- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,742
- 32,611
- 2,300
Actually I don;t own one yet, however I refuse to give up my right to own one without a lot of bullshit (which is the case in NYC, 6 month wait and $1000 just to get a freaking revolver for home use).
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Good guy with a gun saves woman being stabbed to death...
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Actually I don;t own one yet, however I refuse to give up my right to own one without a lot of bullshit (which is the case in NYC, 6 month wait and $1000 just to get a freaking revolver for home use).
- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,742
- 32,611
- 2,300
Gun in the holster does not make her a jackass, spouting off about your 2nd amendment rights and your willingness to exercise said right in an excited manner makes you a jackass. It could have been a large Red Snapper in her hand, and her threatening to exercise her Red Snapper upside your head rights, and she still would have been wrong.
I dont think that she admitted to reciting her rights in an excited or threatening manner.
So does open carrying a gun mean that you are an unstable wacko? It doesnt to me, but I have been surprised at how many pro-gun people consider open carry only for wack jobs.
Not at all, however when a person decides to open carry, they have to realize they are armed, and have to act with a certain level of decorum due to their being armed.
Wilbur Right
Silver Member
- Nov 27, 2015
- 2,710
- 363
- 90
Actually I don;t own one yet, however I refuse to give up my right to own one without a lot of bullshit (which is the case in NYC, 6 month wait and $1000 just to get a freaking revolver for home use).
Are you not afraid to go out and about without a gun? You know there is a lot of crime out there.
1.5 millions defensive guns uses a year is a lot of defensive uses. You better get a gun before its to late.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
And what else do we learn about crime...
Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2011, surveys indicated more than 5.8 million violent victimizations and 17.1 million property victimizations took place in the United States; according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, each property victimization corresponded to one household, while violent victimizations is the number of victims of a violent crime.[31]
That is the same survey that says there are about 108k DGUs.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #126
Gun in the holster does not make her a jackass, spouting off about your 2nd amendment rights and your willingness to exercise said right in an excited manner makes you a jackass. It could have been a large Red Snapper in her hand, and her threatening to exercise her Red Snapper upside your head rights, and she still would have been wrong.
I dont think that she admitted to reciting her rights in an excited or threatening manner.
So does open carrying a gun mean that you are an unstable wacko? It doesnt to me, but I have been surprised at how many pro-gun people consider open carry only for wack jobs.
open carry is more of a political statement about the right to bear arms....and showing the public they don't have to fear gun owners.....
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
No, that is the national crime victimization survey......
and the actual research catches the self defense uses that are not recorded........the one above actually counts arrests....
The NCVS is the department of Justice survey. 108k. Glad you have become a believer.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #128
No, that is the national crime victimization survey......
and the actual research catches the self defense uses that are not recorded........the one above actually counts arrests....
The NCVS is the department of Justice survey. 108k. Glad you have become a believer.
of course you still cling to the National Crime Victimization Survey.....the only survey you guys cite......the only survey that is not a survey of self defense gun use, and one that never actually uses the word "gun" in it.......
so of course in your child like fantasy world it is the most accurate simply because guns are never mentioned, asked about or included in any way shape or form in the survey.......it is also pointed out by critics that the NCVS can't even get accurate numbers for sexual assault...an actual category it does directly ask about.....
using the NCVS to support your points is like using a study about driving in a car where a couple of the respondents mention going to the store to buy juice...and then claiming that the study is the definitive work on juice drinking habits of the American people....a study not actually created to study juice consumption, which never asks one question about juice consumption, and doesn't have the word "juice" in it...
that is the child like fantasy world you live in brain...
Actual research is fake.......non existent research is real...
As I always say, lefty gun grabbers suffer from reality dyslexia...and you prove it with every post...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #129
for anyone interested...here is Dr. Gary Kleck's response to the attacks on his research, and in fact the other 18 studies that show defensive gun use is common and done in large numbers every year.....he takes on all of the anti gun nuts and points out how wrong they are, and does so in great depth.......he also points out why the NCVS is wrong, and takes on hemenwayrebutt and cook and other anti gun researchers. this is from the 90s when they first came after him....
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls (H) claims, we
1. Introduction
It has now been confirmed by at least 16 surveys, including the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS) of Kleck and Gertz (1995), 12 other national surveys, and 3 state-wide surveys, that defensive use of firearms by crime victims is common in the United States, probably substantially more common than criminal uses of guns by offenders.
The estimates of the annual number of defensive uses of guns in the United States range from 760,000 to 3.6 million, with the best estimate, derived from the NSDS, being 2.5 million, compared to about a half a million incidents in which offenders used guns to commit a crime (Kleck 1997, pp. 149-160, 187-189; see also the more recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of Ikeda, Dahlberg, Sacks, Mercy, and Powell 1997, which estimated 1.0 million defensive gun uses linked with burglaries in which the intruder was seen, compared to 0.9 million such incidents derived from the Kleck-Gertz survey, 1995, pp. 184-185, estimates within sampling error of each other).
