Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To the extent that this is true, it is true for all research surveys... including your precious NCVS.Which survey is a "fantasy"This is just more of your superstitious denial of reality, Cupcake.Bright enough to get you to admit that you can't cite one instance where I've submitted "fantasy" or merely "opinion."
No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.
No all you have are surveys which are fantasy.
One man entirely disinclined to validate the K-G study, yet there he is--intellectual integrity intact.Your one attempt was just an oppinion of one man.
Yet more superstitious denial of reality from you.And even that doesn't support your crazy claim.
All surveys that extrapolate numbers are fantasy.
This is obviously untrue.None of the millions of of DGUs kleck claims actually happened.
Well, now you know the difference between "estimating" and "counting."He took 50 unconfirmed positives and extrapolated to millions. You do know his millions aren't real DGUs right?
Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.I can read perfectly well, Pumpkin. Moreover, I understand what I read as well.
He didn't say that is was a problem with the K&G study specifically; and he wouldn't say that, because unlike you, he knows what he's talking about. He clearly states that extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research, including the K&G study; including your NCVS, Pumpkin. That such problems are obvious, and as such, were not really worth mentioning.
He reaffirms his lack of criticism for the methodology used by Kleck and Gertz. Do you get that, Cupcake?
No Cupcake, the sample size is NOT too small. A sample size of 5,000, yields a confidence level of better than 99% with a margin of error less than 2%. You simply have NO FUCKING IDEA of what you're talking about.
So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study.
"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited.
No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate.
The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.
So clearly your gun survey is not accurate.
No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million.
He did not say that. Now you're just lying.Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.
Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.
You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.
I feel like I'm dealing with a retard here.That is not a "study", brainiac. He says at the beginning he collected stories from the NRA's publication "Armed Citizen" column. That isnt really indicative of anythign as the incidents are cherry picked for their readers.Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.LOL!
It's "cited" brainiac. And WTF is a "real world fact"? As opposed to?
Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.
Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf
34% end in dead bad guy.
Geez, you arent very smart.
It is what actually happened in almost 500 confirmed defenses. That is real good evidence. What do you have that counters this?
I feel like I'm dealing with a retard here.That is not a "study", brainiac. He says at the beginning he collected stories from the NRA's publication "Armed Citizen" column. That isnt really indicative of anythign as the incidents are cherry picked for their readers.Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.Like the number of justifiable homicides each year with a gun. You'd have to be a moron to believe there are millions of defenses and only 230 criminals shot and killed. We know how many criminals are killed each year in defense, and it doesn't support millions of defenses. We know how many defenses are reported in the news. That also makes the millions claim look ridiculous. Everything we know from the real world makes the claim look silly.
Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf
34% end in dead bad guy.
Geez, you arent very smart.
It is what actually happened in almost 500 confirmed defenses. That is real good evidence. What do you have that counters this?
Good evidence of what? It is meaningless as a sample of anything since the examples were cherry picked. It doesnt claim to be exhaustive of anything other than stories that appeared in a particular column.
You get that,r ight?
Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.So he is stating it is a limitation of all surveys that are so small including your gun study.
"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.So your one example of proof clearly states the study is limited.
No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.He basically says they did the study correctly but with such a limited sample it can't be accurate.
The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.The ncvs is a survey of 95k households. Doesn't have this same limitation cupcake.
So clearly your gun survey is not accurate.
No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million.
He did not say that. Now you're just lying.Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.
Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.
You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.
To the extent that this is true, it is true for all research surveys... including your precious NCVS.Which survey is a "fantasy"This is just more of your superstitious denial of reality, Cupcake.No I have cited your every post. You have posted no real world fact.
No all you have are surveys which are fantasy.
One man entirely disinclined to validate the K-G study, yet there he is--intellectual integrity intact.Your one attempt was just an oppinion of one man.
Yet more superstitious denial of reality from you.And even that doesn't support your crazy claim.
All surveys that extrapolate numbers are fantasy.
This is obviously untrue.None of the millions of of DGUs kleck claims actually happened.
Well, now you know the difference between "estimating" and "counting."He took 50 unconfirmed positives and extrapolated to millions. You do know his millions aren't real DGUs right?
CONGRATULATIONS, Cupcake!
By SELECTED COUNTRIES. In other words they selected those that reinforced their biased viewpoint. Thank you for making that clear.
