How many of you actually believe the 2.5 million yearly US defensive gun use number?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

It's clearly bullsh#t.

Anyone selling that gobblygook needs to read this 1997 paper from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology:


http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

The 2.5 million number is so obviously problematic it's not funny. It would be funny, if it wasn't consistently being used by anti-gun law advocates with some effect.

It's a long read, but well worth it.

Anyone against gun control who uses the 2.5 million number really just shoots themselves in the foot, imo. It makes them look like they'll accept any BS, no matter how obviously flawed and false, to support their position. As a result, any other argument they make, which could be reasonable, gets tainted. Go with the NCVS results, which peg the yearly DGU in the US at 65,000.

My favorite from the paper:

Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. <34> One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."

By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists. Yet the ABC News/Washington Post data on aliens are as good as or better than that from any of the thirteen surveys cited by K-G as supporting their conclusions about self-defense gun use.

[ReggieVeggie]

1. 2.5 million?

That's utterly crazy. 2500 is much more likely a more realistic figure.

[krispos42]

66. I don't think it's unreasonable

There are 310 million people in the nation, so there are 113 billion person-days annually. At 2.5 million DGUs per year that's one DGU per 45,260 person-days.

That's the equivalent of one person living 124 years, or 24 hours in a community of 45,260 people. I'm pretty sure that if you live to be 124, you'll probably find a reason at least once to reach for a gun, even if it's just to investigate the mysterious bump in the night. And if you're a community of 45k people, well, then a single abused wife threatening a violent husband, or a single homeowner grabbing a gun when the dog goes nuts in the back yard isn't reasonable.

[right2bfree]

67. Want a pant load. Never met anyone who brandished a gun in self defence. nt

[krispos42]

69. Are you normal?

In other words, are you median? Do you have a gun? Do you have some friends who own guns? Have you ever asked any of those gun-owning friends of yours about DGUs? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? What kind of neighborhood does your friends live in?

If you live in an abnormally wealthy part of the country with an abnormally low crime rate, and only associate with other people that are fundamentally similar to you, and never ask them questions about DGUs, then maybe your anecdote doesn't hold much water.

[NewMoonTherian]

83. And I have two in my family.

"But everyone I know voted for McGovern!" See how that works? You have to look outside the scope of your own experiences.

[Callisto32]

86. Well, now you have.

That is, if you construe "met" very, very loosely.

[Euromutt]

82. Do you base your "more realistic" estimate on empirical evidence?

Or does it just "Stand To Reason" to your mind that it would be? Less charitably put, are you just pulling that figure out of your ass with no evidence to support it? Even the National Criminal Victims Survey produces reports of 65,000-70,000 DGUs annually, and they don't even specifically ask about them. Unsurprisingly, the NCVS estimates of DGUs are remarkably low compared to just about any survey that actually asked about DGUs.

[tosh]

2. Kick and (LOL!) invisible R.

(But what did I expect?)

[Arctic Dave]

3. 2.5 million divided by 50 states = 50,000 uses per state. Every year.

I've met 0 people who have used their weapon for "defensive reasons"(danger to or loss of life). Other then the I heard a noise at night and I thought it was a prowler.

[YllwFvr]

19. ive met dozens

its the company you keep.

[jpak]

22. That's 137 incidents per day in every state - why don't we see or hear about them?

Are they "super secret"?

:D

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Usually no shots are fired.

Bad guy starts his attack, victim produces gun, bad guy aborts the attack before the first blow is struck and runs away, no crime committed because the crime was prevented, nobody shot, often the "victim" doesn't even report it to the police. Newspapers don't bother with it.

I personally know several people who have had that happen to them.

[Kolesar]

51. I'll score that one as a "Miss"

There is no data.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. No data doesn't mean it didn't happen. N/T

[Kolesar]

54. No data means "it's a lie" eom

[X_Digger]

61. I have a DGU that didn't show up in a police report.. even after reporting it..

Quoting from a post I made a couple of years ago.. (I no longer service COs, thank goodness.)

I service network equipment in COs (central offices) for a telecom company all over Texas, Louisiana, and sometimes Oklahoma. I go into every kind of neighborhood, town, and city. After having my truck broken into twice, and being mugged at gun point then getting my head almost cracked by the junkie's buddy, I decided to carry a pistol.

Last year in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, I was in Galveston trying to get phone service back up for residents. As I was ferrying ~$10k worth of network testing gear from the open bed of my truck to the switch around dusk, I was approached by a 20-25 year old guy asking for money. I offered him a bottle of water and an energy bar. He became agitated and again demanded money. He got close enough that I could see that he had a mouth full of mostly black stumps instead of teeth, and continued to follow me as I went around the front of my truck to the open driver's door to grab a bottle of water. As I reached into the center console of my truck, he pulled a knife from his overcoat (an overcoat in September in Texas- yah, nothing at all odd about that) and took a step toward me. I switched from a bottle of water to the holstered pistol in the console. I unholstered my pistol, put the open truck door between us, and told him to piss off. He took another step toward me, I raised my pistol and pointed it at his chest. He looked down, then turned and ran. I got on the company radio, and an hour later, a DPS officer came by to check on me. He took my statement and left.

