Thoughts on the CDC hiding their 2.4 million defensive gun use research...

[Crepitus]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Savanah Man....I took you post directly to Dr. Kleck.......I emailed him and he actually responded....here is what I sent....

Dr. Kleck,

I am discussing your latest study on the CDC and someone has stated that you got to your number of defensive gun uses by.....

"....Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

..........Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired. "

I was just wondering if this is accurate, as I am not completely familiar with all of your work.

And his reply?

From Dr. Gary Kleck.....

Gary Kleck
David J. Bordua Emeritus Professor of Criminology and
Criminal Justice
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
314B Eppes Hall
112 S. Copeland Street
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273

A complete fabrication. Please don't ask me anymore about stuff you've seen on crackpot websites.

So......you might want to discuss that with him....

This isn't the day where you can make a statement and then be safe because it can only be proven wrong by a lengthy process of snail mail correspondence or doing research in the Microfiche area of the public Library.........

The internet has it's issues, but it can be used to get results...

Lol, he didn't respond so much as tell you to sit down and shut up.

That's not a refutation by the way. He said "nuh uh".

I pointed out to Savanah Man that he was confusing two different studies, and Kleck verified it.......but thanks for being an anti gun useful idiot...

Lol, too bad you are just an idiot. Not useful at all.

 

[SavannahMann]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Yeah....no...that isn't what Kleck did.......can you link to where he stated he did that? I have posted his defense of his study numerous times and that is not part of his defense of his numbers....

Here is one defense....does not mention criminals in prison...you may likely be confusing the Kleck research with someone elses who actually did interview criminals....but that isn't what Kleck or the CDC based their research on or the Department of Justice study that found 1.5 million defensive gun uses...

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

B. THE GUN SURVEYS

At least thirteen previous surveys have given a radically different picture of the frequency of DGUs. The surveys, summarized in Table 1, can be labelled the "gun surveys" because they were all, at least to some extent, concerned with the ownership and use of guns. Some were primarily devoted to this subject, while others were general purpose opinion surveys which happened to include some questions pertaining to guns. They are an extremely heterogeneous collection, some conducted by academic researchers for scholarly purposes, others by commercial polling firms. Moreover, their sponsors differed; some were sponsored by pro-gun control organizations (Cambridge Reports, Hart), others were sponsored by anti-control organizations (DMIa, DMIb), while still others were paid for by news media organizations, governments, or by research grants awarded to independent academics.

None of the surveys were meant as exclusive studies of DGU. Indeed, they each contained only one or two questions on the subject. Consequently, none of them are very thorough or satisfactory for estimating DGU frequency, even though they otherwise seem to have been conducted quite professionally. Some of the surveys were flawed by asking questions that used a lifetime recall period ("Have you ever .. ?"), making it impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span.[32] Some surveys limited coverage to registered voters, while others failed to exclude defensive uses against animals, or occupational uses by police officers, military personnel, or private security guards.[33] Some asked the key questions with reference only to the R, while others asked Rs to report on the experiences of all of the members of their households, relying on second-hand reports.[34] Methodological research on the NCVS indicates that substantially fewer crime incidents are reported when one household member reports for all household members than when each person is interviewed separately about their own experiences.[35] The same should also be true of those crime incidents that involve victims using guns.

The least useful of the surveys did not even ask the defensive use question of all Rs, instead it asked it only of gun owners, or, even more narrowly, of just handgun owners or just those who owned handguns for protection purposes.[36] This procedure was apparently based on the dubious assumption that people who used a gun defensively no longer owned the gun by the time of the survey, or that the gun belonged to someone else, or that the R owned the gun for a reason other than protection or kept it outside the home.

Most importantly, the surveys did not ask enough questions to establish exactly what was done with the guns in reported defensive use incidents. At best, some of the surveys only established whether the gun was fired. The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually "used" in any meaningful way. Instead, Rs might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection "just in case" or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing.

Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.[37] It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,[38] that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure.