Who better to compare our country with than other Western Democracies?
Until they have the racial diversity that we do. The land area that we do, and the population that we do they are not a reasonable comparison. That's why.
That's ridiculous, and racist.
See: A revealing map of the world s most and least ethnically diverse countries - The Washington Post
One might argue that ethnicity and race do not correlate, but history suggests the intolerance level has been the same when new residents emigrate into a new culture. Bigots do not discriminate, paradoxically speaking.
Racist? No, it's called a fact. The overwhelming majority of violence in the US is perpetrated by non whites. That is simply a fact. Compare the rate of gun crime between Seattle and Vancouver and the rate in Seattle was far higher. Remove the crime committed by the minorities and the rate was exactly the same as Vancouver's. This is a fact. There are many reasons for the disparity I am sure, but it is still a fact.
Thank you for the last sentence, there are many reasons, and one is racism.
You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.Extrapolating conclusions from small numbers is a criticism common to ALL survey research.
"Limited" by the criticism common to ALL survey research.
No. He did not say that. You say that, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
The NCVS sample was 0.07% of all U.S. households, Cupcake. It has precisely the same limitations. It is a limitation of ALL survey research, you imbecile.
So clearly your gun survey is not accurate.
No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million.
He did not say that. Now you're just lying.Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.
Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.
You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.
Wolfgang:
“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all surveyresearch, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
OK I am dealing with a retard here. Bye.I feel like I'm dealing with a retard here.That is not a "study", brainiac. He says at the beginning he collected stories from the NRA's publication "Armed Citizen" column. That isnt really indicative of anythign as the incidents are cherry picked for their readers.Explain why a low number of actual shootings indicates an equally low number of non shooting incidents.
Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf
34% end in dead bad guy.
Geez, you arent very smart.
It is what actually happened in almost 500 confirmed defenses. That is real good evidence. What do you have that counters this?
Good evidence of what? It is meaningless as a sample of anything since the examples were cherry picked. It doesnt claim to be exhaustive of anything other than stories that appeared in a particular column.
You get that,r ight?
Evidence of what actually happens with DGUs. This is what happened in almost 500 actual, confirmed DGUs. I guess because they aren't from fantasy land you don't want to accept the results. If not from actual examples, where do you get your info about DGUs from?
You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.So clearly your gun survey is not accurate.
No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.This is why gun surveys range from 500k to 3.6 million.
He did not say that. Now you're just lying.Like wolfgang says these small surveys just are too limited.
Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.The ncvs is a giant compared to the tiny gun surveys.
You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.
Wolfgang:
“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all surveyresearch, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
OK I am dealing with a retard here. Bye.I feel like I'm dealing with a retard here.That is not a "study", brainiac. He says at the beginning he collected stories from the NRA's publication "Armed Citizen" column. That isnt really indicative of anythign as the incidents are cherry picked for their readers.Common sense. Here is a study of defenses:
https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf
34% end in dead bad guy.
Geez, you arent very smart.
It is what actually happened in almost 500 confirmed defenses. That is real good evidence. What do you have that counters this?
Good evidence of what? It is meaningless as a sample of anything since the examples were cherry picked. It doesnt claim to be exhaustive of anything other than stories that appeared in a particular column.
You get that,r ight?
Evidence of what actually happens with DGUs. This is what happened in almost 500 actual, confirmed DGUs. I guess because they aren't from fantasy land you don't want to accept the results. If not from actual examples, where do you get your info about DGUs from?
That doesn't mean there's only one, and he did not say the results were "limited" by sample size. Yet the expert peer I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion, and he found the survey's method to be valid for estimating the frequency of DGUs.You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.What is clear, is that you have no idea what the term "accurate" means. You should stop using it, Cupcake.
No. It's not. And if you had the tiniest of clues about what you're talking about, you'd just stop saying so.
He did not say that. Now you're just lying.
Not really. One of the things you just refuse to grasp--because you have no idea what you're talking about--is that there comes a point where bigger sample is pretty much meaningless. The NCVS method is systemically flawed in regard to estimating the number of DGUs, and it's larger sample size cannot, in any way, compensate for that. OTOH, the K-G study has no such weakness of method, and its sample size is certainly suitable.
You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.
