<p>Well, P2N, I’m not a member of Amnesty Int’l, or the ACLU, and I don’t have any pre-existing bias either for or against guns - but I can still recognize a great stinking pile of BS when I see it. And anyone who gets any distance into Kleck’s study should be holding their nose and looking for some Lysol. Seriously - it doesn’t pass the guffaw test.</p>
<p>So why does Kleck push it? Is he actually such a bad scientist that he can’t see obvious errors in his results? (It’s possible. Remember the science prof from New Jersey who supported the 9/11 conspiracy theorists?) Or does he see that his results are obviously wrong but recognizes that he can flog the study into fame and fortune which would otherwise be denied him? I honestly don’t know. I do know that you have to either be blind - willfully or otherwise - not to see that the Kleck study is BS if you spend any time at all looking at it</p>
<p>(P.S. This is the opposite of an ad hominem argument. I don’t know anything about Kleck - I just criticize his work.)</p>
<p>IF I have a point? I think my point is pretty clear in my post #9. My point is that, even assuming the data were accurate in 1994, there’s been huge changes in the criminal landscape of the US since then, and what was true then may not be true today.</p>
<p>I’d say the same thing about, say, voting patterns. How useful are results from the 1994 midterm elections in describing who votes for which party today? If someone used 1994 exit poll data to argue that Wisconsin and Washington lean Republican in 2009, we’d all be rolling our eyes and laughing.</p>
<p>Perhaps I should have said explain your point, because it seems you are trying to say your perspective is obvious, but I don’t find it quite so clear. What is so changed in the environment that makes his observations less accurate, even if some did come from such data? Did you read where he cited many other studies as well? </p>
Yet you seem to dismiss him and his entire body of peer-reviewed work because you suggest everything is rooted solely in data from 1993-4. One could come to the conclusion from such a display your criticism is ideological and not objective.</p>
<p>To me the 10 answers seemed pretty plausible … although I have my douts about the “fact” about how many times guns have been used in self-defense situations (same issue of responding to surprise with a gun) … I’ll buy these answers came from scholarly sources. However, what stood out to me are the questions not included in the quiz … which make the quiz clearly biased. Which country has the most accidental gun deaths, for example? Any question leading to the “bad” stats about gun ownership in the US are not included in the survey … is that a coincidence?</p>
<p>Read post #5. I haven’t even gotten past my criticism of question 1. THAT question cited only 1993 and 1994 data.</p>
<p>“What is so changed in the environment that makes his observations less accurate”</p>
<p>I keep repeating myself. You acknowledged that crime has gone down dramatically in the US in that time. Crack virtually went away as a factor in street crime during that time. We’re a very different country demographically since that time (we’re less white, less rural, etc.). There are hundreds of thousands more young combat veterans in this country than there were at that time. Domestic violence has been on the rise. There are literally dozens of reasons to expect that our self-defense patterns might have changed.</p>
<p>For all I know, maybe using guns in self-defense has gone way up since 1994. But it’s just plain bad sociology to rely on 15-year-old data to make policy arguments today.</p>
<p>Catahoula, the obvious flaws in the results highlighted in the Hemenway article - the reported “defensive uses” outnumbering the reported crimes, the claimed number of criminals shot outnumbering the total number of gunshot wounds from all sources treated by doctors, etc., are just the documentation of the gap between the results and obvious reality. It’s comparable to a scientist reporting that his study produced results showing that average temperatures across the United States had increased by 20 degrees over the past ten years. The data he produced might say that, but a good scientist will look out the window and say “Hmm. Something’s not right here.” and get to work figuring out how such obviously wrong results were generated. Kleck didn’t do that. He promoted his results (and was lionized by the gun crowd for it) and has proceeded to come up with a series of unconvincing “explanations” for why the results are too right.</p>
<p>P2N - yes, Kleck has been peer reviewed. And the reviews are bad. No one can reproduce his results (except John Lott, who “lost” the records of his survey.) His other work suffers from similar “find the data to fit the desired results” flaws. He can talk about being scientific, but as a scientist, he’s an embarrassment. I talk mostly about his 1993 survey because to me it’s the most blatant example of believing ten impossible things before breakfast in the entire conversation about guns. If you can’t see the flaws in the Kleck-Gertz study after ten minutes of review and simply thinking about the community and nation you live in, you’ve got blinders on.</p>