You know what really pissed me off at the time? That I'd offered the guy a bottle of water and something to eat. I've been approached many times by some rather stinky characters (Texas heat and homelessness / vagrancy tends to mix into a rather odoriferous combination.) Most were just panhandlers- the kind that you see with cardboard signs (my favorite was one that read 'why lie? want beer') or a bouquet of flowers weaving in and out of traffic at stop lights. I usually have a dollar for them if they make it to my truck before the light changes. So yeah, I was pissed that I offered to help this guy and he turns around and pulls a knife on me.

Shit, if he'd waited, I would have gotten on the radio and asked for a pick-up from the Texas City FD / Galveston PD / TX natl guard who had a crisis response center about ten minutes away. I'd seen more than one .mil truck trundle by with residents in the back going to the center.

Because I had an 'incident' in the company vehicle, I had to fill out an incident report. Later that shift, I called the crisis response center and got in touch with the DPS liaison. He told me that no report had been filed, due to the nature of the event- no injuries, no damage. The officer had passed along my description of the guy and the liaison mentioned that his guys would keep an eye out for the dude, but there wasn't likely to be anything they could do.

Non-crime committed, no film at 11.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Many rapes aren't reported. Are you also saying that they didn't happen?

Simply because an official report wasn't made does not mean it didn't happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. So this survey is bunk then.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

Which is good to know, because the idea that one in five women is sexually assaulted in college is disturbing to me, and isn't supported by the number of police reports.





:sarcasm:

[jpak]

4. But the NRA would never lie to us!!11111

:rofl:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

7. They lie

yup

[beevul]

14. Theyre far more truthy than the bradys.

Theyre far more truthy than the bradys.

Yup.

[jpak]

15. Nope

Yup

:D

[beevul]

18. Yup.

Heres the latest example:

A 9-millimeter Glock "is not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html

More truthy than the brady bunch.

Yup.

[jpak]

24. How is that a lie?

:shrug:

[beevul]

28. If they had no defensive value...

If glock handguns had no defensive value, police would not carry them far and wise as a sidearm.


Thats how.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Because 9mm is preferred for police and the army for PERSONAL PROTECTION.

The Glock is just another way of launching the same projectile as the Beretta the Army uses, and quite a large percentage of police use the Glock.

There are specific seasons for hunting with handguns, though I will grant, the 9mm is rather under-powered for this task.

So, it's about a 75% lie, taken as a whole.

Edit: You might be interested in the term, 9mm Parabellum.

It means PISTOL FOR WAR.

[jpak]

34. LOL!!11 wow - you're the only person in the wold that knows what parabellum means

Pistol for War!!!!! is not a good personal "defensive" weapon - that was his "opinion" - it was not a lie.

nope

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Um... what do you think soldiers use pistols FOR?

I know MRE's are hard to get into but...

[jpak]

38. Officers carry pistols - lower ranking troops do not

and US officers do not use them as their primary weapon in combat

Nope

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Nobody uses them as primary weapon in combat, but yes, line troops do carry sidearms.

Where do you even get this shit?

[AtheistCrusader]

41. What's that on his chest plate? Oh a pistol. Quell surprise.

What's that on his hip?



What's that on that chest plate?
Must be a super soaker.

[jpak]

43. ranks?

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

47. All the E1's and E2's I know carried sidearms.

I'm guessing the fellow in the middle pic with the well worn M1A is not an officer. Rank isn't visible.

[PavePusher]

58. Deleted, wrong place. n/t

[PavePusher]

57. The top one was clearly a Sgt. or Cpl.

The guy with the M-14 would likely be a designated marksman, so probably a lower-to-mid ranking enlisted.

The bottom one, he's standing on a vehicle, while giving hand signals, i.e. marshalling (see the access hatch and antenna behind him). Not likely an officer.

I'd say you are playing the fool... but I can tell you aren't playing.

[Marengo]

65. Look closely at pics 1 & 2...you'll see chevrons

You must be tired. There isn't any other reason why anyone with such vast knowledge of military matters such as yourself could have overlooked such a thing.

[Katya Mullethov]

71. What you and Pave fail to realize

Is that if one punctuates each sentence by laughing REEEEEALLY fucking loud , louder than most people can shout ,then there really isn't much anyone can do to challenge your suppositions .

It was either "just a joke" , or , they are laughing at you because you are thtoo toopit . It really is a masterful move . One I will admit to adhering to myself for a brief period that coincided with slugging girls in the arm as a public display of affection . .

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Wait, are you a civil war re-enactor or something?

