Never trust anti gunners....they lie because they have an irrational fear of guns....

[2aguy]

Joe,,,he excluded miltary and police...read the posts....here is his defense of his study....again....

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95


In any case, our estimates of DGU frequency were based
solely on cases that qualified as bona fide DGUs. Two of the
conditions needed for incidents to qualify as genuine DGUs were
that (1) there had to have been an actual confrontation between
the defender and an adversary, and (2) the defender had to have
actually used the gun in some way, some as pointing it at their
adversary in a threatening manner, or using it in a verbal threat
(e.g. 'Stop, I've got a gun.") None of the cases that went into
our estimation of 2.5 million annual DGUs involved person who
merely owned or carried a gun for protection.

Vernick hints that this estimate somehow must be unreliable
because "prior work by Kleck using similar methodology" yielded
the very different estimate of 1 million. I have not done any
"prior work" using "similar methodology." In past publications I
have merely noted the number of annual DGUs that are implied by
the results of surveys previously done by other people, including
the 1 million estimate. The Spring, 1993 National Self-Defense
Survey is the only survey I have conducted on this topic.

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, Kleck has been debunked, and doesn't even defend his own work anymore.

ANd no one has been able to replicate his results.

The 65,000 DGU number is the accurate one. Comared to 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries, it just isn't worth it.

Which the Japanese, Germans, Italians, British, Australians, French, have all figured out.

Americans sit around like the class retard saying "2+2=Cat" and the scream "Founding Fathers!!!!"

 

[2aguy]

And more from Dr. Kleck defending his methods......


In this connection, Vernick misleads by omission, failing to
inform the Commission just how common surveys yielding large DGU
estimates are. To date, there have been at least 14 surveys
implying anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year (see
Table 1 of enclosed report). For Vernick to hint that my estimate
was an isolated fluke rather than a common result is more than a
little deceptive. That there are many other surveys implying
frequency DGUs is common knowledge among scholars who study this
subject, as it has been reported in both previous published
articles (e.g. Social Problems, volume 35, p. 3, February, 1988)
and in my book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (p.
146), winner of the 1993 Hindelang Award, granted by the American
Society of Criminology to the most outstanding book of the
preceding several years. These are hardly obscure information
sources to serious scholars, and no competent student of the
subject could claim to be unaware of these numerous surveys.

Finally, Vernick seriously cites the now thoroughly
discredited DGU estimates derived from the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). This is the only source of
information that has ever indicated the defensive uses of guns
are substantially less common than criminal uses. I first
reported the NCVS estimates in my 1988 article in Social Problems
(p. 8) but dismissed them as invalid because of their wild
inconsistency with all other known estimates. As further
information has accumulated, this position has been reinforced:
no survey has ever confirmed, even approximately, the extremely
low DGU estimates derived from the NCVS. Each of the other 14
known surveys have yielded estimates at least 10 times larger
than those yielded by the NCVS. This survey is notorious for
grossly underestimating the frequency of criminal gunshot
woundings, domestic violence, rape, and many other forms of
violence, 80 it is hardly surprising that it is also grossly
underestimates DGU. The reasons for the victim survey's
invalidity are discussed in the report on pp. 4-11.

It is irresponsible to further disseminate the NCVS
estimates as realistic indications of how often Americans use
guns for self-defense. And, regardless of where one stands on the
wisdom of gun control, it would be irresponsible to devise gun
control policies without taking into account the millions of
times guns are used in this way by crime victims. While amateurs
such as Vernick are perfectly entitled to express their personal
opinions on gun control, they are not entitled to pass themselves
off as experts on survey research methodology, or to present
their undoubtedly heartfelt personal opinions on defensive use of
guns as if they were based on a scholarly, evenhanded assessment
of evidence. For a somewhat more intellectually serious
consideration of this issue, you might consider the enclosed
paper, as well as the prior research summarized therein.

 

[2aguy]

Kleck also addresses the "telescoping" attack on his research....

