Harvard Study: More guns == more gun violence and more homicide.

[Electric Monk]

Thread in General Discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025721399

[gejohnston]

1. a study and department funded by

the same people who astro turfs Brady Campaign and other gun control groups Hemenway is a Brady Campaign member. That does not mean the study isn't valid, just means one should take a closer look.
It published from an internal publication and not in any peer reviewed criminology or even public health periodical. Hemenway and his department does not release their data or methodology for others for analysis. IOW, it isn't peer reviewed. That generally makes the study invalid.

Looking at FBI data, (for a couple of examples) Wyoming has the highest gun ownership rate in the US. It had 14 murders 5 with guns. Places where there are more gang activity, and stricter laws and lower legal gun ownership, the majority are with guns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

[hack89]

2. It certainly is an indictment on the US health system

while we have seen significant decreases in deaths due to gun crime, our suicide rate remains stubbornly high. It tells you something when two thirds of gun deaths are self inflicted.

[ileus]

4. We planted one of my best friends today.

He'd spent 5 weeks in two psyc wards the past few months. Lost his mother in August, his house in September.

He just couldn't function in society any longer according to our conversations that past few month.

Oh and the "planted" comes straight from him from an hour after his mothers funeral.


Depression is a monster...

[ileus]

3. More proof of why it's only smart to carry.

Don't be a willing victim, don't let them make you an unwilling one.

[Electric Monk]

5. I'm sure you've seen these before, but for those that haven't...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017113903






http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=2396

[ileus]

6. That's some scary stuff.

I just picked up a dandy example of a HD pistol a few months ago.

CZ p-09 19+1 rounds of 9mm on tap, it replaced my Sig P220 which was 8+1 of 45acp. Both with rail mounted lights and night sights...

We'll be hitting the range tomorrow evening for our weekly "tuesday night shoot club" I loaded 150 "new" loads this past weekend. I moved my practice rounds from 1.105 to 1.085 OAL

I kinda dread going because I'm sure there'll be bunches of folks there on the upper and lower rifle ranges getting ready for the upcoming seasons. Last Tuesday I tested the scope calibration on my sons black powder rifle. The Tuesday before that I tested my single shot 308. Tuesday before that I tested my sons single shot 7mm-08. (Yeah we like single shots for hunting)

[gejohnston]

7. one major flaw with that bit of propaganda

The first chart does not compare like items.
230 justifiable homicides. Ten times that in self defense wounds, and from the CDC.......................

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm#ixzz3HNwUQiGn

4. Justifiable homicide rates underreported: Even a cursory look at the FBI file makes it clear that it's probable the justifiable homicide rates are undercounted even when you have "complete" data from a state. A large number of deaths are reported as "99": "All instances where facts provided do not permit determination of circumstances." How many of those were justifiable homicides will never be known. It's possible that police, as criminologist Gary Kleck believes, are merely ruling more of these "99s" and other ambiguous killings as justifiable homicides than they used to.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/05/jusifiable-homicides-guns-data-analysis

The second is based on pure bullshit the prohibition lobby made up or based on non peer reviewed shill studies. For example: "an abused woman is 6 times to be murdered if there is a gun in the home". Most abused women are murdered either by bare hands or weapons other than guns. Very few are shot by their abusers. It is more common for them to shoot their abusers. 90 percent of male murder victims are shot, 17 percent of women are.

[Glenn Vardy]

17. Erasing deaths

230 justifiable homicides. Ten times that in self defense wounds, and from the CDC.......................

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

It doesn't matter how many DGU's there were. The homicides, suicides and accidents still happened.

[beevul]

19. That really says it all, doesn't it?

"It doesn't matter how many DGU's there were."

Every now and then, the veil slips.

[Glenn Vardy]

28. It doesn't matter

That really says it all, doesn't it? "It doesn't matter how many DGU's there were." Every now and then, the veil slips.

When the numbers of deaths by guns is presented and you guys counter with the number of DGU's, you're saying that those deaths don't matter. I say it again: It doesn't matter how many DGU's there were, the homicides, suicides and accidental deaths still happened.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. Let's talk about violence, disease, crime and abuse tied to alcohol.

The misuse of alcohol leads to psoriasis, DUIs and other physical ailments. Moreover, guns bring with them an intrinsic understanding they are lethal the first time, every time. However, binge drinking is not only accepted it is expected if not outright encouraged in many instances.

Guns do not motivate people to violence; but to deny alcohol is an underlying factor in domestic abuse, sexual assault, child abuse and other forms of violence would be to stretch credulity beyond breaking.

Under-aged drinking claims 4,300 lives annually due to over-consumption of alcohol. That is more than 4 Sandy Hooks per week.