[PavePusher]

55. Wow. A little behind on your military knowledge, aintchya?

Yup.

[Marengo]

64. You haven't a clue...

The primary personal weapon of the tankers I served with in the USMC was the M9.

Care to guess what the M9 is?

Oh, and by the way, the majority of armored vehicle crewmen are not officers.

[Callisto32]

88. Tank crews carry pistols.

They are issued for their personal defense.

My friend was (he is now a Ssgt.) an Airman, but that low rank did not keep him from being issued an M9 when he was in Iraq.

[Callisto32]

87. 9mm is fine for hogs.

You want good bullets and a stout load, but 9mm brings home the bacon. It is also appropriate for many kinds smaller game, like javalina.


Just adding that it IS good for hunting, as well.

[armueller2001]

25. Can you point out any specific examples

of when the NRA has lied?

[jpak]

29. ummmm....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=376715&mesg_id=376715

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Too bad Kpete misrepresented the facts.

The first armed responder was INSIDE the Safeway. By the time he emerged into view of the scene, the shooter was already down.

[cleanhippie]

78. So, thats a "no, I cannot." Got it thanks,

Fail.

Yup.

[S_B_Jackson]

63. Not an NRA sourced study....

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz are criminologists and Kleck is a Democrat who, according to interviews, went into his study as pro-gun control advocate.

The Clinton Justice Department attempted to confirm/refute their data and came to an estimate of 3.47 million DGUs per annum...does that number, by a Justice Department not known as pro-gun, make you feel better???

[beevul]

5. The numbers involved.

80+ million people that own guns.


300 million guns owned.

And, what counts and what doesn't?

I had cause to be firing shots at a hungry agressive coyote that wanted to eat our beloved poms for dinner.


Defensive gun use?


I certainly think so.

:shrug:

[jpak]

8. Pathetic Fail

try again

[beevul]

16. Do you have anything substantive to add? N/T

[jpak]

23. You mean like your coyote eating poms fairy tale?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

31. When I lived in Texas, some asshole shot both my (stray adopted) cats on my doorstep

for no good reason

Shooting coyotes is varmint hunting - not self defense.

cute babies though!

yup

[beevul]

39. That would piss me off, greatly.

We have bobtail cats and ragdolls amongst other cats.

"Shooting coyotes is varmint hunting - not self defense."

When theres a pack in your yard, and the alpha gets between you and your babies deliberately, its not varmint hunting. I'm not a hunter FWIW. In fact, I generally fire a round into the ground. They weren't having any that day though, and I had to kill one.

This is the same pack that occasionally peers through the windows at our cats.

They're a brazen bunch.

[jpak]

44. I do not like them either

and brazen?

yup

[beevul]

45. I'd much rather watch and listen to them.

I'd much rather watch and listen to them.

They are in fact very loving to their young, and are fun to watch play.

I don't mind them terribly, though I know they're a far bigger problem for others than they are for me.

But they can't have our babies.

[Kolesar]

53. & this happens 2.5 million times/year?

no

[beevul]

59. Well, it does beg the question, which nobody has bothered to answer.

Well, it does beg the question, which nobody has bothered to answer.

I asked it a few posts ago:


"And, what counts and what doesn't?"

So what counts, and what doesn't?

Do shots have to be fired?

Does my example not count because I was defending a couple of dogs instead of humans?

One can not even how many times a year it may or may not happen, without first deciding what constitutes defensive gun use, and what doesn't.

Do you have an opinion on that?

[Kolesar]

68. I associate gun owners with the asshole who shot my cat with a shotgun

Our vet found "pellets" in her flesh on an xray film. My neighborhood was full of thieves and assailants with an odd penchant for bestial jokes.

My cat developed this twitch when I touched her. She was a sweetie, my best friend when I was ten.

[NewMoonTherian]

85. I associate gun owners with my grandfather and uncle,

who have both had to display guns to defend their lives. One of them had to fire. I also associate them with most of the other people I deal with on a daily basis. My only regular acquaintances who don't own guns are people who can't legally own them. Many of my family are CCW holders. We're honest, caring, responsible people, and carrying firearms is a part of our daily lives.

You should associate criminals with the asshole that shot your cat, rather than gun owners. If you were to get to know some gun owners on a personal basis, I think your views would change.

[Bold Lib]

93. LMAO! So let it be written, so let it be done.

Pharaoh has spoken.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
































































Ha

[egressingsparrowdrop]

11. The Kleck study apparently asked if the DGU was against a person...

..or persons committing a crime against the respondent.

The number of guns in the US is irrelevant, really.

The problem is false positives. Out of 5000 people, about 60 said they'd had a DGU in the last year. With such a rare event, the probability of false positives is very high...especially when questions of this nature are being asked.
As the OP linked paper says..."Self-report surveys tend to overestimate rare events which carry no social stigma, and such surveys can wildly overestimate rare events which have some social desirability."