Vernick speculates that some substantial number of survey
respondents who reported a defensive gun use (DGU) were actually
describing "distant-in-time events" and that this resulted in
enormous overstatement of the frequency of DGUs. This problem,
known as "telescoping," does occur but in surveys of this type
its effects are cancelled out by problem~ in the opposite
direction (i.e. problems tending to make estimates of DGU
frequency too small) of respondents forgetting DGU events which
really did occur in the period that was asked about. In any case,
effects of telescoping are far too weak to account for the
results we obtained. These issues are discussed on pp. 34-35 of
the report.

 

[2aguy]

Hemenway is the guy who has been debunked.....he relies on the NCVS which has been shown to be wrong.....and nowhere near the other 18 studies.....

 

[JoeB131]

This problem,
known as "telescoping," does occur but in surveys of this type
its effects are cancelled out by problem~ in the opposite
direction (i.e. problems tending to make estimates of DGU
frequency too small) of respondents forgetting DGU events which
really did occur in the period that was asked about. In any case,
effects of telescoping are far too weak to account for the
results we obtained. These issues are discussed on pp. 34-35 of
the report.

Most people would remember if they had to pull their gun in a case of mortal danger. That's not something you are likely to forget.

The results Kleck obtained were dubious from the start, but gun nuts like to quote them because they sound good.

Forget about the fact that they aren't replicated anywhere or supported by news reports.

 

[JoeB131]

Hemenway is the guy who has been debunked.....he relies on the NCVS which has been shown to be wrong.....and nowhere near the other 18 studies.....

18 studies all commissioned by the gun lobby. Because the government is actually BANNED from collecting data on gun violence after Kellerman proved a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

 

[rightwinger]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

 

[2aguy]

Joe....clinton had the justice dept. do a study in 1995......neither clinton or the justice dept. are pro gun or part of the gun lobby....they found, much to their embarrassment, that their study showed 1.5 million defensive gun uses....

Obama in 2013 had the CDC research the defensive uses of guns using 10 million dollars....they found between 500,000-3 million times a year...again....not gun friendly or part of the gun lobby....

Dr. Kleck is not a member of the gun lobby or the NRA....he is a democrat....and he was anti gun when he did his study....

 

[2aguy]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

Get control of gangs in the inner cities and you take care of 80% of all gun murders....

 

[rightwinger]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

Get control of gangs in the inner cities and you take care of 80% of all gun murders....

Sounds like a plan

Now......what can we, as a nation, do to keep guns out of the hands of gang scum?

Now....in addition to gangs, what can be done to reduce gun deaths due to domestic violence, suicides and accidental shootings?

 

[2aguy]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

Get control of gangs in the inner cities and you take care of 80% of all gun murders....

Sounds like a plan

Now......what can we, as a nation, do to keep guns out of the hands of gang scum?

Now....in addition to gangs, what can be done to reduce gun deaths due to domestic violence, suicides and accidental shootings?

Well...in Chicago...they could hire 2000 more police....they are down that many because they aren't hiring to replace losses, they are down about 1000, and they are down another 1000 each day due to sick leave and vacations....

Domestic violence....well...teach women not to marry abusive men...for one.....allow women to carry concealed guns so they can prevent ex husbands and boyfriends from killing them....as two cases in Illinois show...a wife killed by a stalking husband with a hatchet, and an girlfreind shot by an ex boy friend at Nordstroms....

Suicides.....the Japanese have almost complete gun control and they have a higher suicide rate than we do....dittos Russai, China, and many other countries....we could ask them and do the opposite....

Accidental shootings....well, they are on the decline anyway as more people take gun classes....but we could teach gun safety, the basics for kids, in all public schools alongside fire safety education...

There you go....problems solved.....