Of the 30,000 gun-related deaths each year 15,000 are suicides. That's 15,000 suicides out of 38,000. Having a gun in the house doesn't motivate people to kill themselves but of ALL suicides -- gun-related or otherwise -- alcohol is a significant factor.

[Glenn Vardy]

18. Kleck

It's possible that police, as criminologist Gary Kleck believes, are merely ruling more of these "99s" and other ambiguous killings as justifiable homicides than they used to.

The second is based on pure bullshit the prohibition lobby made up or based on non peer reviewed shill studies

So when Gary Kleck says what he believes, is his belief based on a "peer reviewed study?"

This guy did a phone poll of a very small sample of gun owners. They were asked if they'd been involved in a DGU in the past year. Chances are that some of the gun owners who claimed they'd been involved in a defensive gun use were the aggressors and were a bit too eager to pull their gun. Who knows? But Kleck multiplied the number of CLAIMED DGU's to get the number of DGU's for the whole of the U.S. Who cares what this shill believes? If the police don't list killings as DGU's, what should they list them as?

[jimmy the one]

21. kleck dgu interview

glenn: This guy {gary kleck} did a phone poll of a very small sample of gun owners.

It was a sham, done to sell books for gary kleck (who is also a reg'd 'democrat' btw, likely a ploy to curry favor with bookbuyers from the right).
here's an interview kleck did re his dgu study:

KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews {USA overall}, where we had a response of whether there had been a defensive gun use.
SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?
KLECK: Handguns, yes. SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun. KLECK: Right.
SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people? KLECK: Something like that, yeah.
SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?

KLECK: You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for people to have done more than one of these things since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or even shoot it.
KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. 47% involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. 22% involved the gun being fired. 14% involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8% they actually did wound or kill the offender.

SCHULMAN: Did you get any data on how the attackers were armed during these incidents?
KLECK: Yes. We also asked whether the offender was armed. The offender was armed in 47.2% of the cases {half} and they had a handgun in about 13.6% of all the cases and some other kind of gun in 4.5% of all the cases.
SCHULMAN:..in about a sixth of the cases, the person attacking was armed with a firearm.. the remainder?
KLECK: Armed with a knife: 18.1%, 2% with some other sharp object, 10.1% with a blunt object, and 6% with some other weapon. Keep in mind when adding this up that offenders could have had more than one weapon.
SCHULMAN: So in approximately five sixths of the cases somebody carrying a gun for defensive reasons would find themselves defending themselves either against an unarmed attacker or an attacker with a lesser weapon?
KLECK: Right. About five-sixths of the time.
SCHULMAN:.. about 1/6 of the time they would find themselves up against somebody who's armed with a firearm.
KLECK:.. certainly in this sample of incidents that was the case. SCHULMAN: Which you believe is representative.
KLECK: It's representative of what's happened in the last 5 years. Whether it would be true in the future we couldn't say..

KLECK: About the only thing which was surprising is how often people had actually wounded someone in the incident {HAHAHAH because it's not true! see below). http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html

The easiest debunk of klecks figures are that, using his wounding data (8% x 2.4 million dgus)), he estimated ~200,000 justifiable defensive gun woundings. The problem is, the hospital, med center & doctor admissions for gunshot wounds for that year was about 99,000! What the other 100,000 gunshot wounded do? A healed themselves B walking wounded C died D just winged 'em E kleck is FOS.
Note in the verbal dgus, these started out as verbals, then some escalated into actually getting the gun, maybe even some escalated into shooting it. I gauge about 25% or ~600,000 - 800,000 were just verbal dgus alone, rather than klecks' 54%.
Note that kleck credits 'warning shots' as being dgus, while some gunnuts say warning shots are not dgus, actually illegal.

also on this DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=122424

[gejohnston]

23. actually, it has never been debunked

In fact, the only "study" that claims to claims to debunk it is Hemenway who never releases for peer review. His data has a larger sample than most political polls, making it more accurate.

[Glenn Vardy]

29. Debunked.

it has never been debunked. In fact, the only "study" that claims to claims to debunk it is Hemenway who never releases for peer review

As if a peer reviewed study is needed to debunk a phone poll. Can people make false claims in a phone poll? Yes. Debunked.

[gejohnston]

34. so I just debunked support for stricter gun laws

can people say what they think the pollster wants to hear? Yes. Debunked. Sorry, if you want an honest discussion, I'm willing. You obviously are not, or at least you are not capable of it.

[Glenn Vardy]

39. Giving someone elses opinion in opinion poll?

so I just debunked support for stricter gun laws. can people say what they think the pollster wants to hear? Yes. Debunked.

