[quote]
However, various other arguments against the K-G estimates do not shed much light on the situation. Figures on UFOs and the mentally ill are not particularly relevant or useful.</p>
<p>If we factor in some of the probable over- and underestimates affecting the NCVS and K-G 1993 survey, the widely divergent figures on DGUs draw much closer together. The latest figures from the NCVS indicate 108,000 DGUs per annum. [40] If this is adjusted for a 50% under-reporting due to not directly asking for DGUs, this increases the estimate to 216,000. Next, research by Cook and Ludwig suggests that perhaps 16-42% of DGUs involve crimes not covered by the NCVS. [41] Adding in these would raise DGUs to 256,500-373,000.</p>
<p>Similarly, using the average of the K-G one-year lower (B) estimate and the NSPOF figure gives a starting estimate of 1,810,000. Assuming a net cognitive over-reporting (telescoping-forgetting) of 50%, [42] reduces the figure to 1,210,000. [43] These estimates should draw even closer together if other measurement errors could be factored in. [44] But even as they stand, the gulf has been narrowed from 30+:1 to 3.2-5.6:1.<a href=“I%20haven’t%20found%20anything%20to%20suggest%20Smith%20has%20an%20axe%20to%20grind,%20regarding%20the%20debate,%20and%20his%20numbers%20might%20be%20of%20use%20in%20a%20reasoned%20risk/benefit%20analysis”>/quote</a></p>
<p>I actually don’t care whether someone has an axe to grind, if their analysis makes sense. Much of what Smith writes does, in fact make sense. And Smith makes no bones about it: Kleck and Gertz are wrong:
And the theory offered by Kleck as to why his numbers are so much higher than those of the NCVS is that people conceal the fact that they have used a gun in self defense because they, themselves, were committing a crime at the time:
Kleck’s other explanation is that people conceal stuff from the Census Bureau people who perform the NCVS because they’re from the government. Smith:
I could go on and on (of course) but the bottom line is that Kleck’s study is bad science - literally “not worth the paper its printed on.” Whether that’s because Kleck is a Democrat or Republican, has an axe to grind as a pro-gun guy or not doesn’t make any difference. His study is junk. And more to the point, it should be immediately obvious to just about anyone that it is junk. Failure to recognize it as junk is the phenomenon which fascinates me. Accepting uncritically that there’s actually statistically about a 1 in 100 chance of foiling a crime with your gun every year of your adult life, when not a single CC poster reports ever having done so themselves, and only a couple report stories from other people they know in which they report a DGU should pretty much tip off anyone. </p>
<p>A couple of other observations: If the majority of DGU’s really do involve people who are themselves engaged in criminal activity, as Kleck argues, what does this mean for us law-abiding folks? We’re still not doing much of this DGUing, are we? Next, if part of the difference between the NCVS and Kleck is the failure to include DGU’s involved in “defending” against crimes like “trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief” in the NCVS how does that impact the calculation of risk/benefit to having a gun in the house? I mean, I’m pretty sure that people aren’t buying guns to protect their houses from getting TP’d. </p>
<p>Which brings me to the bottom line: what does any of this tell us about the likelihood of increasing rather than decreasing the overall safety and security of the average middle class family living in the average middle class neighborhood by buying a gun? When all the massaging is done on Kleck’s survey to try to drag it into the realm of less than laugh-out-loud wrong, haven’t we pretty much eliminated all of the scenarios that the CC Parents are worried about? We’re not engaged in criminal activity (I assume.) We’re not packing heat to scare off trespassers. We’re not cops (who were included in the NCVS DGU numbers.) </p>
<p>And even the accurate count of DGU’s isn’t the end of the risk/benefit analysis because just because a gun was used in a defense scenario doesn’t necessarily mean that it was needed. I’ve shared my own two “foiled crimes” stories, neither of which involved a gun, but either of which could have. If a gun had been present and had been mentioned, either event would have qualified as a bona fide “DGU”. Except that the gun would in fact have just been decoration. By one count burglaries constitute about 1/3 of the crimes foiled in DGU situations. But it’s hard to know how many of those burglaries would have been foiled all the same if the homeowner hadn’t been armed (as I wasn’t.)</p>
<p>When you really get down to it, the actual question becomes, not what is the total number of foiled crimes which occur all over America in which the would-be victim had a gun, but how likely is it that a CC Parent might ever be enabled to prevent a crime being committed against a member of his or her family because a gun was purchased for the home? That requires both that the criminal event occurs and that the gun is available for use and critical to the good outcome of the event. The odds are longer than the Kleck-Gertz 1 in a 100 per year numbers suggest. A whole lot longer.</p>
<p>Ok, Kluge, got that you think Kleck’s methods are in error. I’ve carved that observation in marble here at the p2n library. Unfortunately, that view is not shared by many and apparently not by many in positions of authority. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The electrons are certainly free.</p>
<p>Here is one testament to Kleck by one who’d just has soon found his work in serious error as you repeatedly suggest:
Wolfgang died two years later at the age of 73; it does not appear that he ever performed a rigorous assessment of the Kleck study, and most of his later writing appears to have been more chatty than academic.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not interested in whether a person is “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” - that’s the essence of an ad hominem argument. Wolfgang acknowledges that he did not essay a disciplined look into Kleck’s work. Kind of reminds me of the retired professors trotted out by the global warming deniers and propped up and lionized as authorities. You can always find one or two. Kind of sad, really.</p>
<p>I’m beginning to think that no matter WHO (What expert) agreed with Kleck; Kluge would still disagree because of his position on guns. I know because of my pro-gun position, I too will lean more towards reports that favor that opinion. But Kleck is correct that there are a lot of people who don’t admit using a gun for defensive means. I have personal experience with 3 cases where this was an issue. 3 home crimes (2 with relatives); 1 with a close friend. Cousin in New Jersey used a hand gun to thwart a break-in in his apartment. While my cousin didn’t have to pull the trigger; the appearance of the gun was enough to hold the criminal at bay on his knees until the police arrived. After all the police reports and arresting the criminal; the police confiscated my cousin’s handgun because he didn’t have a permit to have it. It was never returned to him. And charges were actually in the process to fine my cousin for possessing a gun without the proper permit. It wasn’t until my aunt leaked to the local news paper the charges, who in turn put pressure on the police. They dropped the charges but never returned the gun. My mother and a close friend both confronted a break in and the criminals only left after seeing the guns. Neither reported the “Scaring the criminal off with a gun” part to the police because they didn’t want their guns confiscated. </p>
<p>So while I’m sure that Kleck may not have 100% correct with all of his data, I do believe that a lot more crimes are thwarted with armed victims. And that there’s a lot more than publicly reported because the victims didn’t actually have to fire the weapon; didn’t want to be involved in a controversy with the police; and/or didn’t what it reported in the news where others who knew them would now know they had a gun. Because of stereotypes and certain attitudes, guns are very much a Private issue with most gun owners. They don’t want to advertise. Matter of fact; I will have to look for the article again; but it was reported than more than 85% of all those with a concealed weapons permit keep it private and don’t even tell many family members or close friends. This way it stays private, plus it doesn’t make anti-gun/gun nervous friends uncomfortable. Especially when socializing or inviting the person to their house. Yes; I believe that there are a lot more defensive uses of guns that aren’t reported.</p>