 

[2aguy]

Here Joe...this shows how Hemenway and Kellerman were wrong....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

Instead, pro-control critics have focussed their efforts on their claim that, despite the enormous body of evidence indicating otherwise, DGU is actually rare. Thus, they argue, it is of little consequence for gun control policy that DGU is effective, since it is so infrequent. The critics’ discussion of the topic of the frequency of DGU is strident, polemical, and extreme. For example, Philip Cook and his colleagues baldly describe large estimates of DGU frequency as a “mythical number” (1997, p. 463). Likewise, an article by David Hemenway (1997a) was brazenly titled “The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses.” In another article by Hemenway (1997b), his title implicitly took it as given that DGUs are rare, and that surveys indicating the opposite grossly overstate DGU frequency. For Hemenway, the only scholarly task that remained was to explain why surveys did this: “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimation.” Finally, McDowall and Wiersema (1994), although well aware of the large number of surveys yielding large DGU estimates, nevertheless flatly concluded, in extremely strong terms, that “armed self-defense is extremely rare” (p. 1884). This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.

These critics do not support the low-DGU thesis primarily by affirmatively presenting relevant empirical evidence indicating few DGUs. The only empirical evidence affirmatively cited in support of the low-DGU thesis is the uniquely low estimates derived from the NCVS. The critics appear in no way embarrassed by the fact that the only national estimate they can cite in support of their theory is a survey that does not even ask respondents the key question––whether they have used a gun for self-protection. Instead, the critics get around the large volume of contrary survey evidence by pronouncing all of it invalid and insisting that all surveys (excepting the NCVS?) grossly overstate the frequency of DGU.

 

[2aguy]

On Kellerman....

the Scholarly Community Has Handled the DGU Frequency Issue

There has probably been more outright dishonesty in addressing the issue of the frequency of DGU than any other issue in the gun control debate. Faced with a huge body of evidence contradicting their rare-DGU position, hard-core gun control supporters have had little choice but to simply promote the unsuitable NCVS estimate and to ignore, attack, or discount everything else. Authors writing in medical and public health journals are typically the most crudely dishonest––they simply withhold from their readers the very existence of a huge volume of contradictory evidence. For example, Kellermann and his colleagues discussed the issue of DGU in a recent paper, but omitted any mention of any of the surveys indicating large numbers of DGUs. Instead they cited only the NCVS estimate (1995, p. 1761). Even if Kellermann and his colleagues did not know of all 15 of the other surveys that had been conducted by the time their article was written, they clearly knew of the existence of at least six contradictory surveys, since these early surveys were reviewed in a source that Kellermann et al. cited and presumably had read (see their note 24, citing Kleck 1988). Thus it is fair to say that Kellermann and his colleagues knowingly withheld from their readers information from at least six surveys contradicting their low-DGU claims.

Since the readers, referees and editors of medical journals ordinarily know little about violence outside of the misleading bits of information they obtain from other medical/public health outlets, authors writing for these journals can ordinarily freely suppress contrary information in this way without fear of exposure or censure. Further, editors have insured near-total censorship of contrary information through their own publication decisions (see Kates, Schaffer, Lattimer, Murray, and Cassem 1995 for a review of how medical and public health journals suppress information hostile to a pro-control position). And although these journals sometimes provide for expression of contrary views in letters to the editor, editors of the journals have refused to publish even brief letters challenging the rare-DGU thesis.1

Pro-control writers publishing in criminological and social science outlets are marginally more sophisticated, “fuzzing over” the extent of contrary evidence through the vagueness of their references to the magnitude of the evidence, and through one-sided and selective critiques of the sources of the contradictory evidence. For example, Reiss and Roth (1993) concealed the extent of the contradictory evidence by vaguely referring to “a number of surveys” that implied larger estimates (p. 265) and then dropping the matter, with no detailed further discussion of any of these surveys. Then, later in their essay, they uncritically accepted the unreliable NCVS estimates at face value (p. 266), effectively ignoring all the contrary sources. At the time they wrote, there were a least eight other surveys yielding DGU estimates, all radically higher than the NCVS estimate, surveys that they knew about because they had been reviewed in sources they cited.


*************************************

So Joe....hemenway and kellerman and the other anti gun advocates have been shown to be wrong....they use information that is intentionally lacking in important information that shows their researc to be wrong....