If you don't support stricter gun laws, would you say you do? This type of poll is an opinion poll. Kleck's poll was asking if something had actually happened.

[gejohnston]

48. distinction without a difference

but I'm guessing you knew that.

[GGJohn]

36. So going by your comment here,

polls claiming that less households have a firearm in them would be false also?
Because people can lie during a phone poll.

[Glenn Vardy]

44. Common sense says...

So going by your comment here, polls claiming that less households have a firearm in them would be false also?

In a poll asking if there's a firearm in the household, false answers could be given.

[GGJohn]

54. Thanks for your honesty.

Going on that premise, then polls out there that gun control organizations use to prove declining households with firearms in them aren't reliable at all also.

I believe that most households, if polled, would deny a firearm in the home for reasons of, "it's none of your business".
BTW, that comment wasn't directed at you.

[Glenn Vardy]

58. Is that a typo?

Thanks for your honesty.

That's a first in this forum. I'm usually accused of dishonesty, for no reason. I say what I believe.

Going on that premise, then polls out there that gun control organizations use to prove declining households with firearms in them aren't reliable at all also. I believe that most households, if polled, would deny a firearm in the home for reasons of, "it's none of your business".

"Most?" Who knows? But some will definitely deny having a firearm for the reason you say. Others could say they own a firearm as a statement of support for "gun rights" when they don't actually own one.

[GGJohn]

61. No, not a typo,

you had the honesty to admit that those polls can be skewed because people do lie on the phone, I find that refreshing, so, again, thanks for your honesty.

"Most?" Who knows? But some will definitely deny having a firearm for the reason you say. Others could say they own a firearm as a statement of support for "gun rights" when they don't actually own one.

I'll give credit where credit is due, and you make a very valid point there.

Good talking to you.

[pablo_marmol]

37. Too bad *your* boy Philip Cook came up with the same results for DGU's

within the scientific margin of error. If attempting to measure DGU's via survey is such a fool's errand, why did he spend so much effort on his own survey? (Answer: Because he was hoping for a "gotcha" moment which not only didn't materialize, but actually backfired!)

"Debunked" my huevos!

[gejohnston]

22. Bullshit

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

He is hardly a shill in fact, he is one of the most respected criminologists in the US. His study also got him one of the highest awards in criminology.
Your "chances are" are bullshit and shows your dishonesty.
You don't know what the word "shill" means.
A shill is someone funded by an interest group and makes a study to fit the predetermined conclusions. That describes David Hemenway and Author Kellermann, two of Kleck's critics. Shill does not mean "I don't like the results". In Hemenway's "rebuttal" Hemenway accused the poll workers of falsifying results without any evidence to back him up and ranted some bullshit about flying saucers.
Read his complete CV
http://criminology.fsu.edu/faculty-and-staff/college-faculty/gary-kleck/

In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

Florida State University Professor Gary Kleck has been named one of the Top 25 criminal justice professors in the country by a leading forensic sciences website.
Joining Kleck on the ForensicsColleges.com list are professors from American University, University of Maryland and Rutgers University.

http://criminology.fsu.edu/news/fsu-criminology-professor-recognized-as-one-of-25-top-criminal-justice-professors/
Shill my ass. Compare that to Hemenway who got a plaque from the Brady Campaign.

[Glenn Vardy]

25. Ranting bull$h!t?

Hemenway.. ranted some bullshit about flying saucers.

I can imagine what he said and it probably wasn't bullshit. How many people claim to have seen flying saucers or even claim to have been abducted by aliens? If you do a phone poll asking if people have been abducted by aliens and 5% of those polled say they have, would you conclude that 5% of the population of the U.S. have been abducted by aliens? No, you'd conclude that 5% of those polled may have lied. Why can't you accept that there could have been exaggerated claims by gun owners who WANT there to be lots of DGU's, just as YOU want there to be lots of DGU's?

[gejohnston]

35. this is the last because

it is the stupidest. Flying saucers and aliens (which I have no idea how many people claim to have seen and neither does Hemenway) is completely fucking irrelevant. Using it and the evidence free claims of fraud makes Hemenway dishonest. The fact that he used the flying saucer bullshit says he thinks everybody who takes his shit seriously are stupid.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6937&context=jclc

[Glenn Vardy]

40. "Estimates," not checking validity of claims.

From your link.

He incorrectly claims that "all checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated," when in fact these checks have repeatedly confirmed our estimates.

What checks did they do to confirm the validity of the claims? He doesn't say.

[gejohnston]

46. He explains it in the actual study and the book

go read it.

[Glenn Vardy]

49. Somewhere on the internet?

He explains it in the actual study and the book, go read it.

Nowhere does he explain how he checked the validity of the claims. That's why you can't put the text of the explanation on this page. The explanation is somewhere on the internet, but I have to go looking for it?

