Reviewing Kleck
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.
More bullshit from JG. If you read interviews with Kleck, he freely admits that the percentage of people who shoot at, wound, and kill assailants should be interpreted with great caution because of the sample sizes for those types of incidents are very small.
Says Kleck: “KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be too sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two people who freely offered the information that they had, indeed, killed someone. Keep in mind that the 8 percent figure is based on so few cases that you have to interpret it with great caution.”
Kleck freely cautioned against the kind of extrapolation Jadefairy is attempting because of sample size concerns, but idiots like Jade and Hemenway ignore that caution and engage in all sorts of tomfoolery anyway because it suits their agenda.
Kinda like when the FBI says “do NOT use gun trace data to extrapolate crime trends”…but idiots like the Bradys and the VPC do anyway.
Only the most gravely injured bad guy goes to a hospital, so you can’t use ER data to infer anything anyway.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 27, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
Oh, and the figure Kleck reported for wounded perps was based on people who *thought* they wounded the bad guy–not people who positively had done so with documentation.
JG isn’t telling the truth…shocker, eh? Stop the presses!
From another analysis: “Kleck believes the 8 percent wounding is probably exageration since the survey acquired no proof of the respondents’ beliefs or information as to why the respondent believed the person was shot. He thinks this mainly because the numbers would correspond to the shooter hitting the person about 53 percent of the time, and this is greater than records indicate for police combat shooting and for criminal shooting.”
In other words…Jadepussy is engaging in a classic strawman, putting a false argument in Kleck’s mouth and then making a big show of knocking down the argument that Kleck isn’t even bothering to make.
Comment by Sebastian-PGP — November 27, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
He will likely back himself up with the research of Michael A. Bellesiles, he was the the toast of VPC, now he’s just toast
Comment by JDFAR — November 28, 2007 @ 9:04 am
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.”
Comment by JDFAR — November 28, 2007 @ 9:18 am
“Next up: eviscerating Kleck’s methodology.”
And more resounding failure, when we throw the truth back in your face. I can hardly wait!
Comment by Jay — November 28, 2007 @ 4:57 pm