It has also been consistently and repeatedly confirmed that defensive gun use (DGU) is effective: crime victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or lose property than otherwise similar victims in otherwise similar crime situations who either do not resist at all or who use other self-protection strategies (the body of evidence is reviewed in Kleck 1997, pp. 170-175). In recent years, it has become increasingly rare that critics dispute the claim that DGU id effective.
Instead, pro-control critics have focussed their efforts on their claim that, despite the enormous body of evidence indicating otherwise, DGU is actually rare. Thus, they argue, it is of little consequence for gun control policy that DGU is effective, since it is so infrequent. The critics’ discussion of the topic of the frequency of DGU is strident, polemical, and extreme. For example, Philip Cook and his colleagues baldly describe large estimates of DGU frequency as a “mythical number” (1997, p. 463). Likewise, an article by David Hemenway (1997a) was brazenly titled “The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses.” In another article by Hemenway (1997b), his title implicitly took it as given that DGUs are rare, and that surveys indicating the opposite grossly overstate DGU frequency. For Hemenway, the only scholarly task that remained was to explain why surveys did this: “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimation.” Finally, McDowall and Wiersema (1994), although well aware of the large number of surveys yielding large DGU estimates, nevertheless flatly concluded, in extremely strong terms, that “armed self-defense is extremely rare” (p. 1884). This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.
These critics do not support the low-DGU thesis primarily by affirmatively presenting relevant empirical evidence indicating few DGUs.
The only empirical evidence affirmatively cited in support of the low-DGU thesis is the uniquely low estimates derived from the NCVS. The critics appear in no way embarrassed by the fact that the only national estimate they can cite in support of their theory is a survey that does not even ask respondents the key question––whether they have used a gun for self-protection.
Instead, the critics get around the large volume of contrary survey evidence by pronouncing all of it invalid and insisting that all surveys (excepting the NCVS?) grossly overstate the frequency of DGU.
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls (H) claims, we
1. Introduction
It has now been confirmed by at least 16 surveys, including the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS) of Kleck and Gertz (1995), 12 other national surveys, and 3 state-wide surveys, that defensive use of firearms by crime victims is common in the United States, probably substantially more common than criminal uses of guns by offenders.
The estimates of the annual number of defensive uses of guns in the United States range from 760,000 to 3.6 million, with the best estimate, derived from the NSDS, being 2.5 million, compared to about a half a million incidents in which offenders used guns to commit a crime (Kleck 1997, pp. 149-160, 187-189; see also the more recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of Ikeda, Dahlberg, Sacks, Mercy, and Powell 1997, which estimated 1.0 million defensive gun uses linked with burglaries in which the intruder was seen, compared to 0.9 million such incidents derived from the Kleck-Gertz survey, 1995, pp. 184-185, estimates within sampling error of each other).
It has also been consistently and repeatedly confirmed that defensive gun use (DGU) is effective: crime victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or lose property than otherwise similar victims in otherwise similar crime situations who either do not resist at all or who use other self-protection strategies (the body of evidence is reviewed in Kleck 1997, pp. 170-175). In recent years, it has become increasingly rare that critics dispute the claim that DGU id effective.
Instead, pro-control critics have focussed their efforts on their claim that, despite the enormous body of evidence indicating otherwise, DGU is actually rare. Thus, they argue, it is of little consequence for gun control policy that DGU is effective, since it is so infrequent. The critics’ discussion of the topic of the frequency of DGU is strident, polemical, and extreme. For example, Philip Cook and his colleagues baldly describe large estimates of DGU frequency as a “mythical number” (1997, p. 463). Likewise, an article by David Hemenway (1997a) was brazenly titled “The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses.” In another article by Hemenway (1997b), his title implicitly took it as given that DGUs are rare, and that surveys indicating the opposite grossly overstate DGU frequency. For Hemenway, the only scholarly task that remained was to explain why surveys did this: “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimation.” Finally, McDowall and Wiersema (1994), although well aware of the large number of surveys yielding large DGU estimates, nevertheless flatly concluded, in extremely strong terms, that “armed self-defense is extremely rare” (p. 1884). This conclusion was based entirely on a single survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which did not even directly ask respondents about defensive gun use.
These critics do not support the low-DGU thesis primarily by affirmatively presenting relevant empirical evidence indicating few DGUs.