<p>Kluge, I note that you did not post any of Kleck’s responses to the criticism that worries you, which I am sure is a forgivable oversight on your part due to the large volume of work found in your practice. One could almost come to the conclusion you are biased against Dr. Kleck’s research to a degree. However, the good doctor seems credible enough to be [cited[/url</a>] by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in the landmark District of Columbia vs. Heller case:
Of course, we should note that Justice Breyer was on the losing side of that significant decision.</p>
<p>Actually, P2N, I haven’t attacked Prof. Kleck ferociously at all. I have engaged in no ad homnem attacks on anyone. I’ve just criticized his purported “science.” And while I note that his “defense” as presented by you consists primarily of an ad hominem attack on Hemenway (did you miss that?) all I have done is pointed out that a rational, sensible person would be immediately aware of the gap between what Kleck’s study reported, based on a survey made calling people on the phone, and verifiable (and unsurprising) hard data. </p>
<p>I find Kleck to be a bad scientists because his science is bad. Objectively. He is the one who is name-calling:
Does that sound like a dispassionate, scientific assessment to you? It sounds to me like a guy who can’t win the argument with reliable data or credible theories, so he’s just flinging mud as hard as he can. As you’ll note from my previous post, I address actual facts, as does Hemenway. That’s what “science” is supposed to be about. </p>
<p>So let’s look at a couple of points in Kleck’s study. Let’s start with the part which reports that over 200,000 times in the year covered by the study, a person reported shooting a criminal - and hitting him - while preventing the commission of a crime. Hard, reliable data shows that fewer than half that number of people were treated for gunshot wounds in the same period, and most of those were the result of accidents, suicides and homicides. So Kleck has to create a theory that the great majority of criminals who are shot - well over a hundred thousand of them each year - don’t seek medical attention for their gunshot wounds. Apparently they don’t die, either, despite being shot, because the body count isn’t there, either. Presumably they just evaporate. Does that sound plausible to you? </p>
<p>How about the sexual assault numbers? Over 200,000 sexual assaults prevented with the use of guns each year, according to Kleck. Now, how does that play out in the real world, hundreds of time each day? Make a mental picture of someone using a gun to foil a sexual assault. How is that playing out? Over 600 times a day, every day. Is this striking you as a plausible claim? Sure, It’s going to happen. It’s just not going to happen 200,000 times a year. The circumstances which provide a prospective sexual assault victim the opportunity to pull a gun on “the bad guy” just don’t come together that often - certainly not when you add in the fact that there are fewer than twice that number of completed assaults (including, but not limited to, rapes, by the way) in the over-18 year old populace. I understand why Kleck personally attacks the people who point out the unfortunate nudity of his Emperor - he can’t really respond with facts, can he?</p>
<p>This is the key, to me: remember when “New Math” was such a controversy? When my kids were being taught Math back in elementary school I appreciated the fact that they were being taught to estimate the appropriate answer range to check against the result whatever algorithm they chose produced. So if you know the answer pretty much has to be a positive number between 20 and 80, and your figuring produces the answer -265, you know to go back and figure out where you went wrong. Kleck’s number simply can’t be right. You have to make up the kind of theories I’m used to seeing from 9/11 conspiracy theorists or the old “Paul is dead” kind of analysis to try to shoehorn reality into the claimed data. But it just doesn’t fit. If Kleck had scientific integrity, he’d acknowledge that. Instead, he engages in personal attacks on the people who disagree with him - as the excerpts you posted demonstrate.</p>
<p>(P.S., there’s an entire mathematical issue with Kleck’s study which I haven’t gone into, because it’s not pertinent to my point, but it demonstrates how ludicrously high results are made likely by Kleck’s methodology. And numerous other areas of Kleck’s study are just as obviously flawed as the couple I pointed out, including impossibly good marksmanship of the self reported “victims,” who turn out to be, according to the Kleck study, significantly better marksmen than trained police or soldiers. )</p>
<p>None of that, even if validated to whatever minuscule degree, diminishes Kleck’s research and scholarship or conclusions in the least. He has produced work that challenges the gun control folks and they are upset. It is quite likely he is the most renowned criminologist to date. It is fitting that he is at FSU, which has one of the oldest and best known programs in the world.</p>
<p>He is entitled to defend himself and to point out the political predispositions of his critics.</p>
<p>Maybe, more of a “shoot the messenger” approach.