 

[2aguy]

And now the part where hemenway is shown to be wrong....it doesn't help that he is associated with the former Handgun Control Inc.....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

4. The Hemenway Critique of the National Self-Defense Survey

Hemenway’s paper was not an attempt to produce a balanced, intellectually serious assessment of estimates of defensive gun use. Instead, his critique served the narrow political purpose of “getting the estimate down,” for the sake of assisting the gun control cause. An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to both flaws that would tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and the failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), and to those that contribute to making them too high. Equally important, it would have given greatest weight to relevant empirical evidence, and little or no weight to idle speculation about possible flaws. Hemenway’s approach was precisely the opposite––one-sided and almost entirely speculative. Readers who have any doubts about the degree to which Hemenway’s paper was imbalanced could carry out a simple exercise to assess this claim: count the number of lines Hemenway devoted to flaws tending to make the estimate too high and the number devoted to flaws making the estimate too low.

Hemenway’s one-sided determination to fixate only on possible sources of overestimation was so strong that he failed to recognize even the most conspicuous sources of underestimation. He claimed that Kleck and Gertz obtained an estimate of gun ownership prevalence in their sample that was “outside the range of all other national surveys” (p. 1434), to the low side, yet was oblivious to the implication of this for DGU estimates––since DGUs are obviously more common among gun owners, any underrepresentation of gun owners in the survey sample would contribute to an underestimate of DGUs.2

He likewise noted the underrepresentation of blacks in the NSDS sample (p. 1434), a problem nearly universal in national surveys, yet did not note the implication that underrepresentation of highly victimized subsets of the population would necessarily imply an underrepresentation of persons who had occasion to engage in acts of self-defense, including use of a gun for self-protection. Similarly, Hemenway asserted that the NSDS gives too much weight to persons who are the only adult in their household (p. 1434), yet apparently was not aware that persons who live alone or in smaller households are lesslikely than others to be victims of crimes like burglaries (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1996, p. 28), and that he was therefore noting a problem likely to contribute to an underestimation of DGUs.

Likewise, Hemenway made no mention of the even more obvious fact that surveys confined to adults (as all of the DGU surveys were) by definition exclude all self-reports of DGU experiences by adolescents. Since rates of gun carrying are as high among adolescents as among adults (Kleck and Gertz 1998, pp. 200-201), and persons age 12-17 claim about 24% of all violent victimizations (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997, pp. 6, 8), this problem alone could cause surveys to miss as much as a quarter of all DGUs. Nor did Hemenway acknowledge other obvious sources of underestimation that Kleck and Gertz had explicitly noted, such as the omission of persons without telephones, who are poorer and thus more likely to be crime victims than others (Kleck and Gertz 1995, p. 170).

*******************************

There is more on hemenway for anyone interested....go to the link and you can read the dissection of hemenway.....

 

[westwall]

spambot is sad no one reads his stuff.

GUy, I have you on ignore, I don't even see your posts.

The SPAMBOT is you, asshat. You've been on this Board for half as long as any of us and have more than twice the amount of posts. As I said, you're an unethical POS, and a liar and no company would have you.

 

[rightwinger]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

Get control of gangs in the inner cities and you take care of 80% of all gun murders....

Sounds like a plan

Now......what can we, as a nation, do to keep guns out of the hands of gang scum?

Now....in addition to gangs, what can be done to reduce gun deaths due to domestic violence, suicides and accidental shootings?

Well...in Chicago...they could hire 2000 more police....they are down that many because they aren't hiring to replace losses, they are down about 1000, and they are down another 1000 each day due to sick leave and vacations....

Domestic violence....well...teach women not to marry abusive men...for one.....allow women to carry concealed guns so they can prevent ex husbands and boyfriends from killing them....as two cases in Illinois show...a wife killed by a stalking husband with a hatchet, and an girlfreind shot by an ex boy friend at Nordstroms....

Suicides.....the Japanese have almost complete gun control and they have a higher suicide rate than we do....dittos Russai, China, and many other countries....we could ask them and do the opposite....

Accidental shootings....well, they are on the decline anyway as more people take gun classes....but we could teach gun safety, the basics for kids, in all public schools alongside fire safety education...