Wolfgang:
“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all surveyresearch, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
An obvious lie.There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
Another obvious lie.You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Yet another obvious lie.You still have nothing.
That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.You better go back and read, that is what wolfgang said. So your one proof isn't really that at all. You have nothing.
Wolfgang:
“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all surveyresearch, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
An obvious lie.There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
Another obvious lie.You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Yet another obvious lie.You still have nothing.
Facts show that gun control has almost no effect on homicides whatsoever."The key facts are:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people"
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country News The Guardian
So we have the highest gun ownership in the world, but despite that NOT the highest gun murder rate. We're 28th in the world in fact.
So how is gun availability linked to gun violence? It isn't. Simple as that.
That is simply reality. Murder is much more related to social factors than to the availability of a means mostly because there is always a means available.
I obviously have heard of David Hemenway, and one-sided speculation is not "actual facts" that debunk anything, Cupcake.That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.Everyone can read what he said. Everyone can see that you are an unapologetic liar of the very first order.
Wolfgang:
“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all surveyresearch, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
An obvious lie.There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
Another obvious lie.You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Yet another obvious lie.You still have nothing.
So you haven't heard of Hemenway who uses actual facts to debunk Kleck?
Maybe. But I'm not lying.You must be joking.
I don't really know if I can provide the exhaustive list you fatuously demand, but I can submit what this gun-control advocate says:It's been over 20 years since Kleck came out with his survey. Please share all the peers.
Another lie.I've asked you many times for any real world fact and you provided nothing.
"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.So if I'm lying provide it now.
"Just believe"? Nope.So do you just believe the Kleck numbers?
On the order of 1 or 2 million.How many DGUs do you believe there are each year?
The Kleck and Gertz survey was in no way "debunked", but it's certainly fair to assume the frequency DGUs should fall in response to falling call for defensive gun use.Since crime has come down 30% since his debunked survey do you at least lower your estimate by that much?
Not in contention. The question is are those limitations recognized and accounted for; are they crippling because they are a function of a misapplied methodology, Mr. NotgoingtoaskaboutDGUs; or are they crippling because they are intentionally designed to support a pre-concieved conclusion, Mr. Gunuserequiresadeadguy?All surveys have limitations.
What's your point?That is why you have to find something in the real world to validate the results.
This is untrue.You obviously cannot do that.
"An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high.HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK
“Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.
Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% 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.”
I obviously have heard of David Hemenway, and one-sided speculation is not "actual facts" that debunk anything, Cupcake.That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.Wolfgang:
“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck
and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small
numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the
universe are common criticisms of all surveyresearch, including
theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments
because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific
limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism
methodologically.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
An obvious lie.There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
Another obvious lie.You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Yet another obvious lie.You still have nothing.
So you haven't heard of Hemenway who uses actual facts to debunk Kleck?
"It would be understandable if some readers thought that H did present, in his Section V, empirical evidence on the relative balance of false positives and false negatives. In fact, this section presents no empirical evidence at all. Instead, H's numerical examples demonstrate nothing more than that if one arbitrarily assumes particular rates of false positives and false negatives, along with extremely low actual DGU rates, one can come up with enormous overestimates. We cannot fault H for his arithmetic. If there were any credibility to the misreporting rates he assumes out of thin air, they would indeed imply huge overestimates."
Maybe. But I'm not lying.You must be joking.
I don't really know if I can provide the exhaustive list you fatuously demand, but I can submit what this gun-control advocate says:It's been over 20 years since Kleck came out with his survey. Please share all the peers.
Phillip J. Cook--"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."
And then of course there are these guys who you will predictably dissmiss off-hand:
Stephen G. Bronars
Donald B. Kates
William M. Landes
John R. Lott
David B. Mustard
Tom W. Smith
Harry L. Wilson
But if you are really looking for a list of the peers who reviewed the work of Kleck and Gertz, you can start with the peers at The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology where the work was published, and then search out all the peer-reviewed work that uses Kleck's and Gertz's work for support.
Another lie.I've asked you many times for any real world fact and you provided nothing.
"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.So if I'm lying provide it now.
"Just believe"? Nope.So do you just believe the Kleck numbers?
On the order of 1 or 2 million.How many DGUs do you believe there are each year?