Good shot, though… you probably got Lott, too.</p>
<p>(Kluge, fwiw, though I’m a gun owner, many times over, I’ve never really given a rat’s behind about these scholarly arguments. The link you provided got me started reading, though, and I find the whole debate fascinating.)</p>
<p>P2N - your last post is an ad hominen attack on anyone who disagrees with you, and an “appeal to authority” in support of your position. Both logical fallacies, both “bad science.” And “all of that” does “diminish” Kleck’s work - as science, anyway. If there’s a good scientific defense of Kleck’s survey I haven’t seen it - and I’ve read all three articles linked to in this thread in the past, and more besides. </p>
<p>Catahoula - that’s a legitimate viewpoint. A big part of the “so what” for me is the fact that raw numbers - “X DGU’s per year” - don’t really mean squat to me personally. I get that a pawnshop owner may have a good reason to own a gun, and may well have the opportunity to use it to prevent a crime. The relevance to the question of whether I should buy a gun for my middle class suburban home? Virtually none. Certainly if you’re a sport shooter of some sort the number of DGU’s per capita per annum is equally academic to the question of whether to buy a gun. I’m more drawn to this subject because I’m fascinated by the thought process which is behind the decision to give credence to a “scientific analysis” which anyone with a lick of common sense would recognize is obviously wrong. This isn’t like climate science/global warming, which is very complicated and for which everyday life experience confirmation/refutation is lacking. Anyone who has lived to adulthood in America (and doesn’t base their world view on “CSI” and “24”) should have a pretty solid awareness that the numbers Kleck throws arround just don’t correspond to reality. To me it’s very similar to the people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. They believe the things they’re predisposed to believe, and attack those who don’t for being biased. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I don’t see it that way, Kluge. I’ve read a number of responses to Kleck’s work and am amazed at the strong reaction. It appears that he is goring their ox, so to speak, and so they attack. Sometimes this is seen in academia, but usually there is an element of respect.</p>
<p>Parent2noles - Oddly enough, I’m also surprised at the vehement responses these folks seem to draw from each other.</p>
<p>I’m tempted to think it’s just a case of a small community that knows and despises each other, but I wonder if it’s not due in some degree to differing agendas and competition for funding.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m in error, (I have no fear my flaws, real or imagined, will be thoroughly covered in this venue ;)) but I think it takes a considerable ego to earn a PhD in the first place and then, through that sometimes combative process, one acquires the tools of academic defensiveness.</p>
<p>When a PhD’s supposed professional worth is questioned in this realm then the attack and response become proportionate. See the variety, pontification and reaction in this microcosm of academia day to day. “Winning” becomes rewarded and “losing” can mean not earning tenure. Real costs, real reactions.</p>
<p>The competitive aspect of academia can be quite severe.</p>
<p>P2N, I wouldn’t doubt that that is true - particularly in the popular or pop-sci type of setting. But that’s not me, and it’s not Hemenway, at least based on the writings linked to. Seriously - compare the tone of Hemenway’s article to that of Kleck. Kleck accuses Hemenway of trying to hedge the numbers because of Hemenway’s beliefs - that’s a basic, dishonest, ad hominem attack. It tells us nothing about the validity of Hemenway’s arguments. Hemenway, on the other hand, just skewers Kleck’s numbers on their merits. Look at the two articles: Hemenway simply says Kleck is wrong, and immediately dives into a very wonkish dissection of the numbers and assumptions underlying the Kleck study. The fact that Kleck’s numbers have been touted by the NRA, among others, is noted, but there’s no attack on Kleck’s motive - just his numbers. Then look at how Hemenway starts out:
It’s an immediate attack on Hemenway’s motives, not his numbers.</p>
<p>Seriously - issues aside, I can’t respect someone who defends what is supposed to be serious scientific work by the methods Kleck uses in this essay. I find the theories he needs to use to defend his results unconvincing, and his conclusions obviously, laughably wrong, but his rhetorical dishonesty seals the deal for me in terms of my assessment of him as a scientist.</p>
<p>I believe I found that review in preparing my earlier response and I suspect there was more to the discussion than the limited documentation we can recover today. I am content to suggest that on balance Kleck has performed some ground breaking research that strongly challenged conventional wisdom regarding the hot-button political issue of firearms. </p>
<p>I think this is the correct assessment as Kleck’s work has survived a most rigorous critique, even over the passage of time. It has been instrumental in re-orienting some 22 state legislatures with regard to concealed firearms “carry” laws and even influenced the U.S. Supreme Court in at least one landmark decision and who knows how many different U.S. Courts. That is weight. It is no accident and Kleck’s work has certainly had close sifting of methods and conclusions.</p>
<p>P2N, everything you say in the above post may be true. It doesn’t change the fact that Kleck is an embarrassment as a scientist and that his study isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as science. Seriously - you’re talking politics, I’m talking science.</p>
<p>In 2001 - 2003 people were successfully convinced that here were WMD’s in Iraq - I suppose that the people who were responsible for that did some “groundbreaking work.” They were still wrong, and from what we now know about the information that was available to them, grossly misread the data available to them.</p>
<p>I do take this stuff seriously - faux science packaged up in a pseudo-academic cover, accompanied by attacks on anyone who questions the validity of the outcome, as Kleck (and a thousand pro-gun websites) does to Hemenway is a bad combination for anyone interested in a reasonable assessment of the issue. I’m neither “pro-gun” nor “anti-gun” - guns are just devices, which have their appropriate - and inappropriate - uses. I don’t cotton to the “You’re 11 times more likely to be shot with your own gun” claims any more than I like to see public discussion debased with stuff like Kleck’s clearly bad science. I would like to be able to undertake a reasoned risk/benefit analysis on the merits of having a gun in my home, and for others to be able to do the same. Kleck doesn’t help, plain and simple.</p>
<p>Sometimes the two commingle on serious and weighty questions. I have seen nothing that suggests he’s motivated by anything outside of academic work.</p>
)</p>