Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:03 PM Jan 2015

The 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 year—five 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 Getz’s 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 weren’t 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 Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3P253G3Vf

64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Myth of Defensive Gun Ownership | Politico - guns are more likely to do harm than good. (Original Post) Fred Sanders Jan 2015 OP
GREAT post....Gunness, as I call it, is a sickness in America...and I dont say NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #1
When the claim began falling apart in the mid-'90s louis-t Jan 2015 #2
The Politico piece is a devastating take down of the myth and all its components. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #3
yet the DoJ did gejohnston Jan 2015 #6
I looks like a good takedown because it is. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #11
confirmation bias much? gejohnston Jan 2015 #18
he swings, he misleads, he misses jimmy the one Jan 2015 #38
One has nothing to do with the other gejohnston Jan 2015 #45
Actually, the claim never fell apart gejohnston Jan 2015 #8
makes sense samsingh Jan 2015 #4
no it doesn't gejohnston Jan 2015 #5
Thats gonna leave a mark. N/T beevul Jan 2015 #7
Kleck is a Kook is all that confirms. Calling them "astronomical numbers" is correct, as stated. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #14
IOW, having gejohnston Jan 2015 #19
So he is a sociologist by professional education? Take my expert over yours any day, and the Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #21
My expert got his job by merit gejohnston Jan 2015 #25
Never heard of Hemenway before this thread to tell the truth. But I like him already. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #28
"Never heard of Hemenway before this thread to tell the truth." Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #35
I as gleeful as you are sad, check out my op-Ed in the Greatest Threads list for some more sadness. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #36
non sequitor Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #37
DoJ funded whom? jimmy the one Jan 2015 #39
distiction without a difference gejohnston Jan 2015 #41
Wow! Look at this rebuttal! I'm on the ropes! jimmy the one Jan 2015 #43
you can't be on the ropes because gejohnston Jan 2015 #46
third request jimmy the one Jan 2015 #49
semi-literate or dishonest? gejohnston Jan 2015 #51
don't buy it jimmy the one Jan 2015 #52
The NCVS is gejohnston Jan 2015 #53
Jimmy^^^^^^WINNER^^^^^^^ logic and facts.... Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #54
You just declare things without critique. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #56
You wouldn't know logic or facts regarding the 2A or firearm issues. eom. GGJohn Jan 2015 #57
The CDC would disagree hack89 Jan 2015 #9
They forget that one Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #10
Uh, you realize the entire article is about the Kleck study mentioned in the CDC report? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #12
The CDC looked at multiple studies hack89 Jan 2015 #15
ROFL beevul Jan 2015 #16
At RedState or at the NRA websites? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #20
I was here for over ten years before you came around. beevul Jan 2015 #22
By "here" you mean the Gungeon? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #23
By "here" I mean DU. NT beevul Jan 2015 #24
I'll take my chances....safety first, easy victim later... ileus Jan 2015 #13
Shoot first, ask questions and bury the bodies later, we get it. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #17
Nope Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #26
Never thought it that bad, myself. Helps you survive in a surprise armed attack, as we all know. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #27
nice post Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #29
I honestly think he's saying he runs away from threads for the same reason he Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #31
Well now... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #30
might need hip waders Duckhunter935 Jan 2015 #32
I'm not planning on... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2015 #33
CDC: "Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively" hack89 Jan 2015 #34
kleck interview on his dgu study jimmy the one Jan 2015 #40
What's wrong with a verbal DGU? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #42
Since the myth of Fox News is about to be exposed, it is a good time to expose a few more. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #44
Checking out your links -- Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #47
contradictions of kleck jimmy the one Jan 2015 #48
they lied gejohnston Jan 2015 #50
I want the truth jimmy the one Jan 2015 #58
I don't believe you care about the truth gejohnston Jan 2015 #61
J's flaw in embellishing kleck jimmy the one Jan 2015 #59
I didn't embellish anything gejohnston Jan 2015 #60
He also gave a million dollars of his own money so his gun research could continue. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #63
The killing machine crew link to crap then want a "debate" about why their crap is not all that stinky. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #62
Those are supposed to be pro-gun control links. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #64
If DGUs are so rare BigAlanMac Jan 2015 #55

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
1. GREAT post....Gunness, as I call it, is a sickness in America...and I dont say
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:12 PM
Jan 2015

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)
2. When the claim began falling apart in the mid-'90s
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:16 PM
Jan 2015

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)
3. The Politico piece is a devastating take down of the myth and all its components.
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:16 PM
Jan 2015

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)
6. yet the DoJ did
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:55 PM
Jan 2015

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.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
18. confirmation bias much?
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:40 PM
Jan 2015

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)
38. he swings, he misleads, he misses
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 02:29 PM
Jan 2015

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)
45. One has nothing to do with the other
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:33 PM
Jan 2015

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)
8. Actually, the claim never fell apart
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:13 PM
Jan 2015

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

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
5. no it doesn't
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 08:50 PM
Jan 2015

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.