"The (NSPOF) survey instrument was designed by Gary Kleck, Philip Cook, and David Hemenway and uses a sequence of defensive gun-use questions quite similar to those found with the 1993 Kleck and Gertz (1995) survey. Unlike the Kleck and Gertz survey, the NSPOF randomly selects one adult per sampled household, does not oversample telephone numbers from the South and the West, and uses standard sample-weighting techniques (Cook and Ludwig 1996). The results support an estimate of 1.3 million defensive gun users each year (table 2), which is within the 95 percent confidence interval of the Kleck and Gertz estimate (Cook and Ludwig 1998). A more recent national survey sponsored by the National Insitute of Justice suggests 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (Hemenway an Azrael 1997, and forthcoming)."
So, you haven't heard of the David Hemenway who uses "actual facts" to affirm Kleck and Gertz?
The Kleck and Gertz survey was in no way "debunked", but it's certainly fair to assume the frequency DGUs should fall in response to falling call for defensive gun use.Since crime has come down 30% since his debunked survey do you at least lower your estimate by that much?
Not in contention. The question is are those limitations recognized and accounted for; are they crippling because they are a function of a misapplied methodology, Mr. NotgoingtoaskaboutDGUs; or are they crippling because they are intentionally designed to support a pre-concieved conclusion, Mr. Gunuserequiresadeadguy?All surveys have limitations.
What's your point?That is why you have to find something in the real world to validate the results.
This is untrue.You obviously cannot do that.
"An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high.HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK
“Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.
Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% 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.”
...
"Hemenway's critical technique is simple: one-sided, and often implausible, speculation about flaws that might have afflicted our research, and that might have been consequential enough to significantly affect our conclusions. H devotes his attention almost exclusively to suspected flaws that might have contributed to the overestimation of defensive gun use (DGU) frequency. He either ignores well established sources of underreporting, or briefly and superficially discusses them only for the sake of dismissing them."
"Debunker" debunked.
Let's try to discover what you find to be unbelievable.I obviously have heard of David Hemenway, and one-sided speculation is not "actual facts" that debunk anything, Cupcake.That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.
You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
An obvious lie.There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
Another obvious lie.You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Yet another obvious lie.You still have nothing.
So you haven't heard of Hemenway who uses actual facts to debunk Kleck?
"It would be understandable if some readers thought that H did present, in his Section V, empirical evidence on the relative balance of false positives and false negatives. In fact, this section presents no empirical evidence at all. Instead, H's numerical examples demonstrate nothing more than that if one arbitrarily assumes particular rates of false positives and false negatives, along with extremely low actual DGU rates, one can come up with enormous overestimates. We cannot fault H for his arithmetic. If there were any credibility to the misreporting rates he assumes out of thin air, they would indeed imply huge overestimates."
Maybe. But I'm not lying.You must be joking.
I don't really know if I can provide the exhaustive list you fatuously demand, but I can submit what this gun-control advocate says:It's been over 20 years since Kleck came out with his survey. Please share all the peers.
Phillip J. Cook--"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."
And then of course there are these guys who you will predictably dissmiss off-hand:
Stephen G. Bronars
Donald B. Kates
William M. Landes
John R. Lott
David B. Mustard
Tom W. Smith
Harry L. Wilson
But if you are really looking for a list of the peers who reviewed the work of Kleck and Gertz, you can start with the peers at The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology where the work was published, and then search out all the peer-reviewed work that uses Kleck's and Gertz's work for support.
Another lie.I've asked you many times for any real world fact and you provided nothing.
"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.So if I'm lying provide it now.
"Just believe"? Nope.So do you just believe the Kleck numbers?
On the order of 1 or 2 million.How many DGUs do you believe there are each year?
"The (NSPOF) survey instrument was designed by Gary Kleck, Philip Cook, and David Hemenway and uses a sequence of defensive gun-use questions quite similar to those found with the 1993 Kleck and Gertz (1995) survey. Unlike the Kleck and Gertz survey, the NSPOF randomly selects one adult per sampled household, does not oversample telephone numbers from the South and the West, and uses standard sample-weighting techniques (Cook and Ludwig 1996). The results support an estimate of 1.3 million defensive gun users each year (table 2), which is within the 95 percent confidence interval of the Kleck and Gertz estimate (Cook and Ludwig 1998). A more recent national survey sponsored by the National Insitute of Justice suggests 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (Hemenway an Azrael 1997, and forthcoming)."