Read the
VII. Misclassification In The Kleck-Gertz Survey
section to understand why the likelihood of false positives is so high in the Kleck survey.

[TPaine7]

9. I believe the numbers...though they have probably gone down, like crime.

What's the problem with them?

[jpak]

10. Yes, and the Easter Bunny and Santa are real too.

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

12. I don't doubt that you believe it. n/t

[Bold Lib]

94. What a thought provoking and insightful reply. . .

not.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

13. Read the paper linked in the OP

You look kind of silly asking "what's the problem with (the numbers)" in light of the detailed examination Hemenway gives it.

Or like you'll just believe what you want to believe, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

[TPaine7]

17. You look kind of silly quoting a dishonest hack who's been debunked here often.

You may be impressed with his "alien" argument. You're welcome to believe it.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

20. Oh, debunked, has he been?

Please, demonstrate exactly how he has been "debunked."

The alien anecdote is not the centerpiece of what he's saying, but it demonstrates it. Is the alien anecdote false? If that were the case (and you seem to be implying it, though you offer no specifics, on purpose I would guess) it doesn't change his examination of the numbers and widely accepted phenomenon that govern such response surveys.

You won't read it, and that's fine. It threatens your strongly held beliefs, so you run from it.

As you run, just remember...you run.

[TPaine7]

46. You are so boring and naive...

I've read it. And criticisms of it. And criticisms of those criticisms. And so on. Probably all before you knew it existed.

I know that many studies replicated Kleck's results. I know that Hemmenway refuses to apply the same "thinking" that forms the basis of his argument when it doesn't suit his purposes. I know that he and the others who oppose the many studies that replicated Kleck's result don't (or didn't at the time) have any constructive criticism--any suggestions for a study rigorous enough to give "acceptable" results. I know that the anti-gun "scholars" don't think that surveys on this subject can be valid, but surveys on other subjects are OK. I know that the world's most eminent English speaking criminologist (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica)--a rabidly anti-gun fellow--was blown away by the subtly nuanced treatment of the data and admitted openly, in a published mea culpa, that he could not fault its scientific rigor. I know that its author was honored by his criminological peers for his work on guns and their relation to crime. I know that the CRIMINOLOGY community obviously respects Kleck's work, where as some DOCTORS or MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS tend to publish opposing bunk on the subject.

The fact that you think you are enlightening us with your newly discovered treasure trove of knowledge is amusing.

Mildly.

Just like every little pair of teenagers thinking they invented sex.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

48. You are one condescending piece of work

And amusing.

Very.

Idiocy aside, I'm sure you have seen it before. This IS the gun forum, after all. And Kleck's crapola survey (and the others like it) and the numbers it spat out HAS been the centerpiece of gun advocacy for quite a long time.

I like your list. Is that four out of five criminological peers support Kleck? Or is it a full five? lol.

Nothing you wrote about the details of Hemmenway's critique of Kleck's survey really holds any significant water. You, and others, keep saying Hemmenway has been "debunked," but nobody provides any details of that debunking. If it's been debunked so often and so convincingly, then why aren't you and others of a like mind posting a little of this debunking? Oh I know, it's not your job to research for me blah blah blah. What I think is this "debunking" consists of nothing more than the nonsensical rantings that you just above engaged in, along with your breathless story about some anti-gun criminologist being "blown away by the subtly nuanced" treatment Kleck gave the data. ha! The point is the data is bogus. Bolstered by false positives. You can give crap like that all the subtle nuance you want, it's still crap.

[TPaine7]

60. You come in here telling me what I will and will not do, and even my motivations for my actions:

You won't read it, and that's fine. It threatens your strongly held beliefs...

...and then call me out for running from the evidence:

so you run from it. As you run, just remember...you run.

You have no clue about what "threatens my strongly held beliefs", what I have or will read, or how likely I am to run from "evidence." You may find that there are many people around here do not enjoy being told such things by clueless folks like yourself.

If you didn't come in here condescending--condescending up, I might add--your ignorance would be suffered much more gladly.

There's a search function on this site. Use it to find the debates. Follow the links. Learn.

Or don't. I can't be bothered to care anymore.

[beevul]

21. Hemenway?

"alien" argument?

Hemenway?

I should have known.



Why do they continue dredging up this debunked 100 times ancient crap?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

26. OK, just forget the "alien" anecdote. Or is that the ONLY thing that's

been debunked out of his full paper?

Because if it is, then his paper still stands.

And if it's been debunked so often, show me where/how. Otherwise, step off.

[beevul]

30. Look...

Look, I'm not calling you out for being new.

But, being new, you probably aren't aware that hemenway has been debunked in this forum MANY times.

You are by far not the first person to drag it back out from under the rock it enevitably ends up under every time its brought up.

Many of us are simply tired of refuting the same garbage over and over.

You're likely to be answered with some links to those previous discussions.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I accept the 65,000 number.

