The Propaganda Professor made this wonderful post about six months ago. To my mind there has never been a better, more thorough and convincing explanation of this subject.
He concludes:
This is not a scientific study, just a suggestion or two about how one
might be conducted. My figures may not be precise but they are, if not
in the ballpark, at least on the right planet. If I had to wager whether
the true DGU tally is closer to (a) 2.5 million, (b) 65,000 or (c) 500
to 1000, I’d bet the deed to the Ponderosa on the latter.
What's your opinion? Does it bring to mind my recent suggestion that there are about 500 a year? Many pro-gun folks thought I was kidding, saying it for effect. I wasn't.
The Professor uses the expression, "(assuming these incidents are all genuine non-duplicates)" when referencing some of the standard sources. I'm not quite that generous. I do not assume they are all genuine, as I've frequently pointed out. Here's the most recent false DGU, it's of the brandishing kind. And everyone remembers the recent event in Washington State where a lady drew down on a pervert in the park and threatened to kill him. Both of those were counted by the gun-rights crowd.
No, I'm afraid any list of so-called DGUs is chock full of criminal acts which were disguised as defensive and legitimate. That's how we can be sure the true number is as low as 500, give or take.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Every time you refer to another moonbat's post, you call it wonderful, fantastic, or amazing. Find some new adjectives, douchebag.
ReplyDeleteHow about sparkling, spectacular, scintillating, stupendous. I'm sure I could learn a lot from you who call people moonbats and douchebags because you disagree with them.
DeleteU MAD BRO?
DeleteMikeb, you do have a love for excessive adjectives.
DeleteOk Mike, I give. There are only 500 a year- it’s pathetically low. Now how can we work together to improve that number? We all agree that DGUs are a good thing, right?
ReplyDeleteWhat a silly article - although I give him points for trying. I left my long winded reply on his blog.
ReplyDeleteDo you go by another name over there? I didn't see it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt is still awaiting moderation. But I warn you, it is long winded. You seemed to read through his long article without any issue - but you can never seem to make it all the way through mine.
DeleteAh, that moderation thing. That's why I don't bother with the Propaganda Professor, but you did a good job. Note that typically for his side, he dismisses what you have to say with "I feel" or "I believe" statements and tells us how he's right.
DeleteThanks Greg. He did reply - saying he already made allowances for my points and claiming that the media is a reliable source for crime data even in large cities - if you can believe that.
DeleteI responded proving (or at least should prove to any reasonable person) how it simply isn't possible for the media in Los Angeles to report the 300+ daily average of crime incidents. We will see what that nets us.
I read your reply. You make good points, as usual, not totally convincing, but good.
DeleteThank you Mike. I will take as a compliment. Check back there frequently if you wish. I am not done with him yet.
DeleteHe claims he has made the necessary accommodations. But I have shown quite clearly that he is using erroneous figures as the seed for his "accommodations".
If you start with and estimated 800k crimes in the US and then are shown that the real number is 5.3M just for violent crimes - you cannot maintain the conclusions you made using the 800k figure. It just doesn't fly.
I just conducted my own non scientific study. I found that we had over 500 DGU's here on the ranch this past weekend. It was supposed to be a family get together that turned into a mass shooting. You can read all about it here.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteSounds like fun. The post was witty and cute.
Deleteyeah, we had a good time.
DeleteMikeb, you have a history of rejecting valid evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative. Your estimates are suspect.
ReplyDelete