So, you haven't heard of the David Hemenway who uses "actual facts" to affirm Kleck and Gertz?
The Kleck and Gertz survey was in no way "debunked", but it's certainly fair to assume the frequency DGUs should fall in response to falling call for defensive gun use.Since crime has come down 30% since his debunked survey do you at least lower your estimate by that much?
Not in contention. The question is are those limitations recognized and accounted for; are they crippling because they are a function of a misapplied methodology, Mr. NotgoingtoaskaboutDGUs; or are they crippling because they are intentionally designed to support a pre-concieved conclusion, Mr. Gunuserequiresadeadguy?All surveys have limitations.
What's your point?That is why you have to find something in the real world to validate the results.
This is untrue.You obviously cannot do that.
"An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high.HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK
“Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.
Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% 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.”
...
"Hemenway's critical technique is simple: one-sided, and often implausible, speculation about flaws that might have afflicted our research, and that might have been consequential enough to significantly affect our conclusions. H devotes his attention almost exclusively to suspected flaws that might have contributed to the overestimation of defensive gun use (DGU) frequency. He either ignores well established sources of underreporting, or briefly and superficially discusses them only for the sake of dismissing them."
"Debunker" debunked.
Your real world defense of the survey numbers is the survey? You are a joke. Again the millions estimated in the survey aren't real. Your defense is fantasy.
Millions of defenses is not possible. You realize there are only about 9.8 million crimes each year right? And about 24% of the population owns guns. So thats about 2.35 million crimes against gun owners. And about 88% of crimes are property crimes where the victim isn't even there so now we are at about 282k crimes that could be defended. Of those only like 1/3 of violent crimes are at home. And only about 16% of gun owners carry. So that leaves only about 120k that are defendable. Then they of course aren't 100% successful in defense so the real number is clearly under 120k. The ncvs estimate of 108k is looking pretty solid. Backed by actual stats from the real world.
Let's try to discover what you find to be unbelievable.I obviously have heard of David Hemenway, and one-sided speculation is not "actual facts" that debunk anything, Cupcake.That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
An obvious lie.There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
Another obvious lie.You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Yet another obvious lie.You still have nothing.
So you haven't heard of Hemenway who uses actual facts to debunk Kleck?
"It would be understandable if some readers thought that H did present, in his Section V, empirical evidence on the relative balance of false positives and false negatives. In fact, this section presents no empirical evidence at all. Instead, H's numerical examples demonstrate nothing more than that if one arbitrarily assumes particular rates of false positives and false negatives, along with extremely low actual DGU rates, one can come up with enormous overestimates. We cannot fault H for his arithmetic. If there were any credibility to the misreporting rates he assumes out of thin air, they would indeed imply huge overestimates."
Maybe. But I'm not lying.You must be joking.
I don't really know if I can provide the exhaustive list you fatuously demand, but I can submit what this gun-control advocate says:It's been over 20 years since Kleck came out with his survey. Please share all the peers.
Phillip J. Cook--"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."
And then of course there are these guys who you will predictably dissmiss off-hand:
Stephen G. Bronars
Donald B. Kates
William M. Landes
John R. Lott
David B. Mustard
Tom W. Smith
Harry L. Wilson
But if you are really looking for a list of the peers who reviewed the work of Kleck and Gertz, you can start with the peers at The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology where the work was published, and then search out all the peer-reviewed work that uses Kleck's and Gertz's work for support.
Another lie.I've asked you many times for any real world fact and you provided nothing.
"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.So if I'm lying provide it now.
"Just believe"? Nope.So do you just believe the Kleck numbers?
On the order of 1 or 2 million.How many DGUs do you believe there are each year?
"The (NSPOF) survey instrument was designed by Gary Kleck, Philip Cook, and David Hemenway and uses a sequence of defensive gun-use questions quite similar to those found with the 1993 Kleck and Gertz (1995) survey. Unlike the Kleck and Gertz survey, the NSPOF randomly selects one adult per sampled household, does not oversample telephone numbers from the South and the West, and uses standard sample-weighting techniques (Cook and Ludwig 1996). The results support an estimate of 1.3 million defensive gun users each year (table 2), which is within the 95 percent confidence interval of the Kleck and Gertz estimate (Cook and Ludwig 1998). A more recent national survey sponsored by the National Insitute of Justice suggests 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (Hemenway an Azrael 1997, and forthcoming)."