2.5m sounds WAAAAY too damn high to me.

That said, compare to less than ~15,000 criminal uses of firearms to commit murder every year.

Most states have language to the effect of: "Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary"
Which is important to keep in mind, as using a firearm defensively represents an immediate escalation to deadly force.

[Kennah]

97. I prefer the language ...

... immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

[X_Digger]

37. It's probably less now..

Most of these surveys were done in the late 80's / early 90's.

The crime rate has dropped by half since then.

In 2007, there were over 5M 'personal crimes' attempted. - http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

Of course they don't actually stick to what K-G actually said..

In the K-G survey, many of those who report a self-defense gun use apparently see themselves as quite heroic. Were we to accept their claims, people using guns in self-defense are saving about 400,000 people each year from being murdered.

Who said the surveys asked about possibly saving someone from being murdered? The phrase in the surveys varies from 'prevented injury' to 'prevented a crime'.

It's that kind if hyperbolic overstatement of K-G's claims that gives me pause.

They cite lots of reasons why it might be wrong, but they never actually explain why they think it is.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Let's take a look at that number.

Assume that a Defensive Gun Use is very rare. That it would be a once-in-a-lifetime incident for the typical gun owner. About half of all households have guns in them so about half of the population has ready access to a gun. That's about 150 million people with access. Assume an adult lifespan of 50 years after turning 21. So divide the number with access by 50 and you get about 3 million DGUs annually on a once-in-a-lifetime basis.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. Kleck's study showed 2.5million... the DOJ's study showed 1.5million

An important point to note is that kleck is an anti-gn rights guy.
Even the DOJ said the margin of error could account for differences of the parallel studies.

I think what hangs people up is the term "defensive gun use". That could range from simply showing or stating you have a gun to use against an assailent or actually drawing/firing it. Keep in mind that america has over 300,000,000 people... so if roughly 1 in 100 used a firearm defensively in *some* way then numbers really begin to materialize. The studies also declare that it was not uncommon for high-risk individuals to report multiple annual incidents and may have even included law enforcement use of firearms.

[slackmaster]

70. The true number is unknown and fundamentally un-knowable

One estimate is as good as another. The fact that the number is not zero supports continued choice in the area of gun ownership.

[lawodevolution]

73. It's funny how anti gun activists will accept and use any lie or deceptive tactic to push their

Agenda including claiming that 300 deaths in 3 weeks of protest is non-violence when it was more intensely violent than any war today.

[lawodevolution]

74. I understand why you hold the pro gun side to a higher standard given that we always uphold the

higher standard while the antigun side uses deception, manipulation, and bigotry to push their agenda

[Glassunion]

75. Yes... To a point...

The exact number is impossible, because DGUs are not studied and have to rely on survey data. Since the survey was done, I would have to estimate that the number is declining as well, but it does not seem a far-fetched number considering independent studies performed by the DOJ came to a similar conclusion.

[GreenStormCloud]

90. I suspect the number to be increasing. The survey was done before...

...the widespread of shall-issue CCW laws when few people legally carried. Most NGUs happened at home. Now about 8 million people carry, creating greater opportunity to have a gun when it is needed.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

76. Where is all the information "debunking" the paper in the OP? I've been told by a couple....

...posters here that there are reams of old topics here that destroy Hemenway's paper that finds such seemingly deep flaws in Kleck's survey (and all the survey's done in a similar fashion) and the 2.5 million DGU estimate it arrives at.

If there's so many of them surely somebody would provide just one?

[X_Digger]

77. Donate, get your star, and search..

Here's a teaser..

Damned if I can find the bit I'm actually looking for -- the number of people who engaged in "defensive gun use" who believed that a death would probably have resulted if they had not done something with a gun. It was some multiple of the number of homicides that actually occur in the US in a year -- leading us to conclude that perhaps having a gun handy somehow increases one's risk of being murdered.

This "conclusion" is asinine. It is either extreme intellectual dishonesty, extreme bias, or both. Of course the data would show that, even if collected by an omniscient, infallible observer. Thugs often put their victims in fear of their lives so that they can obtain their objectives. Think about a few crimes:

1) Carjacking
2) Rape
3) Armed robbery

If the felon could get to give him what he wanted without putting you in fear of your life (or at least in fear of serious bodily injury) there would be no crime. It wouldn't be a carjacking; it would be a car borrowing or the generous gift of a car. It wouldn't be rape; it would be seduction. It wouldn't be armed robbery; it would be panhandling.

Those aren't crimes. They wouldn't show up on official records. They wouldn't show up in surveys. They wouldn't even show up on our omniscient, infallible observer's crime records.

Now in some people's thinking, the fact that most of the people who are put in legitimate, rational fear for their lives aren't actually killed is very significant in indicating proper gun policy. I disagree.

