GunLoons and DGUs
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.
Here’s the scoop on the guy who criticized Kleck’s methodology, from the man himself: “Hemenway has close ties to HCI through two key staff members of HCI’s “educational” branch, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV). His closest and most frequent collaborator on gun-related research is Douglas Weil, currently Research Director of CPHV,[1] while H has co-edited a strongly pro- control propaganda tract with Dennis A. Henigan, legal counsel to HCI and CPHV.”
Yeah, that’s a credible guy, alright. Sheesh.
As I noted in the comment that may or may not appear thanks to Jadeschmuck’s comment censor, there have been 14 noted studies on DGU, and all but one have estimated DGU to occur on the order of magnitude of 1-2 mil per year. The other was the widely discreted NCVS study, which nobody thinks is legit.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 25, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Classic ad hominem attack from S the LC™. Note I didn’t mention Hemenway, yet S the LC™ feels the need to attack Dr. Hemenway–not on the basis of his research.
…..
Ok, if that’s the way S the LC™ wants it–let’s apply the standard to him. S the LC™ is associated with both the NRA and GOP. Thus, we are free to disbelieve anything he says on that basis.
Comment by Administrator — November 25, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Fair enough, I’m associated with neither of those groups, but share a lot of his views.
It’s possible to have that point of view without political/activist affiliation, and I can back those ideas with empirical evidence provided by the US government.
The NRA is biased, obviously, and should thus be approached with caution as well, but that doesn’t mean that all of the information provided by them is false, wrong or misleading, and anybody who would assume so is not being rational.
The exact same things can of course be said over the Brady campaign.
Comment by Michael H — November 26, 2007 @ 7:43 am
You didn’t mention Hemenway? Bullshit of the most succulent variety–you simply linked to discussion of his criticism of Kleck.
And the point is that Kleck and others have indeed shown that Hemenway’s methodology is flawed–he all but ignores DGUs where shots aren’t fired and engaged in all sorts of slight of hand to minimize DGU. Kleck on the other hand isn’t associated with the NRA or any other gun lobbying group–and is in fact a former advocate of strong gun control. His credibility thus far exceeds Hemenway’s.
How is your credibility any good? You say I’m associated with the GOP, which is in point of fact completely untrue.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 26, 2007 @ 10:21 am