[gejohnston]

50. because flatbed scanners don't

do bound books very well. IIRC, the study was published in a criminology journal in the 1993.
Public library (where I went) or Amazon.

The explanation is somewhere on the internet, but I have to go looking for it?

If it is on the internet, you looking for it might inspire you to actually read it instead of dreaming up red herrings.

[Glenn Vardy]

51. WHERE'S THE TEXT?

Put the text where Kleck explains the checks of validity of the claims made ON THIS PAGE. There were no checks.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc

[gejohnston]

52. yes there were

and Hemenway lied just like he lied about Gertz's employees rigging the results. Section three, paragraph three, page five. Of course, Hemenway doesn't provide evidence to back up this claim or any other.

Hemenway claimed the Kleck and Gertz did little to reduce what Hemenway imagined to be a huge overestimation bias. Since there was no reason to believe such a thing existed when the NSDS was designed, and even less reason to believe it now, this is comparable to saying that Kleck and Gertz did nothing to prevent demons from possessing their interviewers. With a convenient vagueness, Hemenway did not say precisely what he thought Kleck and Gertz should have done to reduce this supposed bias, and therefore does not specify anything they failed to do.
In any case, the claim is false. On p. 161 of their article Kleck and Gertz explained that “all interviews in which an alleged DGU was reported by the respondent were validated by supervisors with call-backs” and, on p. 163, that Kleck “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.” They also reported on p. 172 that they debriefed their interviewers after the calling was finished, asking them about possible false reports and found that “only one interviewer spoke with a person he thought was inventing a nonexistent event.” It would be more accurate to say that they did virtually everything that could ethically be done to guard against false reports.

https://saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm
Hemenway is not only a shill, he is a lying sack of shit and an ideologue. That is why Kleck is one of the top criminology professors in the US and is respected in his field. Hemenway, gets a plaque from a gun prohibition lobby.
Oh in case you missed it on the Amazon page

Winner of the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang award of the American Society of Criminology.

[Glenn Vardy]

53. TEXT??????

yes there were, and Hemenway lied..

If there were checks on the validity of the claims made by the respondents, POST THE TEXT explaining how the claims were checked. IF Hemenway lied, you'll be able to post the text which shows he lied.

Hemenway is spot on. To the respondents, the idea of heroically protecting themselves, family or friends is an attractive one and could EASILY have led to exaggerations. Hemenway refers to these as "false positives." Kleck knows that Hemenway is right, which is why, in his response to Hemenway, he says that the "false negatives" could have been underestimated. In other words, respondents who answered that they HADN'T been involved in a DGU may HAVE been involved in a DGU and these make up for the false claims of a DGU. Very unlikely indeed.

[gejohnston]

56. no he wasn't

because it was his job to provide evidence instead of speculate, just like when he HE FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THAT GERTZ'S EMPLOYEES RIGGED THE RESULTS.
Hemingway knows Kleck and other are right. What Kleck knows is that Hemingway is a joke and not very well respected in the academic community.
Since Hemenway failed to provide evidence to back up this bullshit, perhaps you can.
At the risk of appealing to authority, who is one of the top 25 criminal justice professors? How did American Society of Criminology receive Kleck's work? Oh yeah that's right.

The Michael J. Hindelang Award (established in 1992) is given annually for a book, published within three (3) calendar years preceding the year in which the award is made, that makes the most outstanding contribution to research in criminology.

If I ignore your reply, it is because it substance free bullshit like the rest.

POST THE TEXT explaining how the claims were checked.

I did. Your reading skills suck as bad as your critical thinking skills.

[Glenn Vardy]

59. Still no text. Lol

I said: "POST THE TEXT explaining how the claims (of respondents) were checked."

I did. Your reading skills suck as bad as your critical thinking skills.

You DIDN'T. You're posting LINKS to Kleck's articles, not the text from the articles. I'm asking you to post the TEXT from the articles because the article don't contain what you say they contain.

[gejohnston]

60. bolded in post 52

You think pollsters hire PIs to find each respondent? Talk about reaching for straws. This is even more inane than your founders bullshit.
To quote one of the most respected criminologists in the US:

"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 have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. . . . (T)he methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it."

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/A-Tribute-to-a-View-I-Have-Opposed.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/18/us/marvin-e-wolfgang-73-dies-leading-figure-in-criminology.html

So with all due respect:

[Glenn Vardy]

63. Address Hemenway's point.

it was his (Hemenway's) job to provide evidence instead of speculate

Have you ever heard the saying "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence?"
It was NOT Hemenway's job to provide evidence of the validity (or not) of the claims made in the survey.