Let us say that only 1 in 20 of those people was correct that they would have been killed without their DGU. Let us say that Joe Blow is one of those people. He is cornered by two thugs with knives who ask for his wallet and watch. He judges the situation and determines that he can defend himself with his concealed weapon. Should he give them his wallet? Odds are, they won't hurt him if he pays the "thug tax."

Let's change the picture slightly, but not the odds. Let's say that a felon has an innocent person tied up. He has a special revolver with 20 cylinders, and he is playing a game of Russian roulette. He has been going around "playing" with lots of people; Joe Blow has read the stories and knows how this psychopath works. He uses one bullet, puts the gun to the terrified victim's head, counts down, and pulls the trigger one time and one time only. The vast majority of victims survive with only psychic scars.

Anyway, Joe Blow is armed and has a very clear shot at the psychopath's head. He is absolutely certain he can destroy the his brain and leave the victim untouched. The thug is counting down--3, 2,... Should Joe pull the trigger? Or should he endanger the innocent person out of regard for the psychopath's safety? Do you think it a moral imperative to preserve the life of the felon at the 5% possible expense of the innocent victims life?

I absolutely don't.

[onehandle]

79. I know someone who got drunk and shot at a 'UFO' that was trying to 'invade.'

He made the paper, so he's probably part of the 2.5 mil.

I also know of someone else who shot himself in the leg and tried to bullshit the cops into thinking it was a home invasion.

Another proud 2.5 million-er.

[Euromutt]

81. That's interesting. I know a guy who rubbished a study he obviously hadn't read.

How do I know he didn't read the study? Because if he had, he'd have known that the study required respondents to give consistent answers, without preparation (the respondents were "cold-called"), to up to 19 questions, and if the story was provisionally accepted as a possibly valid DGU, the respondent then had to repeat the story in a follow-up call by a supervisor, keeping the story consistent with his previous answers, and only then was the response counted as a DGU.

Keeping your story straight is a much trickier business when it's a fabrication, because you're not trying to recall an actual experience. Somehow, though, all the respondents whom Kleck & Gertz counted as having experienced actual DGUs managed to keep their stories straight.

And with that, I've revealed the study the guy in question rubbished, so you can probably guess that the in question is you, onehandle. Maybe you can take comfort in the fact that you are by no means alone. Lots of people who rubbish the Kleck-Gertz study obviously haven't read it either.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

89. I've read it, and in the context of the Hemenway paper I would still rubbish it...

...It would not hard to fabricate or embellish a story like a DGU and then repeat it to a supervisor.

How difficult would it be for you, honestly, to make up a DGU story and then repeat it, keeping it consistent, to a supervisor?

"Oh yes, last summer I was walking down the street with my girlfriend...uh, Centre Ave., and this guy came up and pulled out a knife and demanded our money. I pulled out my gun and he ran away."
or
"I woke up and a guy was climbing through my window. He had a baseball bat. I got my gun and he ran away."

Not really all that many details to remember, is there? Not all that hard to keep a story, one that encompasses such a short period of time, consistent between two tellings.

I accept that in 60 out of 5000 respondents, there is a very high possibility of people making up DGUs for all the reasons Hemenway states. I actually believe one of his lesser reasons given is a major one...that some would make up a DGU because as they were being questioned about their guns their wheels would be turning. It would dawn on them that their answers are contributing to a survey which could be used to bolster the case for gun ownership...and so saying yes to the DGU question (without preparation) and concocting some generic fantasy DGU (without preparation) is easily within the realm of belief.

It's naive to think people don't bullshit survey questions, or that "preperation" is required to do so.

It is some wet straw you are grasping there to convince yourself of the validity of the Kleck-Gertz study.

Have you read the Hemenway paper, btw?

[Euromutt]

91. See my posts #80 and #84 below

Yes, I have read the Hemenway piece, and Kleck & Gertz's rebuttal to it: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm
They point out that Hemenway's critique of their study is entirely speculative (i.e. he doesn't present any evidence why their numbers might be wrong, only conjecture) and tendentiously one-sided (Hemenway barely considers the possibility of false negatives offsetting possible false positives, even though false negatives were distinctly easier to achieve).

I've also read Marvin Wolfgang's piece "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed" (originally published in the Fall 1995 issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, reprinted here: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html) in which Wolfgang (described by the British Journal of Criminology as "the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world") states his extreme dislike of Kleck and Gertz's findings, but concludes:

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.

Possibly the best argument supporting Kleck & Gertz's work is that nobody has been to produce a better-executed study which came up with findings inconsistent with Kleck & Gertz's. Cook & Ludwig, as well as Hemenway & Azrael, both took stabs at replicating Kleck & Gertz's work to see if they could falsify the findings ("falsify" in the sense of "prove false"), and to their unwelcome surprise came up with results consistent with Kleck & Gertz's.

