Test Your Gun I.Q. - FSU Research

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 7:34am

A new article in Florida State’s [Research</a> in Review](<a href=“http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp]Research”>http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp) includes a simple online test. See how knowledgeable you actually are about firearms in the United States.

[Test</a> Your Gun I.Q.](<a href=“http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/gun/index.asp]Test”>http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/gun/index.asp)

coronax2 · March 23, 2009, 8:23am

I know my gun facts, according to the test. I scored 9 out of 10. :)

kayf · March 23, 2009, 9:15am

Wow, that was interesting.

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 9:20am

I thought it was useful.

Hanna · March 23, 2009, 10:34am

“Based on the latest research”? The first question cited to studies published in 1993 and 1994. If that’s really the latest research on the question of firearm self-defense, then the field is way, way out of date. Crime in the US has changed drastically in the last 15 years.

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 11:14am

Sure has - it has declined: [Bureau</a> of Justice Statistics - Key Crime & Justice Facts at a Glance](<a href=“Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics”>Home)

I don’t think that diminishes the value of the information.

catahoula · March 23, 2009, 12:14pm

Neat test, parent2noles.

10 out of 10.;)

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 2:09pm

Thanks, cat.

From Question # 4:

If this were changed, would it lessen criminal behavior?

Hanna · March 23, 2009, 2:51pm

"I don’t think that diminishes the value of the information. "

Sure it does. Would you agree that a study of self-defense patterns in 1905 is less instructive as to current policy than one conducted in 2005? If so, then we agree that the value of a sociological study diminishes over time, and we are left with the quantitative question of whether a 15-year-old study is old enough to cause doubt as to whether the results are still valid. Where, as here, there’s been a dramatic change in both the crime rate and crime patterns over that time (rise and fall of crack, etc.), I’m quite skeptical. Perhaps the results would be the same today, but we don’t know. Has there really been no additional research on the topic since 1994? That seems very strange.

kluge · March 23, 2009, 2:57pm

Actually, it’s worse than that. Many of the “correct” answers are based on the “scholarship” of Gary Kleck. Problem? Kleck’s study isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. In every single aspect which is subject to corroboration or disproof, his conclusions and numbers are contradicted by reliable, verifiable data. Every single time. And the core conclusion - that, on average, over the course of a decade, one crime will have been prevented by use of a gun for every 10 adults in America - is laughably false. So much so that one has to question the basic common sense of anyone who takes him seriously. So, if you got 10 out of 10 “right” that means you believe at least one or two “facts” which are actually fairy tales. Sorry. :)

Northstarmom · March 23, 2009, 3:03pm

I got 6 right. I still wouldn’t want a gun. With a lifelong history of depression, I’ve never wanted a firearm in my house. I also know people who killed themselves or tried to kill themselves using guns. One is still alive after shooting off the bottom of his face. My husband also knows someone whose wife was killed when their toddler found a loaded gun in their home.

catahoula · March 23, 2009, 4:08pm

Pretty much a blanket statement, Kluge. If you’ve got links, I’d be happy to read them.

kluge · March 23, 2009, 4:42pm

Catahoula, here’s a brief listing of some of the more obvious impossibilities inherent in the Kleck-Gertz conclusions:

K-G find that 34% of the time a gun was used in self-defense, the offender was committing a burglary. If we use their 2.5 million estimate, we would conclude that, in 1992, a gun was used by defenders for self-defense in approximately 845,000 burglaries. However, from the NCVS, we know that there were fewer than 6 million burglaries in 1992. [49] Over 55% of the time the residence was definitely unoccupied at the time of the burglary (in another 23% it was not known whether the dwellings was occupied or not). Only 22% of the time was someone certainly at home (1.3 million burglaries). Kleck accepts as valid the claim that the dwellings were occupied in [Page 1442] only 9% of U.S. burglaries. [50] Since fewer than half of U.S. households have a firearm of any kind and since the victims in two-thirds of occupied dwelling were asleep, the K-G result asks us to believe that burglary victims in gun owning households use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time, even though most were initially asleep.

An analysis of Atlanta police department reports of home invasion crimes provides further information on self-defense gun use during burglaries. [51] Examining a three-month period in 1994, researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling while one or more individuals were present in the home. [52] Most of these cases met the Uniform Crime Report criteria for burglary (the others were classified as robberies or assaults). [53] In 16% of the cases of home invasion, at least one of the offenders carried a firearm. In only three cases (1.5%) was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense. [54] To accept the K-G results requires a belief that, of the 198 events, all the families with guns actually used them in self defense, but only three bothered to tell the police.

K-G find that guns were are in self-defense in 205,000 rapes and sexual assaults each year. The new NCVS, specifically revised to produce more accurate reporting of rape and sexual assault, estimates approximately 500,000 cases of rape and sexual assault in 1993. The NCVS data include not only rape and attempted rape, but also other sexual assault and verbal threats of sexual assault. [55] Some 150,000 of these cases involve individuals younger than 18 years of age, who would not be included in the K-G survey of adults. So** if we believe the K-G results, women (the vast majority of whom do not own guns) defend themselves with guns in almost 40% of all sexual assaults. **[56]

K-G report that 207,000 times per year the gun defender thought he wounded or killed the offender. [57] However, only about 100,000 people are treated in emergency rooms each year for non-fatal firearm-related injuries; [58] almost all of these are victims of assault, suicide [Page 1443] attempts and unintentional gun shootings rather than criminals shot by defenders.