Aren't you going to respond to a point I made in an earlier post? Hemenway is right. To the respondents, the idea of heroically protecting themselves, family or friends is an attractive one and could EASILY have led to exaggerations. Hemenway refers to these as "false positives." Kleck KNOWS that Hemenway is right, which is why, in his response to Hemenway, he says that the "false negatives" could have been underestimated. In other words, respondents who answered that they HADN'T been involved in a DGU may HAVE been involved in a DGU and these make up for the false claims of a DGU. Very unlikely indeed.

[gejohnston]

64. I did

It wasn't a valid point. Hemenway made it up. Also who would these people brag to? Some college student on the phone who, according to the stereotype, would have been unimpressed if not appalled. It was Hemenway's job to provide evidence that there would be more false positives and negatives. IOW, Hemenway wasn't even logical.

"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence?"

Then I simply dismiss everything Hemenway scribbled. It was his job to provide evidence that was the case. Evidence does not mean speculating based on a stereotype, his own classiest stereotype. You agree with it only because you share the same preduice, not based on any empirical evidence. To say that Hemenway is right would be to say that the professional society and that Marvin Wolfgang was wrong. You are saying that it is Kleck's job to disprove Hemeneway's baseless speculation. That contradicts your quote. I suppose it is also the job of Gertz's employees to disprove Hemenway's equally baseless libel? Or are you being inconsistent about that too?

[Glenn Vardy]

68. "Making up" valid points?

It wasn't a valid point. Hemenway made it up.

What do you mean by he "made it up?" You don't think the point is valid, but IF he has a valid point, how is he expected to present it without being accused by YOU of "making it up?"

Who would these people brag to? Some college student on the phone who, according to the stereotype, would have been unimpressed if not appalled.

And you accused Hemenway of making things up when making a point?

It was Hemenway's job to provide evidence that there would be more false positives and negatives.

Did Kleck provide evidence that there weren't any false positives? No. But HE presented the claims made as fact. Hemenways "job," as you put it, was to say WHY the results of the survey cannot be presented as fact. The default position should NOT be that there were NO false positives unless evidence is presented to prove that there were.

You are saying that it is Kleck's job to disprove Hemeneway's baseless speculation.

No. I'm saying it's Kleck's job to prove that all the claims made in HIS survey are FACT because he's presented them as fact. THAT'S baseless speculation.

[gejohnston]

70. where does Kleck say there wasn't?

I don't believe he did. It was Hemenway there wasn't any false negatives but most positives were false. He said so with no evidence.

No. I'm saying it's Kleck's job to prove that all the claims made in HIS survey are FACT because he's presented them as fact. THAT'S baseless speculation.

Kleck didn't say that either.

[Glenn Vardy]

62. Margin of error = one false claim?

On p. 161 of their article Kleck and Gertz explained that “all interviews in which an alleged DGU was reported by the respondent were validated by supervisors with call-backs”

Doesn't this seem a bit vague to you? How exactly were the claims validated? It's just another phone call in which the respondent repeats his original claim, which still could be false.

and, on p. 163, that Kleck “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.”

And HE decided that they were genuine?

They also reported on p. 172 that they debriefed their interviewers after the calling was finished, asking them about possible false reports and found that “only one interviewer spoke with a person he thought was inventing a nonexistent event.”

So what? The chances of just one false answer will be close to zero. This all shows that the claims were "validated" ONLY by the SAY-SO of Kleck and the people involved with the survey.

It would be more accurate to say that they did virtually everything that could ethically be done to guard against false reports.

And a second phone conversation, Kleck's WORD that they all LOOKED genuine and the WORD of the interviewers would have prevented any false claims?

[gejohnston]

65. ask him

his email address is on the FSU website.
You are accusing a criminologist who doesn't like guns or the NRA of doing a shill study for the NRA based on speculation. No wonder you are a Hemenway fan.

[Glenn Vardy]

73. "Doesn't like guns?"

You are accusing a criminologist who doesn't like guns or the NRA of doing a shill study for the NRA

Don't give me that "doesn't like guns" crap! There doesn't need to be an affiliation with pro-gun organization found to see that Kleck has an agenda. If he doesn't have an agenda, he wouldn't have tried to counter Hemenway's claims of possible false positives by saying that the false negatives could have been underestimated. In other words, respondents who HAD been involved in a genuine DGU answering that they HADN'T. His agenda is obviously to get as higher number of DGU's as possible from his survey.

[gejohnston]

74. did you actually read it?

Did you actually understand it? You might think you understood it, but did you really?
The only appropriate response to that post is this:

[Glenn Vardy]

77. Nothing but insults

He has a pro-gun agenda. He tries to inflate the number of DGU's unless he's commenting on the matter of "justifiable homicides" tripling due to "stand your ground" laws.