So, you haven't heard of the David Hemenway who uses "actual facts" to affirm Kleck and Gertz?
The Kleck and Gertz survey was in no way "debunked", but it's certainly fair to assume the frequency DGUs should fall in response to falling call for defensive gun use.Since crime has come down 30% since his debunked survey do you at least lower your estimate by that much?
Not in contention. The question is are those limitations recognized and accounted for; are they crippling because they are a function of a misapplied methodology, Mr. NotgoingtoaskaboutDGUs; or are they crippling because they are intentionally designed to support a pre-concieved conclusion, Mr. Gunuserequiresadeadguy?All surveys have limitations.
What's your point?That is why you have to find something in the real world to validate the results.
This is untrue.You obviously cannot do that.
"An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high.HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK
“Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.
Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% 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.”
...
"Hemenway's critical technique is simple: one-sided, and often implausible, speculation about flaws that might have afflicted our research, and that might have been consequential enough to significantly affect our conclusions. H devotes his attention almost exclusively to suspected flaws that might have contributed to the overestimation of defensive gun use (DGU) frequency. He either ignores well established sources of underreporting, or briefly and superficially discusses them only for the sake of dismissing them."
"Debunker" debunked.
Your real world defense of the survey numbers is the survey? You are a joke. Again the millions estimated in the survey aren't real. Your defense is fantasy.
Millions of defenses is not possible. You realize there are only about 9.8 million crimes each year right? And about 24% of the population owns guns. So thats about 2.35 million crimes against gun owners. And about 88% of crimes are property crimes where the victim isn't even there so now we are at about 282k crimes that could be defended. Of those only like 1/3 of violent crimes are at home. And only about 16% of gun owners carry. So that leaves only about 120k that are defendable. Then they of course aren't 100% successful in defense so the real number is clearly under 120k. The ncvs estimate of 108k is looking pretty solid. Backed by actual stats from the real world.
2,000,000 DGU's/year means, 5480 DGUs/day, and that means, 230 DGUs/hour.
So. What do you find unbelievable?
Is it unbelievable that there are more than 230 metropolitan areas in the United States? Is that what's unbelievable?
It shouldn't be.
Is it unbelievable that in each metropolitan area, more than one serious crime is attempted every hour? Is that what's unbelievable? Could be.
Consider that the BJS claims a violent crime is reported at about 3,000,000 a year, and that an estimated 3,000,000+ violent crimes a year go unreported; about 41,000,000 property crimes are reported a year, while an estimated 80,000,000 go unreported.
That's like 126,000,000 criminal attempts each year; or 345,000 criminal attempts a day; or 14,000 attempts each hour.
That's somewhat more than 35 criminal attempts an hour for each metropolitan area.
Is it really unbeleivable, that among all those serious crimes attempted every hour in each of those metropolitan areas, that in only one instance, a person might use a gun to defend themselves, their property, or those they care for? Is that what's unbelievable?
That's not what your precious NCVS says.Let's try to discover what you find to be unbelievable.I obviously have heard of David Hemenway, and one-sided speculation is not "actual facts" that debunk anything, Cupcake.That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
An obvious lie.
Another obvious lie.
Yet another obvious lie.
So you haven't heard of Hemenway who uses actual facts to debunk Kleck?
"It would be understandable if some readers thought that H did present, in his Section V, empirical evidence on the relative balance of false positives and false negatives. In fact, this section presents no empirical evidence at all. Instead, H's numerical examples demonstrate nothing more than that if one arbitrarily assumes particular rates of false positives and false negatives, along with extremely low actual DGU rates, one can come up with enormous overestimates. We cannot fault H for his arithmetic. If there were any credibility to the misreporting rates he assumes out of thin air, they would indeed imply huge overestimates."
Maybe. But I'm not lying.You must be joking.
I don't really know if I can provide the exhaustive list you fatuously demand, but I can submit what this gun-control advocate says:It's been over 20 years since Kleck came out with his survey. Please share all the peers.
Phillip J. Cook--"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."