Cook & Ludwig (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf) went to a fair amount of effort to hand-wave away the validity of their findings, but curiously, only where it concerned DGUs; they express no doubt whatsoever about their other findings, even though these were gathered by the exact same method. In particular, they note that their data "indicate that just 35 percent (plus or minus 1.3 percent) of households own guns" and state that:

This estimate may be somewhat off the mark but not by much. Conventional wisdom <that something in the order of 50% of American households own one or more guns> appears out of date.

So Cook & Ludwig express an extremely high level of confidence that their estimate of the percentage of American gun-owning households is correct, even though it is inconsistent with the findings of numerous other surveys. That includes one study published two years earlier that found that 10.3% of respondents known to hold hunting licenses, and 12.7% of respondents known to have a handgun registered to them, denied owning firearms when interviewed (Rafferty, Ann P. et al. "Validity of a household gun question in a telephone survey." Public Health Reports. May-June 1995 v110 n3 p282(7)).

So if, even in the face of this contradictory evidence, Cook & Ludwig are so confident about their respondents' veracity when it comes to firearms ownership, why does that confidence completely evaporate when it comes to the number of reported DGUs? Could it be that the finding that gun owners are a minority, rather than a plurality, in American society conformed to their personal agenda, while the finding that annually more DGUs occur than gun crimes did not? Naaah, perish the thought!

[egressingsparrowdrop]

98. Well

If Kleck & Gertz say that Hemenway's critique of their study is entirely speculative, I guess that must be true.

All hail Kleck and Gertz.

To me the Henenway paper on the Kleck & Gertz study seems very reasonable, and I'm no anti-gun nut.

I owned a gun for several years for hunting purposes. When I stopped hunting so much I sold it.

Your whole position seems based on the idea that the people you choose to believe think Hemenway is wrong. They say he is "speculative" and "one-sided."

That strikes me as very odd....the Hemenway paper seems very reasonable and common sense based and fair in it's scope/material.

I just wonder if this is an example of the global warming debate wherein some people are unable/unwilling to move their perspective or accept contrary information.

[Euromutt]

99. Well indeed

If Kleck & Gertz say that Hemenway's critique of their study is entirely speculative, I guess that must be true.

Ah, the classic Mandy Rice-Davies riposte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies#.22Well.2C_he_would.2C_wouldn.27t_he.3F.22_and_later_celebrity). But you have to be cautious not to turn it into a circumstantial ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem), specifically the form known as "poisoning the well."

You don't have to take Kleck & Gertz's work for it that Hemenway's objections are based on speculation. At no point in his piece does he provide evidence to show that Kleck & Gertz's methodology is flawed. He notes that, in earlier surveys, "interviewers typically asked only one vague question about gun use in self-defense (e.g., 'Have you used a gun in self-defense in the previous five years?') with no follow-up questions" but fails to acknowledge that these studies produced lower estimates of DGUs in spite of being much more vulnerable to false positives than the Kleck-Gertz study (since the respondents only falsely had to say answer "yes" to the "one vague question" to generate a false positive).

Hemenway also goes on at length about "social desirability bias," but as Kleck & Gertz point out, most of their respondents who reported a DGU had, as a result, to cop to some form of unlawful behavior in so doing, usually carrying concealed without a permit (which were markedly more rare in 1992 than they are now), which hardly seems "socially desirable." Moreover, as Kleck & Gertz also point out, if so many of their respondents were engaged in "false portrayals of heroism," remarkably few of them provided tales of derring-do, reporting the assailant had a firearm in only 17.9% of cases, and was completely unarmed in 51.9% of cases. Similarly, when asked how likely they considered the possibility that someone would have died had they not used a firearm for protection (in effect, whether they saved their own or someone else's life), the combined number of respondents who replied "probably" or "almost certainly" came in at slightly less than 30%. That seems remarkably low for manufactured tales of heroism; surely we consider it more "socially desirable" to use a firearm to protect life than to protect a wallet or a VCR.

Your whole position seems based on the idea that the people you choose to believe think Hemenway is wrong. They say he is "speculative" and "one-sided."

That strikes me as very odd....the Hemenway paper seems very reasonable and common sense based and fair in it's scope/material.

Your whole position seems based on the idea that the person you choose believe thinks Kleck & Gertz are wrong. He says their "conclusions cannot be accepted as valid" and strongly insinuates the survey was rigged ("The interviewers presumably knew both the purpose of the survey and the staked-out position of the principal investigator regarding the expected results.").

For my part, I don't find it odd in the slightest that you would regard Hemenway's piece as "very reasonable and common sense based and fair in it's <sic> scope/material," because it supports your preconceived notions that it couldn't possibly be true that 1.3% of the adult population might have occasion to use a firearm in self-defense in the early 1990s. (As I've noted elsewhere, given that the violent crime rate has dropped by half since then, I would surmise that the number of DGUs will also have dropped as a result.)