[gejohnston]

80. no. He followed the evidence

that is where they left him. Also, UK has stand your ground. Half of the states were stand your ground before any such laws were passed. As for the insults: The Dunning Kruger is an honest observation. The YT clip was the quality of your posts, not you personally.

[Glenn Vardy]

81. Think about this.

no. He followed the evidence

If he suggests that the FALSE negatives could have been underestimated to counter Hemenway's claims of possible FALSE positives, he must accept that FALSE answers could have been given in the survey, right?

[gejohnston]

82. think about this

In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America

http://www.amazon.com/tribute-opposed-response-Violence-Symposium/dp/B00093SA82

Recognized as one of 25 Top Criminal Justice Professors

Kleck's has been replicated and confirmed by Phil Cook of all people. Praised by Marvin Wolfgang of all people.
At this point you are here:

While you are floating in the water, you just as well as
I accept your surrender, and will let you keep your sword.

[Glenn Vardy]

83. The 'appeal to authority' argument.

Kleck's has been.. Praised by..

I don't care who he's been praised by. It's the 'appeal to authority' argument. With his own words, in a response to Hemenway, Kleck has shown that Hemenway made valid points.

[gejohnston]

84. no he hasn't

and you know that. Hemenway is a shill and propagandist with no valid points. "Evidence free one sided speculation" and "libeling Gertz's employees" doesn't sound like making valid points.
Yes it was appeal to authority, but the point you made was inane, just like Hemenway's flying saucers. False positives would be offset by false negatives.
I was appealing to Marvin's the Society's authority. I did not say because they thought so it must be true. I implied that if your argument was remotely logical or valid, Dr. Wolfgang would have certainly thought of it.
There is a caveat to appeal to authority:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Since you have not demonstrated a similar level of understanding nor have access to empirical evidence that contradicts the work, you still lose.

[Glenn Vardy]

85. Offensive Gun Uses.

False positives would be offset by false negatives.

You've just said what you're denying Kleck said.
If there were FALSE positives and negatives, there would have been false answers given in the survey.

Kleck said that "defensive use of guns is.. probably more common than criminal uses of guns." But he defines "use" as:
1. "Verbally referring to the gun."
2. "The gun being pointed."
3. "Gun being fired.. warning shot."
4. "Gun being fired at somebody."

When he refers to the criminal use of guns, does he include referring to the gun as a threat, pointing the gun as a threat, or firing the gun as a threat? Perhaps he should estimate such OFFENSIVE gun uses before claiming that they aren't as common as defensive uses.

[gejohnston]

86. No he doesn't

he was referring to an otherwise law abiding person carrying before concealed carry became liberalized.
As a threat to the initial aggressor, which is not a crime. You know that. Now you are just looking for hide bait. This is my last reply because I'm tired of wasting my time with such pettiness.

[Glenn Vardy]

87. YOU said it.

YOU said: "False positives would be offset by false negatives."
So I replied: "If there were FALSE positives and negatives, there would have been false answers given in the survey."
This is the point Hemenway was making.

Now you are just looking for hide bait.

It's YOU who wants to hide from my main point. Here it is again:
Kleck said that "defensive use of guns is.. probably more common than criminal uses of guns." But he defines "use" as:
1. "Verbally referring to the gun."
2. "The gun being pointed."
3. "Gun being fired.. warning shot."
4. "Gun being fired at somebody."

When he refers to the criminal use of guns, does he include referring to the gun as a threat, pointing the gun as a threat, or firing the gun as a threat? Perhaps he should estimate such OFFENSIVE gun uses before claiming that they aren't as common as defensive uses.

[Glenn Vardy]

26. No chance of exaggeration or false claims?

Your "chances are" are bullshit and shows your dishonesty.

So there's no chance that some of the claims were exaggerated or false?

[gejohnston]

33. read the book

it explains the methodology. If there is anything you don't understand, his email address is easy to find.
Or just read this.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
I recommend both. I doubt you will since you, quite frankly, don't strike me as a someone with an open mind or open to honest debate.

[Glenn Vardy]

41. Honest debate?

read the book..you..don't strike me as a someone.. open to honest debate.

I asked YOU if YOU think there was "no chance" of exaggerated or false claims. Did you answer? No, you told me to read the book/study instead. YOU'RE the one who isn't open to honest debate.

[gejohnston]

47. I am open to honest debate

but I don't waste my time with moronic word games. I also don't waste my time with the willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Since you are claiming that the were or might have been false claims, then it is up to you find them.

[Glenn Vardy]

55. "New" empirical evidence.

Since you are claiming that the were or might have been false claims, then it is up to you find them.

