Left Rudder

Who can forget:

I don’t recall ever saying I could KO either of those men (although with the Okinawan karate and Muay Thai experience I have, if the rules permitted me to use my legs and elbows and knees, a boxer who’s only trained in using his fists would be in trouble if a real fight broke out…

For the record, Sebastian is claiming Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson would be in “trouble” if they ever took on Sebastian. Personally, I believe the only trouble Lewis or Tyson would be in is with lawyers for the posthumous Sebastian.

More fun:

… says just the act of carrying a gun makes a person less likely to be caught off guard. “When you’re carrying you are hypervigilant,” he says. “You have this tremendous responsibility; you have to be extremely careful not to reveal [the gun] or let someone take it away. I made myself a target by walking slow, looking at the ground, talking on my cell at 10 p.m.”

Imagine that! Just the act of carrying a firearm makes you like Spiderman (”with great power, comes great responsibility”); a gun has magical powers.

Somebody’s compensating.

Kleck’s ’studies’ rely on anonymous phone surveys. These surveys are known as self-report surveys. Self-report surveys are troublesome because there’s virtually no way to omit responses which are untrue, misunderstood, misremembered, misinterpreted or are just plain lies.

As I sagely noted before, a DGU is a subjective thing; it means different things to different people.

Additionally, some people will often tell a questioner what he/she thinks the questioner wants to hear. It’s not done out of malice or ignorance–it’s just a fact of self-report surveys; some respondents will tell you what they believe you wish to hear. A self-report survey on who subscribes to Sports Illustrated , several years ago produced a finding that subscription rates to the magazine were 4-5 times higher than reality.

Similarly, respondents in self-report surveys will often tell questioners what they they think makes them look good. Example, self-report surveys concerning issues such as seat belt usage or library card ownership often contain large exaggerations. It’s easy to see a person who owns a firearm might wish to place himself in a heroic light by claiming a DGU.

There are also false responses from respondents who may be mentally ill, impaired, or otherwise unable to respond accurately.

Finally, there are mischievous responses; that is, respondents who knowingly lie.

As I eloquently sliced and diced Kleck, a commenter, JDFAR, uses a common gunloon myth:

Furthermore, criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang, who has researched guns and violence for more than 25 years and is one of the most outspoken opponents of private gun ownership, after reading this study, praised the methodology that was used, in a paper titled “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, Issue 1 (Fall 1995), p. 188.

In that article, Wolfgang begins by saying:

“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police.”

Those are certainly not the views of your ordinary anti-gun type. This is a man represents the ultimate in anti-gun philosophy. But to his credit as a researcher, he was not so proud that he would deny the excellent methodology employed by Kleck and Gertz. He went on to say:

“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator… I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.”

Wolfgang concludes by saying:

“The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

Two problems. First, JDFAR has plagiarized the comments of one John Gaver, word for word. Bad form, this. If you insist on parroting others, at least have the common decency to attribute the work of others.

Second problem, JDFAR (and the man he plagiarized) omit certain statements from Wolfgang. Why? Because those words change the entire tone. Marvin Wofgang:

“The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.” (J of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:2 p617-8)

Before moving on and taking a look at Kleck’s extremely flawed methodology, it is helpful to review, once more, what Kleck’s own ’study’ tells us. When we compare these ‘findings’ with actual stats, we can see just how ridiculous Kleck’s ‘2.5M DGUs’ claim is.

Bear in mind, these are just a few examples. There are more.

1. Using nothing but Kleck’s own figures and assumptions, there should be 30,000 justifiable homicides and 200,000 justifiable woundings each year. Of course, FBI Uniform Crime Reports note fewer than 300 justifiable homicides each year–from all causes.

2. Using Kleck’s figures and assumptions, 153% of all burglaries occurring when a resident with a gun is home are prevented. 153%.

3. Using nothing but Kleck’s own figures and assumptions, 82% of all gun crimes are foiled by a DGU.

Next up: eviscerating Kleck’s methodology.

Whacks on, whacks off.

It’s almost like shooting fish in a barrel.

Again, we use Kleck’s own survey numbers and compare them with actual stats; hilarity ensues.

Kleck acknowledges there are some 550,000 gun crimes annually in the US. According to Kleck’s DGU ’study’, 18% of all DGUs involved an assailant who had a firearm.

Away we go to Mr. Calculator:

.18 (% of DGUs involving a gun-toting assailant) x 2.5M DGUs = 450,000 DGUs involving gun-toting assailant

450,000 DGUs involving gun-toting assailant/550,000 gun crimes annually = 82% of all gun crimes foiled by DGU.

Wow.

As noted previously, Kleck’s many DGU surveys have some problems. When we compare Kleck’s statistical inferences to real-life facts, Kleck is often found wanting.

Here’s another example. According to Kleck, in 34% of his DGUs–the criminal was in the act of commiting a burglary. In the year of Kleck’s ’study’, there were 6M burglaries. Of these 6M burglaries, 22% were committed when a resident was home (~1.3M burglaries). Further, Kleck estimates 42% of US homes have a firearm. Again, we go to the calculator:

6M (total burglaries in US) x .22 (% of burglaries committed with at-home resident) x .42 (% of households with firearm) = 554, 400 burglaries

.34 (% of DGUs involved in burglary) x 2.5M DGUs = 850,000 burglaries

This means, according to Kleck, burglaries were foiled by a DGU in 153% of all cases. IOW, all burglaries occurring when a resident with a gun is home are prevented–not just once but more than 1.5 times.

Since our resident Muay Thai expert and GOP-activist-claiming-to-be-progressive seems to believe Gary Kleck is well-respected, it would be helpful to revisit a couple of posts. Namely, this one and this one.

Both deal with Kleck’s flawed methodology and his rather bizarre claims WRT DGUs. It also explains why Kleck’s several DGU ’studies’ have such varied results.

Gunloons have a problem with Kleck, however. They don’t know it, though, because most gunloons don’t read and merely parrot what the NRA tells them. In fact, Kleck has publicly dismissed much of John Lott’s nonsense. In addition, Kleck’s book , Targetting Guns, has as its thesis the notion the good and bad effects of gun ownership have no appreciable effect on crime.

NYTimes:

New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year, by far the lowest number in a 12-month period since reliable Police Department statistics became available in 1963.

But within the city’s official crime statistics is a figure that may be even more striking: so far, with roughly half the killings analyzed, only 35 were found to be committed by strangers, a microscopic statistic in a city of more than 8.2 million.

The major lesson learned here is one that Gary Kleck knew back in 1994, when he said in US News & World Report (15 Aug 94):

“There is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there’s so little risk of crime. People don’t believe it, but it’s true. You just can’t convince most Americans they’re not at serious risk.”

Gunloons live in a world of their design; a world where mortal danger lurks behind every corner. In reality, the greatest risk factor involves your own relationships; your chances of being assaulted by a total stranger are very small–the real risk is a domestic altercation that spirals out of control.

Of course, one needs to understand gunloons, for the most part, are frightened and confused people.