There you go....problems solved.....

So simple....and yet so simplistic

2000 cops in just one city. And we have gangs in EVERY city. Nothing about trying to stop the flow of guns to gang members......of course the NRA won't let us do that

Your solution to domestic violence is just laughable. "just don't marry those guys". No mention of removing guns from households where someone has a history of domestic violence

Two out of three suicides in this country use a gun. They are just so handy and their solution is final. No mention of keeping guns away from those who are depressed.

You make the NRA proud

 

[dilloduck]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

Get control of gangs in the inner cities and you take care of 80% of all gun murders....

Sounds like a plan

Now......what can we, as a nation, do to keep guns out of the hands of gang scum?

Now....in addition to gangs, what can be done to reduce gun deaths due to domestic violence, suicides and accidental shootings?

Well...in Chicago...they could hire 2000 more police....they are down that many because they aren't hiring to replace losses, they are down about 1000, and they are down another 1000 each day due to sick leave and vacations....

Domestic violence....well...teach women not to marry abusive men...for one.....allow women to carry concealed guns so they can prevent ex husbands and boyfriends from killing them....as two cases in Illinois show...a wife killed by a stalking husband with a hatchet, and an girlfreind shot by an ex boy friend at Nordstroms....

Suicides.....the Japanese have almost complete gun control and they have a higher suicide rate than we do....dittos Russai, China, and many other countries....we could ask them and do the opposite....

Accidental shootings....well, they are on the decline anyway as more people take gun classes....but we could teach gun safety, the basics for kids, in all public schools alongside fire safety education...

There you go....problems solved.....

So simple....and yet so simplistic

2000 cops in just one city. And we have gangs in EVERY city. Nothing about trying to stop the flow of guns to gang members......of course the NRA won't let us do that

Your solution to domestic violence is just laughable. "just don't marry those guys". No mention of removing guns from households where someone has a history of domestic violence

Two out of three suicides in this country use a gun. They are just so handy and their solution is final. No mention of keeping guns away from those who are depressed.

You make the NRA proud

Go ahead--stop the illegal flow of guns. The NRA has no problem with that. Is this one of those lies that the OP is referring to ?

 

[rightwinger]

It's not that we fear guns as much as we are sick and tired of the rampant gun violence we have to put up with that other countries do not

Get control of gangs in the inner cities and you take care of 80% of all gun murders....

Sounds like a plan

Now......what can we, as a nation, do to keep guns out of the hands of gang scum?

Now....in addition to gangs, what can be done to reduce gun deaths due to domestic violence, suicides and accidental shootings?

Well...in Chicago...they could hire 2000 more police....they are down that many because they aren't hiring to replace losses, they are down about 1000, and they are down another 1000 each day due to sick leave and vacations....

Domestic violence....well...teach women not to marry abusive men...for one.....allow women to carry concealed guns so they can prevent ex husbands and boyfriends from killing them....as two cases in Illinois show...a wife killed by a stalking husband with a hatchet, and an girlfreind shot by an ex boy friend at Nordstroms....

Suicides.....the Japanese have almost complete gun control and they have a higher suicide rate than we do....dittos Russai, China, and many other countries....we could ask them and do the opposite....

Accidental shootings....well, they are on the decline anyway as more people take gun classes....but we could teach gun safety, the basics for kids, in all public schools alongside fire safety education...

There you go....problems solved.....

So simple....and yet so simplistic

2000 cops in just one city. And we have gangs in EVERY city. Nothing about trying to stop the flow of guns to gang members......of course the NRA won't let us do that

Your solution to domestic violence is just laughable. "just don't marry those guys". No mention of removing guns from households where someone has a history of domestic violence

Two out of three suicides in this country use a gun. They are just so handy and their solution is final. No mention of keeping guns away from those who are depressed.

You make the NRA proud

Go ahead--stop the illegal flow of guns. The NRA has no problem with that. Is this one of those lies that the OP is referring to ?

Great....let's do that

How do we stop the flow of these weapons?

 

[BlackSand]