You have the same mentality as Kleck. In his response to Hemenway, who cast doubt on the conclusions of this survey, Kleck said:
"It is an impressive achievement to be able to arrive at such high-powered conclusions without the inconvenience of gathering or even citing any new empirical evidence."

Was there any "empirical evidence" that the claims made in his survey were genuine? No. So why does he expect "new" empirical evidence is needed to cast doubt on his conclusions?

[gejohnston]

57. because

Hemingway didn't back up his claims. He speculated and pulled shit out of his ass just like you are.

[gejohnston]

24. Post Script

So when Gary Kleck says what he believes, is his belief based on a "peer reviewed study?"

how anti intellectual of you. Actually, about 15 studies dating back to the Hart Study in 1978 backs up the basic claim.

This guy did a phone poll of a very small sample of gun owners. They were asked if they'd been involved in a DGU in the past year.

False, he hired a professional pollster to phone 5K random people.

Chances are that some of the gun owners who claimed they'd been involved in a defensive gun use were the aggressors and were a bit too eager to pull their gun. Who knows?

Next time you complain about climate science deniers, you might want to look in the mirror.

But Kleck multiplied the number of CLAIMED DGU's to get the number of DGU's for the whole of the U.S. Who cares what this shill believes?

That is because it was a random poll using the same methods as other scientific polls.

If the police don't list killings as DGU's, what should they list them as?

police don't make that decision, the lawyers do.

Is there someplace you actually get your disinformation, or do you just make it up yourself? Your representation is as demonstrably false and full of shit as your "what Madison" word games. That is not an honest debate done in good faith. But then, that is pretty common among "gun control advocates". It is really disappointing.
Read the book and come back with an idea of what he actually said and what his methods were.
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X

[Glenn Vardy]

27. Conflicting "information" from gejohnstone

gejohnston posted this:

It's possible that police, as criminologist Gary Kleck believes, are merely ruling more of these....

I asked: "If the police don't list killings as DGU's, what should they list them as?"

police don't make that decision, the lawyers do. Is there someplace you actually get your disinformation, or do you just make it up yourself?

My question was based on what YOU posted. See "police.. ruling" in the excerpt?

[gejohnston]

32. you lied

Those are not my words. That is from the article of a British newspaper.
In the US, the police investigate and the DA decides what to do with the information.
Dishonesty and childish word games.

[Glenn Vardy]

42. YOU lie.

you lied Those are not my words

I said it was something "you posted."

[Glenn Vardy]

30. "Scientific?"

But Kleck multiplied the number of CLAIMED DGU's to get the number of DGU's for the whole of the U.S.

That is because it was a random poll using the same methods as other scientific polls.

It was a "scientific" poll? Did anyone check any of the claims made in the poll? No. How can you refer to this as "scientific?"

[gejohnston]

31. Oh please

using that logic, any claim supporting stricter gun laws are equally questionable. I would explain the science behind polling, but it would be above your reading level. Pure bullshit and no substance.

[S_B_Jackson]

38. Actually, yes, someone did check the claims of DGUs.....

the US Department of Justice under then-Attorney General Janet Reno, seeking to debunk Kleck's findings re-interviewed and re-ran the numbers using the DGU-defining criteria....their extrapolated results were largely inline with Kleck's estimated 2.5 million DGUs per annum. The DOJ's estimate was approximately 1.5 million DGUs annually.

[link:https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf| page 8 & 9

[Glenn Vardy]

43. THAT poll

I said: "Did anyone check any of the claims made in the poll? No."

Actually, yes, someone did check the claims of DGUs.

My question was whether or not the CLAIMS made in THAT poll were checked. Your answer "yes" is untrue. My answer "no" is true.

[Glenn Vardy]

45. "Re-interviewed?"

Janet Reno, seeking to debunk Kleck's findings...

You know she was specifically trying to debunk Kleck's poll?

.....re-interviewed.. the numbers

"Re-interviewed?"

[jimmy the one]

66. debunkings of kleck

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/

[gejohnston]

67. complete bullshit

the gun lobby did not fund any study, including the Kleck study.
Also, it was not refuted by anyone, although Hemenway claims to have.
He is still one of the top criminologists in the US and still has the Michael J. Hindelang Award for that study.

Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 200

Berkeley Media Studies group is a PR firm.

Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998

by Phil Cook in fact verifies his study
Kleck refused to defend his study? He has a job and has done other studies (along with being a department head of a university and all of the things that go with it.)
This is from just three years ago. So, check your sources better.

[jimmy the one]

71. the paradigm

Johnston: complete bullshit the gun lobby did not fund any study, including the Kleck study.
Also, it was not refuted by anyone, although Hemenway claims to have.