K-G report that 392,000 times per year a gun defender thought that someone almost certainly would have been killed had the gun not been used; that another 355,000 times someone probably would have been killed; and another 405,000 times someone might have been killed if the gun had not been used for protection. The K-G results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992. [59] Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. [60]

Finally, 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. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to K- G, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape. - from <a href=“http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm[/url][/quote]”>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

</a>

But the details, while damning, shouldn’t really be all that important. The important thing is that if you’re a reasonably aware adult American, with friends, family, and a reasonably accurate awareness of what is going on in your community, your basic ability to estimate the probability of asserted statistic being true should alert you to the fact that the claim that “2.5 million crimes are prevented by use of guns” simply can’t be true. It’s like claiming that 10,000 people in America are killed by lightning each year. You probably don’t know the exact number, but your common sense should alert you to the fact that the number just isn’t reasonable. I started a thread on this subject a while back: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/430919-why-do-some-people-believe-2-5-million-crimes-prevented-guns.html?highlight=2.5+million[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/430919-why-do-some-people-believe-2-5-million-crimes-prevented-guns.html?highlight=2.5+million</a>

I’m honestly fascinated with people’s ability to turn off their common sense when addressing a subject like this. Any reasonably observant and intelligent person should know the answer, without hesitation. Yet Kleck published the study (and followed up with a lot of terminally lame “explanations” for why the objective data failed to correspond to it) and people repeat it like gospel - and I use that term advisedly.

catahoula · March 23, 2009, 5:10pm

Thank you for the link, Kluge.

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 5:18pm

A bit too skeptical, I think Hanna. But if you have a point I’d be willing to follow you on it.

NSMom, I find you wise with your choice. I’ve owned firearms for decades and had extensive involvement with their use. I always think they need to be respected and sometimes that means not owning one.

NJres · March 23, 2009, 6:19pm

Couldn’t you hear the ax grinding while you took the “test” ? I am generally skeptical of “studies” especially when the presenter has such a clear bias. My favorite part was, 
" A 1993 national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminologist, estimated that ordinary gun owners use their weapons to defend themselves at least two million times that year." Is putting an NRA sticker on your window counted as using your weapon to defend yourself?

Estimate? lol… according to a study i did last week, I personally took a wild guess that very few ordinary gun owners actually use their guns to defend themselves. Does that include “brandishing” the gun? using the gun as a club? Saying you have a gun without showing it?

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 7:29pm

Here is a video interview of Dr. Kleck: [Video</a> Interview - Gary Kleck, PhD](<a href=“http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/mediaplayer/2009winter_kleck.html]Video”>http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/mediaplayer/2009winter_kleck.html)

Please tell me where you hear the axe grinding.

Bio page at FSU: <a href=“http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php[/url]”>http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php</a>

toblin · March 23, 2009, 7:43pm

This is anything BUT a test of ones knowledge about firearms. In reality it’s a thinly disguised and poorly executed advocacy piece extolling the ideas of the pro-gun crowd.

parent2noles · March 23, 2009, 7:58pm

An excerpt of the [article](<a href=“http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_b.asp]article[/url]:”>http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_b.asp):</a>

A “BORINGLY SCHOLARLY” APPROACH

Kleck’s ability to easily rattle off such stats comes from three decades of intense research on gun control, gun ownership and crime. And he is quick to point out that he didn’t come to the pro side of this debate through his ideology.

"Landing on this side of the issue is the most unnatural thing in the world to me. I didn’t come to this stance through my social background—I grew up in the wilds of suburbia, where guns are scarce. I’m a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, and I’m a lifelong Democrat," he says, pausing briefly in this recitation. “I’m not now and have never been a member of the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc., and I’ve never received a penny in funding for research from any such organization.”

Kleck makes the simple but important point that his way into this pro-handgun position is evidenced-based. “I’m boringly scholarly, having studied this issue for nearly 30 years.” The result of this research is impressive by any standards: three books, 50 published articles in journals and in newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, 10 book chapters, and 40 presented papers. Kleck has published more articles on the defensive use of guns than anyone else on the planet.

And, he adds, he’s one of the media’s favorite “resource persons.”

“Oh yes,” he says, laughing, "I’m in quite a few Rolodex files under the heading “pro gun” or “gun-friendly.” Sometimes, though, he disappoints pro-gun reporters, because he talks about how complicated these issues are. “Oftentimes, someone will want me to say something loud and clear and direct, like, ‘Gun availability is a good thing,’ but that’s just not the case. Having more guns available is a bad thing if these guns are falling into the hands of criminals.”

I cannot buy the proposition this researcher is in the pocket of anyone. Some have suggested it here, but without proof.

Marian · March 23, 2009, 8:37pm

Thanks for that rebuttal, Kluge.

I took the quiz but was very skeptical about its answers. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that so many people use guns to successfully defend themselves from crime.

If they do, then there are an awful lot of people who aren’t storing their guns and ammunition safely.

Burglars and other criminals usually take their victims by surprise. I find it hard to believe that victims have time to go get their weapon out of its locked storage place, go get ammunition out of its separate locked storage place, load their gun, and defend themselves with it before the burglar gets into the house.

Test Your Gun I.Q. - FSU Research

CONNECT WITH US