Tuesday, December 18, 2012

More Hilarity from the Kleck Gertz "Study"

The National Institute of Research on the Kleck and Gertz telephone interview which produced the famous 2.5 million figure. From page 8.  via democommie

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive
gun use in 1994 against a person
(exhibit 7). Given the sampling
weights, these respondents constitute
1.6 percent of the sample and represent
3.1 million adults. Almost half of
these respondents reported multiple
DGUs during 1994, which provides
the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU
incidence at 23 million. This surprising
figure is caused in part by a few
respondents reporting large numbers
of defensive gun uses during the year;
for example, one woman reported 52!

17 comments:

  1. 52 DGUs. That's because gunsucks are mostly paranoid losers, who routinely exaggerate the normal activities of innocent people and consider them sinister.

    Of course, if she is a drug dealer or other person who routinely puts themselves into danger like many gunsucks, she might be right, but this is not typical. Normal non-gun owning non-paranoid non-criminals do not not do this.

    So, she's either a paranoid loser gunsuck or a criminal gunsuck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you're someone who bravely tosses out insults at people you've never met from behind the safety of your computer. Do you think you're impressing anyone?

      Delete
    2. The ironic symmetry in this statement is beautiful:

      "52 DGUs. That's because gunsucks are mostly paranoid losers, who routinely exaggerate the normal activities of innocent people and consider them sinister. "

      Delete
  2. I've said all along that I think the Kleck study is probably inflated. Yet it is the go to poster boy you guys use to attempt to invalidate ALL defensive gun uses.

    But you (especially DC) continue to fail to address the numerous government studies that we have shown you repeatedly:
    here: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-2nd-worst-mass-shooting-in-us.html
    and here: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/pro-gun-video-full-of-lies.html
    (That is just the last two times - we have offered them at least a half a dozen time - your response? ... crickets.)


    Two of these, conducted under the Clinton administration, when he and the Democrats were seated on the throne of DC's lord and savior the federal gooberment:

    DOJ Survey 1994 - 1.5 million DGU's
    CD Survey 1994 - 498,000 DGU's

    But you can only trust the gooberment when they tell us how much harm guns do. We can trust them when they tell us how much protection they offer - can we DC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have responded more times than I can count to the fact that there are various reports of DGUs ranging from 500 to 2.5 million.

      They're wrong. The Propaganda Professor explained why better than I ever could.

      The thing I don't get is how can you, after rejecting many things that we say for lack of evidence, accept any of those reports based on word-of-mouth telephone interviews? You love to dismiss as untrue that which lacks evidence when it helps my side, but in this matter you have no problem.

      Delete
    2. The problem here is that you have no principles beyond disarming good citizens. That being the case, you reject anything that doesn't support your narrative. My position has always been that owning and carrying a gun is a right. Numbers may be interesting, but they're irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. Mike, please show me where you have responded with anything other than 'gun-nut funded survey full of bias' or 'lack of media reports prove otherwise'.

      You say that the POP explained it away but you must not have actually read the full discussion. I totally shredded the ridiculous idea that one can use a personal sense of reports from the media to make any kind of determination about the number of DGU's in the US.


      The thought that:

      a model built upon a subjective personal sense of an unknowable quantity of nationwide media reports that capture an unknowable percentage of events with an unknowable degree of “first report” accuracy

      is somehow superior to a survey following standard scientific protcols for discerning this type of information is asinine.

      As I said to the POP:

      But again, you do have a leg to stand on to raise concerns as whether the models are designed and weighted well enough to limit that type of bias. However you are comparing a model/method with some potential bias to one where it is physically impossible to even gather the necessary information. A dozen people working non-stop for weeks to comb through all of the media outlets could not possible give you the data you seem to think you have at hand.

      That is simply insane.



      Delete
    4. That's funny, I thought he got the better of you in that exchange.

      I'm not going to humor you on that request to show you where I've answered. If you really think the only answers I've ever given to these arguments is the dismissive type, you're wrong. Maybe, the same bias which tells you you bettered the Prof. tells you I NEVER offer substantive answers.

      Fine, have it your way.

      Delete
    5. Says Mikeb dismissively. Have you noticed that your opinion of something is determined by whether the source agrees with your ideology?

      Delete
    6. That's fine Mike - you don't have to dig through the post.


      But please at least answer on thing for me. And I am asking you because you and the POP seem to resort to the same unsupportable argument.

      So please answer me how:

      a model built upon a subjective personal sense of an unknowable quantity of nationwide media reports that capture an unknowable percentage of events with an unknowable degree of “first report” accuracy

      is to be trusted more than

      a survey consistent with scientifically methods but that may or may not contain non-weighted bias

      Please answer that for me and maybe I will being to see how the POP bested me. Because he certainly has been unable or unwilling to do it.

      Delete
    7. It seems to me one can get a pretty good idea of what's going on by searching Google. I realize it wouldn't be comprehensive, but it offers a good idea especially in comparative studies, DGUs vs. gun misuse, for example.

      The numbers derived from telephone surveys are so unreliable that I dismiss them outright. Just look at what Kleck included in his, the woman who had 52 that year. I just saw a video in which the gun-control speaker pointed out the in telephone surveys, 6% of the people have seen aliens.

      Delete
    8. "It seems to me one can get a pretty good idea of what's going on by searching Google. I realize it wouldn't be comprehensive, but it offers a good idea especially in comparative studies, DGUs vs. gun misuse, for example."

      Mike that is such total fantasy I really, honestly, cannot see how you can take yourself seriously. I mean, do you really really believe that?

      What rises to the top are the sensational. "If it bleeds it leads". So, you will get your sensational DGU's - the ones where shots were fired (you know, the rare ones). And, you will get the questionable DGU's - the controversial ones. The sensational ones. You won't get the majority of them where no shots were fired and the police had no reason to believe anything fishy was involved.

      "The numbers derived from telephone surveys are so unreliable that I dismiss them outright. Just look at what Kleck included in his, the woman who had 52 that year. I just saw a video in which the gun-control speaker pointed out the in telephone surveys, 6% of the people have seen aliens."

      Again, back to Kleck. Why do you think the CDC study is 10 times lower than Kleck? Could it be because they properly weighted the results and eliminated the outliers (like all properly regimented scientific studies conducted by surveys)?

      No, don't give me that crap. You dismiss them outright because you don't like the results. Otherwise you would evaluate each of them on their own merits.

      Delete
    9. Let's not forget it's you and your friends who have pushed and pushed the 2.5 million number. You started this shit. If you guys had used the under-100 thousand figure instead we probably would never have gotten into this discussion. But now that we have, I've come to believe that many of the actual shots-fired DGUs are false and most of the brandishing kind are.That's how I bring it down to under-1,000.

      I realize Google would only produce the headline-grabbing incidents, but this cuts both ways. All the brandishing crimes committed by lawful gun owners go unseen too.

      Delete
    10. "ll the brandishing crimes committed by lawful gun owners go unseen too."

      Actually, these tend to strike fear into the hearts of people . So I would have to disagree and say they probably do get regular coverage. I know I have seen my fair share of news reports of brandishing.

      Delete
  3. Then how many self defense gun uses do YOU think happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must have missed our recent posts about that. I say between 500 and 1,000 true DGUs a year.

      Delete
    2. But you just posted an article that cites the Department of Justice as saying the number is 108,000 per annum. How about we agree on that number?

      Delete