In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1 was measuring something different; simple estimates derived from each of them is not comparable in any straight-forward way. The figures in the bottom row reflect adjustments designed to produce estimates which are roughly comparable across surveys. The adjustments were based on a single standard, the Mauser survey. That is, all survey results were adjusted to approximate what they would have been had the surveys all been, like the Mauser survey, national surveys of non institutionalized U.S. adult residents in 1990, using the same question Mauser used. The question was addressed to all Rs; it concerned the experiences of all household members; it pertained to the use of any type of gun; and it excluded uses against animals. The full set of adjustments is explained in detail elsewhere.[39]

Read the book, not an article about the book.

Point Blank

 

[Pop23]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Savanah Man....I took you post directly to Dr. Kleck.......I emailed him and he actually responded....here is what I sent....

Dr. Kleck,

I am discussing your latest study on the CDC and someone has stated that you got to your number of defensive gun uses by.....

"....Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

..........Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired. "

I was just wondering if this is accurate, as I am not completely familiar with all of your work.

And his reply?

From Dr. Gary Kleck.....

Gary Kleck
David J. Bordua Emeritus Professor of Criminology and
Criminal Justice
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
314B Eppes Hall
112 S. Copeland Street
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273

A complete fabrication. Please don't ask me anymore about stuff you've seen on crackpot websites.

So......you might want to discuss that with him....

This isn't the day where you can make a statement and then be safe because it can only be proven wrong by a lengthy process of snail mail correspondence or doing research in the Microfiche area of the public Library.........

The internet has it's issues, but it can be used to get results...

Lol, he didn't respond so much as tell you to sit down and shut up.

That's not a refutation by the way. He said "nuh uh".

I pointed out to Savanah Man that he was confusing two different studies, and Kleck verified it.......but thanks for being an anti gun useful idiot...

Lol, too bad you are just an idiot. Not useful at all.

Dude, when you win a point, come back and call others an idiot, until then, you look............

Idiotic

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like Kleck got his numbers wrong again...

UPDATE: You will note the original link doesn't work right now. It was pointed out to me by Robert VerBruggen of National Review that Kleck treats the CDC's surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck's original survey was, but they apparently were not. From VerBruggen's own looks at CDC's raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Informed of this, Kleck says he will recalculate the degree to which CDC's survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they come in. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions.

 

[Brain357]

They are not.

The number, if it is accurate (imo, it's not) is attributable to the cops pulling guns 275 times every hour.

I don't see that as "defensive gun use".

I suspect that it goes something like this:

Rwnj sees scary looking guy walking down the street.

Walks past scary guy without making eye contact.

Thinks "good thing I had my pistol on me, no telling what might have happened".

Viola! Defensive gun use number one for the day!

Lots of drug dealers defending their stash... most are not lawful.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Thoughts?

It's bullshit.

Not possible.

Do the math.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sounds like Kleck got his numbers wrong again...

UPDATE: You will note the original link doesn't work right now. It was pointed out to me by Robert VerBruggen of National Review that Kleck treats the CDC's surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck's original survey was, but they apparently were not. From VerBruggen's own looks at CDC's raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Informed of this, Kleck says he will recalculate the degree to which CDC's survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they come in. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions.

Classic!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kleck is a joke, his "study" was so full of holes that two classes I took for my masters used it as examples of a poorly done study and faulty analysis.

"My leftist college professors told me it was crap, and I always believe what I'm told to believe."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kleck is a joke, his "study" was so full of holes that two classes I took for my masters used it as examples of a poorly done study and faulty analysis.

It's so full of holes that you can't even demonstrate one.

It seems as though the only hole that can be found here is the one in in your head, in the place of where regular people have a brain.

That's not a hole. It's a vacuum.

 

[Cecilie1200]

2aguy is hiding that the defensive gun use is overwhelmingly by LEO.

And again, the anti gunner has to lie...because the truth, the facts and the reality do not support his beliefs about guns...

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?"

Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job.

Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck's "study" found more than 3 million incidents of DGU per year, which is 3 times more than the number of violent crimes committed per year.

