills than the brady bunch. Note that 54% of his 2.5 million dgus are either verbal dgus, or started off as verbal dgus (as in 'go away or I'll get my gun): http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html
nov 2009: Thoroughly debunked years ago, the gun lobbys favorite research a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses (DGU) each year in the United States. Yep, you read it right; 2.5 million DGUs PER YEAR!
The Kleck study claims that 2.5 million times per year, someone uses a gun to defend themselves. Thats more defensive gun uses than happened in WWII in Europe in 1944. The Kleck study is so flawed the only thing it measures is the wild imagination of gun owners.
As recently as this month, the NRA referenced Klecks deeply flawed and thoroughly refuted study AGAIN in their magazine, Americas 1st Freedom. With the help of liars like Alan Korwin and others, the NRA continues to feed its readers demonstrable lies and distortions.
....Here, for your reference, is a short list of the many peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles published that clearly refute Klecks astronomical claim.*
The gun debates new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events Chance American Statistical Association, 1997
Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey, Violence and Victims, 2000
Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000
Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
The ultimate proof the Kleck claim is bullshit, is the fact that despite spending 35 million dollars/year to deceive the public and threaten politicians, in fourteen years since the study, the gun lobby has funded numerous FAILED attempts to repeat Klecks study.
*It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.
http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national-rifle-association-continues-to-feed-its-readers-demonstrable-lies-and-distortions/
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You started with this one --
http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national-rifle-association-continues-to-feed-its-readers-demonstrable-lies-and-distortions/
The embedded links are --
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf
Wait. What? Hemenway? That's the guy that made up unfounded allegations about Kleck and is a paid advocate.
The second link --
http://www.amstat.org/publications/chance/articleIndex.cfm
404 Page Not Found
The third link --
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/vav/2000/00000015/00000003
Okay. This actually goes someplace but it provides no information. The reader must subscribe. But then the subject doesn't deal with DGUs it deals with --
Providing the answers and evidence to inform research, policy, and practice on such questions as:
What measures and protocols are helpful in assessing and classifying perpetrator attitudes, characteristics, risk factors, patterns, and behavior?
What can we do to identify, prevent, and manage violence and victimization within our educational, social service, criminal justice, and healthcare systems?
Are there effective intervention programs and techniques for refining the treatment of perpetrators and for assisting victims of violence?
What can we do to improve our understanding of factors associated with increased and decreased rates of violence, victimization, and recidivism?
Perhaps the blog writer thinks posting links somehow makes him look legitimate.
The next link --
http://www.bmsg.org/pub.php
is a catalog of papers.
The link after that --
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/
is also a catalog; although this one seems more helpful because it offers articles such as --
Collaboration between firearm retailers and public health experts to reduce suicide.
Firearm retailers and firearm rights advocates worked with suicide prevention expertsincluding HICRCs Mary Vriniotis and Cathy Barberto help gun dealers take an active role in reducing suicide. Materials were created for both gun dealers (providing tips to reduce the odds of selling a firearm to someone who is suicidal) and for their customers (encouraging customers to consider off-site storage if someone at home may be suicidal). Close to half of firearms retailers in New Hampshire are currently displaying some of these suicidal prevention materials. The study reporting the findings was published online today in Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, with Vriniotis as lead author.
huh
2 catalogs, 1 subscription offer, 1 server not found and a debunked shill
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)nuc uni: 2 catalogs, 1 subscription offer, 1 server not found and a debunked shill
Hemenway is not a debunked shill outside 2nd amendment mythology, has more intelligence than you or many other posting gun posters will ever have, including kleck & esp lott..... evidently a defunct website.
wiki: David Hemenway is Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health. He has a B.A. (1966) and Ph.D.(1974) from Harvard University in economics. He is the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center. He is also currently a James Marsh Visiting Professor-at-Large at the University of Vermont. Hemenwa has written over 130 articles and five books in the fields of economics and public health.
Hemenway has written widely on injury prevention, including articles on firearms, violence, suicide, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, fires, falls and fractures.[10] He headed the pilot for what became the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Violent Death Reporting System, which provides detailed and comparable information on suicide and homicide.[11] He has won ten teaching awards at the Harvard School of Public Health.
"Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. .
The Contradictions of the Kleck Study INFORMATION ON DEFENSIVE GUN USES
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law-abiding citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Klecks study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results.
A National Research Council report {2 authors opinions} said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).
The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Klecks survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.
Klecks survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Klecks Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992. http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: they lied
According to the subjective opinion of guncite? I cited guncite objectively, but hardly give much cred to it's subjective opinion, with notable exception of the 'Nazi myth'.
link: data from the US Dept of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which in 1993 yield only about 108,000 DGUs per y
Johnston: The NCVS is done by the Census Bureau, not DoJ.
nitpick, census might collect, DoJ compiles & interprets & presents (evidently): Census Bureau conducts reimbursable projects for the two Dept of Justice agencies: Bureau of Justice Statistics and {juvenile related}. Census Bureau acts as a data collection agent to provide statistical data on a range of topics.. http://www.census.gov/govs/cj/ Once the data are provided to the Dept of Justice, it is used for a wide range of purposes including research, evaluation, policy development, legislative action, program creation, and funding allotment as well as other processes.
Q: Was kleck's dgu study sponsored or funded by DoJ?
Johnston: to the best of my knowledge it was.
Well how about a link? I still dunno for absolute certain, you're the first I heard say that; I'd'a thunk not. Kleck rec'd doj funding for other reports, but first I heard re kleck dgu study.
Johnston: Other than that, I don't give a rat's ass if you buy it or not.
So you're content to just sit there in the uncertainty of limbo land? not knowing the truth about what you think & said in the thread, about DoJ funding kleck's dgu study? IOW, you're content to live with a false belief?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you care about distorting the truth, or ignoring it, to serve your purpose. If you did, you wouldn't waste everyone's time with trivial word games. But then, that is all you have because you ran out of logical fallacies and lies, which your cause is dependent on. That and billionaire money.
The truth is Kleck verifies 13 previous studies that came up with similar results.
In 1994 DoJ did sponsor the Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, which used a smaller sample and came up with 1.5 million DGUs per year, within Kleck's margin of error. Same with Phil Cook's Joyce Foundation funded study.
As I said, to the best of my knowledge, the NIJ sponsored Kleck's study. I do know for certain that it wasn't the NSSF nor was it the NRA. That is the sticking point. You can't dismiss any of the substance anymore than Hemenway could. He could speculate and accuse Gertz's employees of dishonesty without any evidence.
Question is, if the goal is moderate controls like, say, Illinois (outside of Chicago) or the Czech Republic and Austria, what difference does it make? If the goal is prohibition, like DC and Chicago was (or Brazil, Jamaica) or very strict controls like UK and USVI, then disproving the social good of gun ownership is a priority.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: Kleck's work was peer reviewed and found without flaw even the most anti gun criminologists like Marvin Wolfgang.
2 Not even the openly prohibitionist Marvin Wolfgang could take it down.
3 In criminology circles, Kleck received nothing but praise, even from Marvin Wolfgang who 1) hated the results, but cause he didn't like cops even have guns 2) could not find any flaw.
Johnston is under another misconception, embellishing kleck using marvin wolfgang, when wolfgang did indeed criticize kleck's dgu study:
what wolfgang actually wrote regarding kleck's dgu study: The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs.
I did not mention this specifically in my printed comment because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.
So what wolfgang was ostensibly saying is they conducted the phone survey of ~5,000 sample well enough, asking proper questions & dismissing uncertain or bogus respondents. BUT, wolfgang also recognized that extrapolating small results into larger data was tenuous, & could be based on falsehoods, & could not be reliably reported - & he thought this was obvious to knowledgeable readers.
One of the limitations of survey research that Wolfgang considered too obvious to be necessary to point out is there is no guarantee that all respondents told the truth. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/12/16/dgu-00026/
wolfgang fuller context: I would like to make clear that I had been asked to write only a commentary, not an original research article. Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.
... The first paragraph reads: I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the
criminologists in this country... I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows: The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you are grasping at straws looking for irrelevant and trivial points.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)BigAlanMac
(59 posts)then please explain this site: www.reddit.com/r/dgu