The only empirical evidence affirmatively cited in support of the low-DGU thesis is the uniquely low estimates derived from the NCVS. The critics appear in no way embarrassed by the fact that the only national estimate they can cite in support of their theory is a survey that does not even ask respondents the key question––whether they have used a gun for self-protection.
Instead, the critics get around the large volume of contrary survey evidence by pronouncing all of it invalid and insisting that all surveys (excepting the NCVS?) grossly overstate the frequency of DGU.
Last edited:
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
No, that is the national crime victimization survey......
and the actual research catches the self defense uses that are not recorded........the one above actually counts arrests....
The NCVS is the department of Justice survey. 108k. Glad you have become a believer.
of course you still cling to the National Crime Victimization Survey.....the only survey you guys cite......the only survey that is not a survey of self defense gun use, and one that never actually uses the word "gun" in it.......
so of course in your child like fantasy world it is the most accurate simply because guns are never mentioned, asked about or included in any way shape or form in the survey.......it is also pointed out by critics that the NCVS can't even get accurate numbers for sexual assault...an actual category it does directly ask about.....
using the NCVS to support your points is like using a study about driving in a car where a couple of the respondents mention going to the store to buy juice...and then claiming that the study is the definitive work on juice drinking habits of the American people....a study not actually created to study juice consumption, which never asks one question about juice consumption, and doesn't have the word "juice" in it...
that is the child like fantasy world you live in brain...
Actual research is fake.......non existent research is real...
As I always say, lefty gun grabbers suffer from reality dyslexia...and you prove it with every post...
You are the one living in fantasy land. It is the only survey big enough to be accurate. And to have a DGU you must first have a crime so it is perfect. And you are quoting it so obviously you should agree.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #131
No, that is the national crime victimization survey......
and the actual research catches the self defense uses that are not recorded........the one above actually counts arrests....
The NCVS is the department of Justice survey. 108k. Glad you have become a believer.
of course you still cling to the National Crime Victimization Survey.....the only survey you guys cite......the only survey that is not a survey of self defense gun use, and one that never actually uses the word "gun" in it.......
so of course in your child like fantasy world it is the most accurate simply because guns are never mentioned, asked about or included in any way shape or form in the survey.......it is also pointed out by critics that the NCVS can't even get accurate numbers for sexual assault...an actual category it does directly ask about.....
using the NCVS to support your points is like using a study about driving in a car where a couple of the respondents mention going to the store to buy juice...and then claiming that the study is the definitive work on juice drinking habits of the American people....a study not actually created to study juice consumption, which never asks one question about juice consumption, and doesn't have the word "juice" in it...
that is the child like fantasy world you live in brain...
Actual research is fake.......non existent research is real...
As I always say, lefty gun grabbers suffer from reality dyslexia...and you prove it with every post...
You are the one living in fantasy land. It is the only survey big enough to be accurate. And to have a DGU you must first have a crime so it is perfect. And you are quoting it so obviously you should agree.
Brain...it was shown that it can't even accurately measure sexual assaults....a crime category it actually asks about......
keep making things up...I know you can't help yourself...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #132
More direct Kleck responses to the gun debate from 1995...
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence. 29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, 31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee. Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers. The NCVS was not designed to estimat
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence. 29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, 31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee. Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers. The NCVS was not designed to estimat
Last edited:
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
No, that is the national crime victimization survey......
and the actual research catches the self defense uses that are not recorded........the one above actually counts arrests....
The NCVS is the department of Justice survey. 108k. Glad you have become a believer.
of course you still cling to the National Crime Victimization Survey.....the only survey you guys cite......the only survey that is not a survey of self defense gun use, and one that never actually uses the word "gun" in it.......
so of course in your child like fantasy world it is the most accurate simply because guns are never mentioned, asked about or included in any way shape or form in the survey.......it is also pointed out by critics that the NCVS can't even get accurate numbers for sexual assault...an actual category it does directly ask about.....
using the NCVS to support your points is like using a study about driving in a car where a couple of the respondents mention going to the store to buy juice...and then claiming that the study is the definitive work on juice drinking habits of the American people....a study not actually created to study juice consumption, which never asks one question about juice consumption, and doesn't have the word "juice" in it...
that is the child like fantasy world you live in brain...
Actual research is fake.......non existent research is real...
As I always say, lefty gun grabbers suffer from reality dyslexia...and you prove it with every post...
You are the one living in fantasy land. It is the only survey big enough to be accurate. And to have a DGU you must first have a crime so it is perfect. And you are quoting it so obviously you should agree.
Brain...it was shown that it can't even accurately measure sexual assaults....a crime category it actually asks about......
keep making things up...I know you can't help yourself...
You were just quoting it. So it is accurate depending if the results agree with you? Oh that is very honest.
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
More direct Kleck responses to the gun debate from 1995...