And?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why does the cdc have any research on gun control?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kleck is a joke, his "study" was so full of holes that two classes I took for my masters used it as examples of a poorly done study and faulty analysis.

It's so full of holes that you can't even demonstrate one.

It seems as though the only hole that can be found here is the one in in your head, in the place of where regular people have a brain.

Contradictions of Kleck

You either just grabbed the first thing you could find that said it "contradicted Kleck" and posted it without reading it, or you really weren't paying attention when you read it.

"In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results."

So they start out by debunking the most popular "contradiction" out there.

But then they go on to what THEY presumably consider the contradictions.

"A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992)."

So . . . personal opinion. Never mind all the OTHER studies with similar findings to Kleck's; ONE study said what we want to hear, so that means Kleck is invalidated.

"The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun."

Assumes facts not in evidence. No one ever said that ONLY the victim had a gun in those cases.

"Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses."

Lie. Kleck's survey specifically excluded those very things.

"Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household."

Also untrue. The survey specified adults, ie. those 18 and over, but otherwise completed the interview with whomever was at the number.

"The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection."

Also assumes facts not in evidence.

And that's just the first three paragraphs.

 

[2aguy]

Why does the cdc have any research on gun control?

Because they want to ban guns and actual researchers can't find any scientific data to suppor that......medical studies give them lots of wiggle room.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Contradictions of Kleck

Well - that'll ^ about do it

The fact that he posted a headline that agreed with what you wanted to hear?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here we have a look at the CDC hiding the results of 3 years of research into defensive gun use......the author points out that Dr. Kleck had to dig out the information from the CDC

GUN WATCH: CDC Failed to Report Strong Evidence of Defensive Gun Uses

The paragraph above does not rule out the surveys done by the CDC. It says that "more than 19 national surveys" not "19 national surveys". Were the authors aware of the CDC surveys done in 1996, 1997, and 1998, that essentially confirmed the estimates made by Kleck and Gertz in the 1995 paper?

The timing and size of the surveys done by the CDC is fascinating. They were done immediately after Kleck and Gertz published their paper. There were three of them. The one in 1996 was the largest ever done. 5,884 people were asked the DGU question. The total number of people asked in the three surveys done by the CDC was 12,870. All were asked the same question. It is as if a single very large survey was done, over three years. Kleck and Gertz' survey asked their DGU questions of 4,977 people.

Kleck goes into considerable detail about how his survey, done in 1993 (published in 1995) differs from the CDC survey. For example, in the CDC survey, only those people who admitted to having a gun in the home were asked the DGU question.
=======

Having read the Kleck and Gertz paper, I often wished that someone would do another survey, to broaden the sample, to provide more data.

Now we find the CDC did three such surveys. All of them validated the Kleck and Gertz survey. One large survey, such as the one by Kleck and Gertz, is indicative. Four of them show scientific replication and add to certainty. We were never told of the results of the confirming surveys done by the CDC.

Gary Kleck, as a scientist, a Democrat, and a proponent of a number of gun control measures, is careful not to cast aspersions on the CDC. He does not accuse anyone of malfeasance. He notes the surveys were done during the Clinton administration, and these findings would have worked against the gun control agenda of the administration. Someone at the CDC made the decision not to publish these results.

Kleck, while doing research, happened to come across the DGU question in a historical CDC survey, online, 21 years after the CDC surveys had been completed.

He was intrigued, and was able to find the original surveys done in 1996, 1997, 1998, and all the results.

It has to be gratifying to Dr. Kleck, to see his results validated after more than two decades. It may be infuriating to know these results were available from 1997 to 1999, and were never made public.

Jesus, again?

This has been debunked over and over and over.

Get some new material son.

"This has been debunked" = "My leaders told me it was wrong, and I believed it".

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone here ever thought this ridiculous 2.4 million a year figure through?

Do you realize that means that over 275 times every hour of every day someone uses a gun to defend themselves.

Now lets be very generous here and say that 90% of the time just showing the gun is enough. I personally think that's nonsense, there is no way 9 out of 10 armed desperate people run from a gun but like I said, I'm being generous.