Oh well I guess that settles it, since Johnston says so it must be true.
And he's such a paradigm of integrity.

johnston: Kleck refused to defend his study? He has a job and has done other studies (along with being a department head of a university and all of the things that go with it.)

Umm, so I think you're agreeing, that kleck hasn't defended his dgu study, right? because he has a job, and did other studies, & college duties & all.
Maybe toss in he wanted to spend more time with his family, or target shooting, & traveling too?
Geez, I didn't realize there were so many reasons for kleck not defending his dgu study.

[gejohnston]

72. he doesn't own any guns

Geez, I didn't realize there were so many reasons for kleck not defending his dgu study.

defend it from who? In the academic world, it is very well accepted. Ideologues and fools? The best defense for willful ignorance and dishonesty is to simply ignore it.

Oh well I guess that settles it, since Johnston says so it must be true.
And he's such a paradigm of integrity

Coming from you? Since you are left with a personal insults I will give it the due respect it deserves: Sorry you didn't see the ice burg.

[sarisataka]

75. Holy outrageous assertion Batman!!!

That’s more defensive gun uses than happened in WWII in Europe in 1944.

The mid-year manpower on the Eastern Front was 9.9 million. http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/

If we take the maxim that an army is 10% combat, 90% support, that gives us 990,000 combat troops. Since a defense is in response to offence we'll cut that in half to 495,000 troops on defense. If each of those troops only fired ten times all year, a very low estimate, we already are nearly double Kleck's estimate.

At this point we haven't even counted fighting in Italy, including the battles of the Gothic Line which involved 1.2 million troops, or the West where such engagements as D-Day, Market-Garden and the Ardennes offensive all occurred in 1944.

Using laughable statistics to support claims of a flawed poll does not bolster the argument.

[jimmy the one]

69. I. think. you. are. lying.

Jackson: the US Department of Justice under then-Attorney General Janet Reno, seeking to debunk Kleck's findings re-interviewed and re-ran the numbers using the DGU-defining criteria....their extrapolated results were largely inline with Kleck's estimated 2.5 million DGUs per annum. The DOJ's estimate was approximately 1.5 million DGUs annually.

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.

I'm unfamiliar (or forgotten) with this study, Jackson. 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 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 Jackson? or unintentionally trying to mislead? - that the DOJ conducted the dgu study. Ooo, you even threw in janet reno's name for dramatic effect, dintcha?
Here are remarks, from your very link, on the NSPOF dgu study, about 2/3 the way down - tho I'm uncertain whether they're referring to the incredibly high 23 million dgu yearly figure or the 1.5, help me out, eh?:

Jackson's own link!!!!!: Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender.
The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high. For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!
NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases. The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[pablo_marmol]

8. As GE pointed out, weak argument re. self defense

Research has demonstrated that only a very small percentage of defensive gun uses result in a dead criminal. Which is to say that justifiable homicide figures are a very poor way to measure defensive gun uses, or the benefits thereof.

[ileus]

9. I've read about 5-10 DGU each week.

[pablo_marmol]

10. Yeah......which means that **many** more are actually taking place. NT

[ileus]

12. The only stat that matters is mine, why risk personal safety.

...I enjoy that fact folks want to control my life with their agenda, but the fact will always remain the only stat that matters when it comes to the safety of my person and my family is mine.

[pablo_marmol]

13. Which is what The Controllers will never comprehend.......

......and why they're completely unaware that they're pushing an enormously heavy boulder up a very steep incline.

[hack89]

14. Self defense does not require you to kill your attacker

Wounding or simply scaring them off is perfectly fine - but you knew that.

[ileus]

15. No NO NOOO.....guns only kill people.

You don't seem to understand what these magic ghost 30 round clip magged deathsticks do.

[samsingh]

78. gun owners are shooting at people knocking on their front doors without bothering

to see who's out there.

or shooting someone in a theatre for texting.

or killing a youth in a car because well the kid was black and scary.

[DonP]

16. True, but there are no cartoons for that out there

That's pretty much the "go to" tool for gun control fans response mechanism.

"Quick, find a cartoon somebody else thought of and drew and use it as an argument so I sound witty and knowledgeable."

Plan B is use tedious and pointless word salad that no one actually reads.

Choose one.

[beevul]

20. But Hack, it just isn't fair...

But Hack, it just isn't fair to point it out when they engage in the "body count" fallacy. Or something...

Heck, it doesn't matter how many DGUs there are, to at least some of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=155009

[samsingh]

76. facts are scary

[pablo_marmol]

11. Oh goodie......another "study" from the uber-neutral/honest medical establishment!

[acalix]

88. All those studies were funded by the Joyce Foundation.

Read them sometime.