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
Why is it kleck is the only one who will defend kleck? Nobody who can be taken seriously has defended his numbers.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #135
More direct Kleck responses to the gun debate from 1995...
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
Why is it kleck is the only one who will defend kleck? Nobody who can be taken seriously has defended his numbers.
Sorry...you are wrong again........
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #136
More from Kleck on other studies....
Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.3 7 It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,38 that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure. In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1
Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.3 7 It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,38 that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure. In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #137
No, that is the national crime victimization survey......
and the actual research catches the self defense uses that are not recorded........the one above actually counts arrests....
The NCVS is the department of Justice survey. 108k. Glad you have become a believer.
of course you still cling to the National Crime Victimization Survey.....the only survey you guys cite......the only survey that is not a survey of self defense gun use, and one that never actually uses the word "gun" in it.......
so of course in your child like fantasy world it is the most accurate simply because guns are never mentioned, asked about or included in any way shape or form in the survey.......it is also pointed out by critics that the NCVS can't even get accurate numbers for sexual assault...an actual category it does directly ask about.....
using the NCVS to support your points is like using a study about driving in a car where a couple of the respondents mention going to the store to buy juice...and then claiming that the study is the definitive work on juice drinking habits of the American people....a study not actually created to study juice consumption, which never asks one question about juice consumption, and doesn't have the word "juice" in it...
that is the child like fantasy world you live in brain...
Actual research is fake.......non existent research is real...
As I always say, lefty gun grabbers suffer from reality dyslexia...and you prove it with every post...
You are the one living in fantasy land. It is the only survey big enough to be accurate. And to have a DGU you must first have a crime so it is perfect. And you are quoting it so obviously you should agree.
Brain...it was shown that it can't even accurately measure sexual assaults....a crime category it actually asks about......
keep making things up...I know you can't help yourself...
You were just quoting it. So it is accurate depending if the results agree with you? Oh that is very honest.
Nope.....you know I have posted the other government study that shows the NCVS can't even count the things it is supposed to accurately...that you pretend that study doesn't exist shows you are a liar....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #138
From Marvin Wolfgang......on Kleck.....and his study..
Who is Marvin Wolfgang...
Marvin Wolfgang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The British Journal of Criminology stated he was "the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world."
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc
Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.
The first paragraph reads:
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:
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.
Who is Marvin Wolfgang...
Marvin Wolfgang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The British Journal of Criminology stated he was "the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world."
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6873&context=jclc
Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.
The first paragraph reads:
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:
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.
Last edited:
Brain357
Platinum Member
- Mar 30, 2013
- 37,068
- 4,189
- 1,130
More from Kleck on other studies....
Nevertheless, among these imperfect surveys, two were relatively good for present purposes. Both the Hart survey in 1981 and the Mauser survey in 1990 were national surveys which asked carefully worded questions directed at all Rs in their samples. Both surveys excluded uses against animals and occupational uses. The two also nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey asked only about uses of handguns, while the Mauser survey asked about uses of all gun types. The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun.3 7 It should be stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,38 that neither of these estimates entailed the use of "dubious adjustment procedures." The percent of sample households reporting a DGU was simply multiplied by the total number of U.S. households, resulting in an estimate of DGU-involved households. This figure, compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per-year figure. In effect, each of the surveys summarized in Table 1
More kleck defending kleck? Geez wonder why he would defend his own study...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,984
- 52,273
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #140
And why the National Crime Victimization Survey is crap...
National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.
How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....
But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:
So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...
There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)
NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.
But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).
NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.
So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........
National Crime Victimization Survey A new report finds that the Justice Department has been undercounting instances of rape and sexual assault.
How helpful, then, that the Justice Department asked the National Research Council (part of the National Academies, which also includes the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine) to study how successfully the federal government measures rape. The answer has just arrived, in a report out Tuesday with the headline from the press release: “The National Crime Victimization Survey Is Likely Undercounting Rape and Sexual Assault.” We’re not talking about small fractions—we’re talking about the kind of potentially massive underestimate that the military and the Justice Department have warned about for years—and that could be throwing a wrench into the effort to do the most effective type of rape prevention.....
But here are the flaws that call the nice-sounding stats into doubt: The NCVS is designed to measure all kinds of crime victimization. The questions it poses about sexual violence are embedded among questions that ask about lots of other types of crime. For example:
So......the NCVS can't get an accurate account of what it is researching....how do we know this...the numbers are off...
There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.)
NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do.
But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated).
NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.
So no....the NCVS is not a tool to understand the use of guns for self defense..........
Similar threads
- Replies
- 56
- Views
- 511
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 252
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 123
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 943
- Replies
- 104
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 100
- Views
- 505
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8137
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 472
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-