That's 27+ shooting victims an hour, every hour, all day long. 650 people showing up at emergency rooms with unexplained holes in them every day.

250,000 extra gunshot victims a year.

Where are they?

Not if you see where Kleck got the number. One of the biggest survey sample was criminals, convicts. Kleck went to prisons and interviewed the convicts and asked them how often the presence of a gun, perceived, suspected, or actually seen, caused them to change their plans.

For muggers, it was far more often, especially in states where concealed carry was more prevalent. For car hackers, again, it was more prevalent, in the same states.

In Georgia, roughly speaking, one in ten residents are licensed to carry concealed. That means that the criminal has a roughly ten percent chance of coming across someone who is legally allowed to be carrying a gun. One in ten victims is liable to be armed.

Kleck took the discrimination numbers from the criminals, and added it to the people who said they had reached for a gun, and someone had fled. And the times that people actually pulled it, and the people who fired.

We often hear that we should ban guns if it can save just one life. Or we should do some other thing even if it can only save one life. We certainly have done a lot more, for a few people every year haven’t we? Airbags. We had a massive airbag recall because a handful of people had died over several years because of defective airbags.

But what about the other way around? Can we ban guns if those guns save just one life? If as Kleck said that the suspected presence of a gun deterred a rapist from attacking some woman, can we dare ban the guns?

We all know that airbags can kill people. Especially smaller children, or older frail people. The sudden explosive inflation is rather violent. Yet, we do not ban airbags. We don’t even decide to leave it up to the customer, letting him or her decide if he wants one. Because the probability is that the airbag is more likely to save a life, than end it.

If you accept how Kleck got his numbers as reasonably valid, and if rapists decide not to attack a woman even once. Not even all the rapists, but lets say half of the rapists decide to not attack a woman who may have a gun once per year, then haven’t you prevented a rape each time that decision is made?

We tell women to fight back. To use pepper spray, to scream for help, to avoid situations where they are alone, and vulnerable. We’ve had the Rape Whistle, the air horn, and all the other silly shit. But lets be honest, you are going to be in those situations sooner or later this year ladies. You are going to have a situation where you are approaching a car at night, when the lighting is not good. Or when you are approaching your door without being able to scan the area, or are home alone when someone is creeping around outside.

Women go to self defense classes to learn how to fight. Women go to awareness classes to learn how to spot dangerous situations and areas. Men are asked to escort the women from time to time. At least they were when I was younger.

Kleck argued that after talking to those rapists in prison, a goodly number were prevented not by rape whistles, or air horns, or pepper spray. A goodly number were prevented when the rapist looked at the women, or the area, and decided that someone might have a gun, and the Rapist moved on. Perhaps he picked someone else perhaps not.

The same is true of robberies, assaults, and the rest according to Kleck.

But that is an interesting standard isn’t it? Let’s apply it to immunizations. Can you prove that your child is going to be exposed to those diseases? Can you prove that my child is going to be exposed to the diseases? No, of course you can’t. But we know that those diseases exist, and it is possible, so we immunize to prevent the disease. Every year people go out and get the Flu Vaccine. The Flu shows up anyway. The next year, everyone is out getting it again. It might not protect you, and it might only make the flu less severe in your case, or the vaccine might be a bad match. But we still line up and get our shots don’t we?

How many cases of Flu does the vaccine prevent? But it prevents some, so we get them.

So how many rapes, robberies, assaults, and thefts do guns prevent. I don’t know. We know they prevent some. The criminals told us that much through Kleck. Kleck used an extrapolation to come up with a number. Perhaps he’s right. Perhaps he’s wrong, and it only prevents a million a year. But are we comfortable deciding that only the guns that are used to kill someone in self defense are to be counted? How about the homeowner who is seen through the windows walking through her house with a shotgun after hearing a noise and it frightens the criminals away?

I don’t deny that people can and do abuse the weapon. I don’t deny that people abuse pain medications. I don’t want to ban pain meds, and don’t support it. Because there are lots of people who really NEED that medication for severe pain. Is addiction a problem? Yes. Is overdosing a problem? Yes. Is pain a problem? You bet your ass it is.