The interviewers who worked on the NSDS were named individually at the beginning of Kleck and Gertz’ article (1995, p. 150). Without any evidence, Hemenway hinted that these individuals acted unethically, by distorting or inventing responses. In discussing an alleged “limitation” of the NSDS, Hemenway wrote: “the survey was conducted by a small firm run by Professor Gertz. The interviewers knew both the purpose of the survey and the staked-out position of the principal investigator regarding the expected results” (Hemenway 1997b, p. 1433). The unmistakable insinuation was that some of the interviewers faked or altered interviews to create phony accounts of “DGUs” that would please the principle investigator.
To our knowledge, none of the interviewers knew anything about Kleck’s 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

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
21. So he is a sociologist by professional education? Take my expert over yours any day, and the
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:48 PM
Jan 2015

Politico article speaks for itself.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
25. My expert got his job by merit
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:55 PM
Jan 2015

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".

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
35. "Never heard of Hemenway before this thread to tell the truth."
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:37 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
37. non sequitor
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:58 PM
Jan 2015

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)
39. DoJ funded whom?
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 02:59 PM
Jan 2015

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.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
43. Wow! Look at this rebuttal! I'm on the ropes!
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:22 PM
Jan 2015

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)
46. you can't be on the ropes because
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:34 PM
Jan 2015

because the drunk that shouts obscenities from the back never gets in the ring.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
49. third request
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:24 PM
Jan 2015

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)
51. semi-literate or dishonest?
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:37 PM
Jan 2015
1 Was kleck's dgu study sponsored or funded by DoJ?
to the best of my knowledge it was. I do know it was not funded by the NRA or any other advocacy group, unlike anything by Hemenway.

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?
Because everyone knows Gertz was a private firm. It is also not relevant. Also, when you misspell the name, you also change the ethnic origin.

3 So does that mean you were intentionally trying to mislead Johnston? or unintentionally trying to mislead? - that the DOJ conducted the dgu study.
More likely, you are lying or have poor comprehension skills. I vote dishonesty. I never said the DOJ did the study anymore than the Joyce Foundation did the Hemenway study. He did it with a grant from them, just like the Wright/Rossi study a decade earlier.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
52. don't buy it
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:25 PM
Jan 2015

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)
53. The NCVS is
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:40 PM
Jan 2015

done by the Census Bureau, not DoJ.
Other than that, I don't give a rat's ass if you buy it or not.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
56. You just declare things without critique.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 08:02 PM
Jan 2015

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.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
9. The CDC would disagree
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:23 PM
Jan 2015

perhaps you should read their report on guns from last year. They say DGUs are common and effective.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
12. Uh, you realize the entire article is about the Kleck study mentioned in the CDC report?
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:30 PM
Jan 2015

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)
15. The CDC looked at multiple studies
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:36 PM
Jan 2015

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?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
16. ROFL
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:38 PM
Jan 2015

"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.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
22. I was here for over ten years before you came around.
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:51 PM
Jan 2015

I don't think you have any business, the way you behave, pointing fingers, buddy.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
26. Nope
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:06 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
29. nice post
Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:21 PM
Jan 2015

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)
31. I honestly think he's saying he runs away from threads for the same reason he
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 12:13 PM
Jan 2015

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).

hack89

(39,171 posts)
34. CDC: "Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively"
Mon Jan 19, 2015, 01:12 PM
Jan 2015
Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

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)
40. kleck interview on his dgu study
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:05 PM
Jan 2015

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 lobby’s 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. That’s 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 Kleck’s deeply flawed and thoroughly refuted study AGAIN in their magazine, America’s 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 Kleck’s astronomical claim.*
•“The gun debate’s 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 Kleck’s 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)
47. Checking out your links --
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:37 PM
Jan 2015

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 --

October 28, 2014

Collaboration between firearm retailers and public health experts to reduce suicide.


Firearm retailers and firearm rights advocates worked with suicide prevention experts–including HICRC’s Mary Vriniotis and Cathy Barber–to 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)
48. contradictions of kleck
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:11 PM
Jan 2015

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 Kleck’s 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 Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s 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)
50. they lied
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:30 PM
Jan 2015
An additional step was taken to minimize the possibility of DGU frequency being overstated. The senior author went through interview sheets on every one of the interviews in which a DGU was reported, looking for any indication that the incident might not be genuine. A case would be coded as questionable if even just one of four problems appeared: (1) it was not clear whether the R actually confronted any adversary he saw; (2) the R was a police officer, member of the military or a security guard, and thus might have been reporting, despite instructions, an incident which occurred as part of his occupational duties; (3) the interviewer did not properly record exactly what the R had done with the gun, so it was possible that he had not used it in any meaningful way; or (4) the R did not state or the interviewer did not record a specific crime that the R thought was being committed against him at the time of the incident. There were a total of twenty-six cases where at least one of these problematic indications was present. It should be emphasized that we do not know that these cases were not genuine DGUs; we only mean to indicate that we do not have as high a degree of confidence on the matter as with the rest of the cases designated as DGUs. Estimates using all of the DGU cases are labelled herein as "A" estimates, while the more conservative estimates based only on cases devoid of any problematic indications are labelled "B" estimates.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
58. I want the truth
Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:54 AM
Jan 2015

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)
61. I don't believe you care about the truth
Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:16 PM
Jan 2015

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)
59. J's flaw in embellishing kleck
Wed Jan 21, 2015, 12:29 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The Myth of Defensive Gun...