And then of course there are these guys who you will predictably dissmiss off-hand:
Stephen G. Bronars
Donald B. Kates
William M. Landes
John R. Lott
David B. Mustard
Tom W. Smith
Harry L. Wilson
But if you are really looking for a list of the peers who reviewed the work of Kleck and Gertz, you can start with the peers at The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology where the work was published, and then search out all the peer-reviewed work that uses Kleck's and Gertz's work for support.
Another lie.I've asked you many times for any real world fact and you provided nothing.
"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.So if I'm lying provide it now.
"Just believe"? Nope.So do you just believe the Kleck numbers?
On the order of 1 or 2 million.How many DGUs do you believe there are each year?
"The (NSPOF) survey instrument was designed by Gary Kleck, Philip Cook, and David Hemenway and uses a sequence of defensive gun-use questions quite similar to those found with the 1993 Kleck and Gertz (1995) survey. Unlike the Kleck and Gertz survey, the NSPOF randomly selects one adult per sampled household, does not oversample telephone numbers from the South and the West, and uses standard sample-weighting techniques (Cook and Ludwig 1996). The results support an estimate of 1.3 million defensive gun users each year (table 2), which is within the 95 percent confidence interval of the Kleck and Gertz estimate (Cook and Ludwig 1998). A more recent national survey sponsored by the National Insitute of Justice suggests 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (Hemenway an Azrael 1997, and forthcoming)."
So, you haven't heard of the David Hemenway who uses "actual facts" to affirm Kleck and Gertz?
The Kleck and Gertz survey was in no way "debunked", but it's certainly fair to assume the frequency DGUs should fall in response to falling call for defensive gun use.Since crime has come down 30% since his debunked survey do you at least lower your estimate by that much?
Not in contention. The question is are those limitations recognized and accounted for; are they crippling because they are a function of a misapplied methodology, Mr. NotgoingtoaskaboutDGUs; or are they crippling because they are intentionally designed to support a pre-concieved conclusion, Mr. Gunuserequiresadeadguy?All surveys have limitations.
What's your point?That is why you have to find something in the real world to validate the results.
This is untrue.You obviously cannot do that.
"An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high.HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK
“Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.
Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% 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.”
...
"Hemenway's critical technique is simple: one-sided, and often implausible, speculation about flaws that might have afflicted our research, and that might have been consequential enough to significantly affect our conclusions. H devotes his attention almost exclusively to suspected flaws that might have contributed to the overestimation of defensive gun use (DGU) frequency. He either ignores well established sources of underreporting, or briefly and superficially discusses them only for the sake of dismissing them."
"Debunker" debunked.
Your real world defense of the survey numbers is the survey? You are a joke. Again the millions estimated in the survey aren't real. Your defense is fantasy.
Millions of defenses is not possible. You realize there are only about 9.8 million crimes each year right? And about 24% of the population owns guns. So thats about 2.35 million crimes against gun owners. And about 88% of crimes are property crimes where the victim isn't even there so now we are at about 282k crimes that could be defended. Of those only like 1/3 of violent crimes are at home. And only about 16% of gun owners carry. So that leaves only about 120k that are defendable. Then they of course aren't 100% successful in defense so the real number is clearly under 120k. The ncvs estimate of 108k is looking pretty solid. Backed by actual stats from the real world.
2,000,000 DGU's/year means, 5480 DGUs/day, and that means, 230 DGUs/hour.
So. What do you find unbelievable?
Is it unbelievable that there are more than 230 metropolitan areas in the United States? Is that what's unbelievable?
It shouldn't be.
Is it unbelievable that in each metropolitan area, more than one serious crime is attempted every hour? Is that what's unbelievable? Could be.
Consider that the BJS claims a violent crime is reported at about 3,000,000 a year, and that an estimated 3,000,000+ violent crimes a year go unreported; about 41,000,000 property crimes are reported a year, while an estimated 80,000,000 go unreported.
That's like 126,000,000 criminal attempts each year; or 345,000 criminal attempts a day; or 14,000 attempts each hour.
That's somewhat more than 35 criminal attempts an hour for each metropolitan area.
Is it really unbeleivable, that among all those serious crimes attempted every hour in each of those metropolitan areas, that in only one instance, a person might use a gun to defend themselves, their property, or those they care for? Is that what's unbelievable?
What country are you living in? The U.S. has under 10 million crimes total each year.
United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013