I am willing to accept extrapolated numbers. We accept them in the number of women who were raped, even though that number is higher than actually reported rapes. I am willing to accept that some women do not come forward to file a report, for any number of reasons. I am willing to accept a lot of extrapolated numbers, including police misconduct. A survey showed that cops were lying in roughly one case out of five every day. The survey was conducted of lawyers and judges. People who deal with the courts every day in other words. Perhaps it is that often, perhaps not. We know it is happening, and we know that every single lie told by cops is not caught. But those who argue that police misconduct is not a real issue only want to admit the convictions as proof of wrongdoing. Convictions, not charges, not complaints.

That is like saying that the only murders that happened are ones where the baddie is convicted. Or like arguing that only the rapes that result in a conviction should be counted. We would never stand for that would we?

So how many times are guns used defensively? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times a day a criminal decides not to rob a man, or woman, because they might be armed. I don’t know how many times a woman isn’t raped because she might have a gun. I don’t know how many times a carjacking doesn’t happen because the owner of the car looks like he might be armed. I don’t know how many times someone pulls their pistol and then doesn’t report it because the baddie flees and they didn’t get a good look and don’t want to deal with the cops so they don’t report it. I don’t even know how many rapes happen every year, no one does, because all of them are not reported. I do believe that the total number is larger than the actual reports. I just don’t know how much larger.

Yeah....no...that isn't what Kleck did.......can you link to where he stated he did that? I have posted his defense of his study numerous times and that is not part of his defense of his numbers....

Here is one defense....does not mention criminals in prison...you may likely be confusing the Kleck research with someone elses who actually did interview criminals....but that isn't what Kleck or the CDC based their research on or the Department of Justice study that found 1.5 million defensive gun uses...

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

B. THE GUN SURVEYS

At least thirteen previous surveys have given a radically different picture of the frequency of DGUs. The surveys, summarized in Table 1, can be labelled the "gun surveys" because they were all, at least to some extent, concerned with the ownership and use of guns. Some were primarily devoted to this subject, while others were general purpose opinion surveys which happened to include some questions pertaining to guns. They are an extremely heterogeneous collection, some conducted by academic researchers for scholarly purposes, others by commercial polling firms. Moreover, their sponsors differed; some were sponsored by pro-gun control organizations (Cambridge Reports, Hart), others were sponsored by anti-control organizations (DMIa, DMIb), while still others were paid for by news media organizations, governments, or by research grants awarded to independent academics.

None of the surveys were meant as exclusive studies of DGU. Indeed, they each contained only one or two questions on the subject. Consequently, none of them are very thorough or satisfactory for estimating DGU frequency, even though they otherwise seem to have been conducted quite professionally. Some of the surveys were flawed by asking questions that used a lifetime recall period ("Have you ever .. ?"), making it impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span.[32] Some surveys limited coverage to registered voters, while others failed to exclude defensive uses against animals, or occupational uses by police officers, military personnel, or private security guards.[33] Some asked the key questions with reference only to the R, while others asked Rs to report on the experiences of all of the members of their households, relying on second-hand reports.[34] Methodological research on the NCVS indicates that substantially fewer crime incidents are reported when one household member reports for all household members than when each person is interviewed separately about their own experiences.[35] The same should also be true of those crime incidents that involve victims using guns.

The least useful of the surveys did not even ask the defensive use question of all Rs, instead it asked it only of gun owners, or, even more narrowly, of just handgun owners or just those who owned handguns for protection purposes.[36] This procedure was apparently based on the dubious assumption that people who used a gun defensively no longer owned the gun by the time of the survey, or that the gun belonged to someone else, or that the R owned the gun for a reason other than protection or kept it outside the home.

Most importantly, the surveys did not ask enough questions to establish exactly what was done with the guns in reported defensive use incidents. At best, some of the surveys only established whether the gun was fired. The lack of such detail raises the possibility that the guns were not actually "used" in any meaningful way. Instead, Rs might be remembering occasions on which they merely carried a gun for protection "just in case" or investigated a suspicious noise in their backyard, only to find nothing.

Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.[37] It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,[38] that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure.

In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1 was measuring something different; simple estimates derived from each of them is not comparable in any straight-forward way. The figures in the bottom row reflect adjustments designed to produce estimates which are roughly comparable across surveys. The adjustments were based on a single standard, the Mauser survey. That is, all survey results were adjusted to approximate what they would have been had the surveys all been, like the Mauser survey, national surveys of non institutionalized U.S. adult residents in 1990, using the same question Mauser used. The question was addressed to all Rs; it concerned the experiences of all household members; it pertained to the use of any type of gun; and it excluded uses against animals. The full set of adjustments is explained in detail elsewhere.[39]

Read the book, not an article about the book.

Point Blank

Tell it to Gary Kleck....he answers his email...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here we have a look at the CDC hiding the results of 3 years of research into defensive gun use......the author points out that Dr. Kleck had to dig out the information from the CDC

GUN WATCH: CDC Failed to Report Strong Evidence of Defensive Gun Uses

The paragraph above does not rule out the surveys done by the CDC. It says that "more than 19 national surveys" not "19 national surveys". Were the authors aware of the CDC surveys done in 1996, 1997, and 1998, that essentially confirmed the estimates made by Kleck and Gertz in the 1995 paper?

The timing and size of the surveys done by the CDC is fascinating. They were done immediately after Kleck and Gertz published their paper. There were three of them. The one in 1996 was the largest ever done. 5,884 people were asked the DGU question. The total number of people asked in the three surveys done by the CDC was 12,870. All were asked the same question. It is as if a single very large survey was done, over three years. Kleck and Gertz' survey asked their DGU questions of 4,977 people.

Kleck goes into considerable detail about how his survey, done in 1993 (published in 1995) differs from the CDC survey. For example, in the CDC survey, only those people who admitted to having a gun in the home were asked the DGU question.
=======

Having read the Kleck and Gertz paper, I often wished that someone would do another survey, to broaden the sample, to provide more data.

Now we find the CDC did three such surveys. All of them validated the Kleck and Gertz survey. One large survey, such as the one by Kleck and Gertz, is indicative. Four of them show scientific replication and add to certainty. We were never told of the results of the confirming surveys done by the CDC.

Gary Kleck, as a scientist, a Democrat, and a proponent of a number of gun control measures, is careful not to cast aspersions on the CDC. He does not accuse anyone of malfeasance. He notes the surveys were done during the Clinton administration, and these findings would have worked against the gun control agenda of the administration. Someone at the CDC made the decision not to publish these results.

Kleck, while doing research, happened to come across the DGU question in a historical CDC survey, online, 21 years after the CDC surveys had been completed.

He was intrigued, and was able to find the original surveys done in 1996, 1997, 1998, and all the results.

It has to be gratifying to Dr. Kleck, to see his results validated after more than two decades. It may be infuriating to know these results were available from 1997 to 1999, and were never made public.

Its mainly because of these contradictions. NCVS study showed only 65,000 defensive gun uses.

Except that the NCVS study a) does not have studying defensive gun use as its primary purpose, and b) therefore has numerous flaws in that regard.

 

[2aguy]

They are not.

The number, if it is accurate (imo, it's not) is attributable to the cops pulling guns 275 times every hour.

I don't see that as "defensive gun use".

I suspect that it goes something like this:

Rwnj sees scary looking guy walking down the street.

Walks past scary guy without making eye contact.

Thinks "good thing I had my pistol on me, no telling what might have happened".

Viola! Defensive gun use number one for the day!

Lots of drug dealers defending their stash... most are not lawful.

Wrong....and you know it....Kleck specifically addressed this stupid point long ago and you have seen it...... the crime he talked about was carrying a gun without a permit in the 90s when the concealed carry movement was just starting.....

 

[2aguy]

Thoughts?

It's bullshit.

Not possible.

Do the math.