I just wonder if this is an example of the global warming debate wherein some people are unable/unwilling to move their perspective or accept contrary information.

Wonder away. But in your analogy of global warming to DGUs, you're going to have to ask yourself which side you're on.

In both cases, one side has empirical evidence, and the other side has a lot of rationalizations why that evidence can't possibly be correct, or is being willfully misinterpreted, or is just plain rigged, but no actual evidence to the effect that the other side is wrong.

Skepticism is healthy, but there's a thin line between skepticism and denialism.

[Euromutt]

80. I guess you missed Kleck & Gertz's response

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

Short version: Kleck and Gertz point out that Hemenway's objections are entirely speculative, and moreover, are entirely one-sided (e.g. Hemenway does not consider for a moment the possibility of "false negatives," i.e. respondents falsely denying have experienced a DGU).

For myself, I provisionally accept the 2.5 million DGUs estimate as being the best supported by the available evidence, noting in passing that the confidence intervals allow for latitude of as much as a million less or more. Given the results of the subsequent study by Cook & Ludwig (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf), and a survey conducted by Hemenway himself along with Deborah Azrael, which resulted in estimates, respectively, of 1.5 million and 900,000 DGUs, and the confidence intervals of those studies, I'm strongly inclined to think somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 million DGUs annually is perhaps a more realistic number.

I should add a caveat, namely that these studies were conducted in the early to mid-1990s, when violent crimes levels were about double what they are now, and I consider it highly likely that current numbers of DGUs are concomitantly lower.

Go with the NCVS results, which peg the yearly DGU in the US at 65,000.

I'm sure that suits your agenda better, but the problem is that the NCVS doesn't explicitly ask about DGUs; respondents are able to volunteer information to that effect only if they've previously stated that they were the victim of a crime. If someone answered "no" to the latter question, on the grounds that the crime was not completed because they used a firearm to scare off the assailant, there is no way for that respondent to subsequently report the DGU.

And I'm going to note again that Hemenway himself co-authored a study with Deborah Azrael that produced an estimate of 900,000 DGUs annually. Like Cook & Ludwig, Hemenway & Azrael put a fair amount of effort into hand-waving away their own findings by claiming that the methodology would inevitably produce inflated estimates, but that in turn raises the question why they then used that methodology in the first place. Why spend time and grant money doing a study that you ostensibly know in advance isn't going to yield valid results?

The obvious answer is that there's nothing wrong with the methodology; Cook & Ludwig and Hemenway & Azrael simply had an unwelcome surprise when it produced results that weren't to their liking.

[Euromutt]

84. In addition, let me share some words from Marvin Wolfgang

"Who?" you may ask. Marvin Wolfgang was described by the British Journal of Criminology as "the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world." He has this to say about the Kleck-Gertz study:

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 even from the police.
<...>
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.
<...>
I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.

(Source: Wolfgang, M. "Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.)

See how Wolfgang's reaction starts the same as yours, but ends differently, sparrowdrop? Like you, he states he doesn't like the results; unlike you, he acknowledges--however reluctantly--that the research is "methodologically sound," whereas you dismiss it as "clearly bullshit," purely on the basis that you don't like the findings.

[Kennah]

92. Pick a number any number between 764K and 3.6M

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) said 108K in 1993; however, it should be obvious why that number would be so low.

[Bold Lib]

95. I find it very plausible. Though the 1.5 mill number seems to be much more

solid from what I've read.

[Kennah]

96. Here are some real dead numbers to chew on

In the FBI UCR, Expanded Homicide Data, Table 14 (Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement) and Table 15 (Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen) are perhaps the best concrete indicators available. Someone got dead and it got reported to the FBI. There are some who criticize the FBI data analysis and collection methods for underreporting, but let's stick with the numbers the FBI publishes.

If one presumes that for every justifiable homicide by a private citizen, there are 100 DGUs where someone is not killed, then we're talking a couple tens of thousands of DGUs a year. If the ratio is 1,000 to 1, then we're talking a couple hundreds of thousands of DGUs a year. But, if the ratio is 10,000 to 1 (IOW, for every one person killed, there are 10,000 DGUs where someone is not killed), then we're talking a couple million DGUs a year.

For Private Citizens

2009 - 261
2008 - 265
2007 - 257
2006 - 238
2005 - 196
2004 - 222
2003 - 247
2002 - 233
2001 - 222
2000 - 164
1999 - 192
1998 - 196
1997 - 280
1996 - 261
1995 - 268
1994 - 353
1993 - 357
1992 - 351
1991 - 331

For Law Enforcement

2009 - 406
2008 - 378
2007 - 398
2006 - 386
2005 - 347
2004 - 367
2003 - 373
2002 - 341
2001 - 378
2000 - 309
1999 - 308
1998 - 369
1997 - 366
1996 - 357
1995 - 389
1994 - 462
1993 - 455
1992 - 418
1991 - 367

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#ucr_cius