It is a good thing there are so many other studies that show the same numbers....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

Here we have a look at the CDC hiding the results of 3 years of research into defensive gun use......the author points out that Dr. Kleck had to dig out the information from the CDC

GUN WATCH: CDC Failed to Report Strong Evidence of Defensive Gun Uses

The paragraph above does not rule out the surveys done by the CDC. It says that "more than 19 national surveys" not "19 national surveys". Were the authors aware of the CDC surveys done in 1996, 1997, and 1998, that essentially confirmed the estimates made by Kleck and Gertz in the 1995 paper?

The timing and size of the surveys done by the CDC is fascinating. They were done immediately after Kleck and Gertz published their paper. There were three of them. The one in 1996 was the largest ever done. 5,884 people were asked the DGU question. The total number of people asked in the three surveys done by the CDC was 12,870. All were asked the same question. It is as if a single very large survey was done, over three years. Kleck and Gertz' survey asked their DGU questions of 4,977 people.

Kleck goes into considerable detail about how his survey, done in 1993 (published in 1995) differs from the CDC survey. For example, in the CDC survey, only those people who admitted to having a gun in the home were asked the DGU question.
=======

Having read the Kleck and Gertz paper, I often wished that someone would do another survey, to broaden the sample, to provide more data.

Now we find the CDC did three such surveys. All of them validated the Kleck and Gertz survey. One large survey, such as the one by Kleck and Gertz, is indicative. Four of them show scientific replication and add to certainty. We were never told of the results of the confirming surveys done by the CDC.

Gary Kleck, as a scientist, a Democrat, and a proponent of a number of gun control measures, is careful not to cast aspersions on the CDC. He does not accuse anyone of malfeasance. He notes the surveys were done during the Clinton administration, and these findings would have worked against the gun control agenda of the administration. Someone at the CDC made the decision not to publish these results.

Kleck, while doing research, happened to come across the DGU question in a historical CDC survey, online, 21 years after the CDC surveys had been completed.

He was intrigued, and was able to find the original surveys done in 1996, 1997, 1998, and all the results.

It has to be gratifying to Dr. Kleck, to see his results validated after more than two decades. It may be infuriating to know these results were available from 1997 to 1999, and were never made public.

Its mainly because of these contradictions. NCVS study showed only 65,000 defensive gun uses.

Except that the NCVS study a) does not have studying defensive gun use as its primary purpose, and b) therefore has numerous flaws in that regard.

Yep...

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7#104

Coverage

Perhaps the most obvious explanation for the wide variation in the range of DGU estimates is that the surveys measure different variables. In the NSDS, for example, all respondents are asked the gun use questions. In contrast, the NCVS inquires only about use among persons who claim to be victims of rape, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, and car theft.

The NCVS excludes preemptive uses of firearms, uses that occur in crimes not screened for in the survey (e.g., commercial robbery, trespassing, and arson), and uses for crimes not revealed by respondents.1

McDowall et al. (2000) found some evidence that these differences in coverage play an important role.


In an experimental survey that overrepresents firearms owners, 3,006 respondents were asked both sets of questions about defensive gun use, with random variation in which questions came first in the interview. By holding the survey sampling procedures constant (e.g., consistent confidentiality concerns and recall periods), the authors focus on the effects of questionnaire content. Overall, in this experiment, the NCVS survey items yielded three times fewer reports of defensive gun use than questionnaires that ask all respondents about defensive uses.

The McDowall et al. (2000) crossover experiment is informative and is exactly the type of methodological research that will begin to explain the sharp divergence in gun use estimates and how best to measure defensive gun use. There remains, however, much work to be done. The sample used

5 Some argue that reporting errors cause the estimates derived from the NCVS to be biased downward.6 Kleck and Gertz (1995) and Kleck (2001a), for example, speculate that NCVS respondents doubting the legality of their behaviors or more generally fearing government intrusion may be inclined to provide false reports to government officials conducting nonanonymous interviews. Furthermore, Smith (1997) notes that NCVS respondents are not directly asked about firearms use but instead are first asked whether they defended themselves, and then they are asked to describe in what ways. Indirect questions may lead to incomplete answers.