Dr. Kleck rebutts old criticism of his famous gun study in new article in 2015...

[2aguy]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

To summarize, notwithstanding DeFillipis and Hughes’ one-sided cherry-picking of the research evidence, surveys do not overestimate the number of DGUs (or anything else crime-related), and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.




As to DeFillipis and Hughes’ motives for working so long and hard to get the DGU estimate down, I believe the most likely explanation is that they hope that total gun prohibition will one day be politically achievable, and they recognize that high numbers of DGUs each year would present an enormous obstacle to persuading Americans that disarming noncriminals would be without serious costs. No one who supported only moderate controls but who opposed total prohibition would care about high estimates of DGUs by noncriminals, since they would be unaffected by moderate controls that do not disarm noncriminals, such as background checks.

 

[Brain357]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

 

[2aguy]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

Sorry brain, he addresses that particular false hood about burglaries somewhere in his various defenses of his study...he points it out, and when I can dig through it all again, I'll find it......

 

[Brain357]

and at least 18 national surveys have consistently confirmed that DGUs are very common, probably more common than criminal uses of guns.

looks like he has gone from 3-4 times more than criminal use to probably more....

 

[Brain357]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

Sorry brain, he addresses that particular false hood about burglaries somewhere in his various defenses of his study...he points it out, and when I can dig through it all again, I'll find it......

Yes and his defense makes no sense based on what he is saying now.

 

[Moonglow]

So the doc is rebutting,,,,,sounds like a ghey thang...

 

[Brain357]

The Defensive Gun Use Statistics

So this is supposed to be Kleck:
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

How does he now say most aren't at home? He seems confused. Lott said all his were defending home.

 

[August West]

What about those bra holsters though?
Woman who fatally shot herself in eye was adjusting her bra holster St. Joseph police say MLive.com

 

[2aguy]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......

Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed.

YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

 

[Brain357]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......

Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed.

YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

 

[2aguy]

And more on wether the respondents in the research were criminals or law abiding citizens....

Regarding possibility (2), Kleck and Gertz (1995, p. 174)
noted that most of the reported DGUs were linked with the types
of crimes––burglaries, robberies, and sexual assaults––where
there is little possibility of partic ipants being honestly mistaken
about who was the victim and who was the offender, or whether
their gun use was genuinely defensive.

While some respondents
may well have consciously misrepresented aggressive actions as
defensive, and a very few might have consciously invented
entirely fictitious events, it is hard to see how respondents could
report an account of a real burglary, robbery, or sexual assault in
Journal on Firearms Volume Eleven
109
which they were aggressors and somehow unconsciously or
honestly distort their own criminal, aggressive use of a gun into a
“defensive” use.

 

[2aguy]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......

Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed.

YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

Read the actual research....he explains everything......

 

[Brain357]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......

Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed.

YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

Read the actual research....he explains everything......

I posted a quote where he said most were at home. Lott has said all his were home. How is he now saying most are in public?

 

[2aguy]

Found it...they address hemenway's burglary deception....Page 113 in the linked info from the first paragraph of the article....

Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible
because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in
connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of
burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and
thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly
high (p. 1441).

This argument rested on an unstated assumption
that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a
subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS.
However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper
that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are
probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely
to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167).

This is true
because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as
unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore
is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that
many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents
effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to
treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how
many DGUs there plausibly could be.


Hemenway’s logic was also fallacious in assuming that one
can cast doubt on conclusions based on a large body of data by
deriving implausible implications from smaller subsets of the data.


The NSDS estimates of total DGUs are likely to be fairly reliable
partly because they are based on a very large (n=4,977) sample,
while any estimates one might derive pertaining to one specific
crime type are necessarily less reliable because they rely partly
on a far smaller subsample, i.e. the c. 194 sample DGU cases, of
which 40 were linked to burglaries.

Hemenway’s reductio ad absurdum logic is equivalent to
arguing that Gallup presidential election polls cannot accurately
estimate the share of the entire electorate voting for the
Democratic candidate (something we know they can do, usually
to within two percentage points––Gallup 1992) because they
commonly yield implausible estimates for small subsets of the
electorate, such as rural Hispanic Jews.

One undoubtedly could
obtain implausible estimates of voter preference for the

 

[2aguy]

Brain...this is for you.....he specifically addresses your distortions of his old research....and it is exactly as I have said.........he specifically addresses it here....

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - Gary Kleck - POLITICO Magazine

In order for a survey respondent to report a typical DGU, she or he must be willing to report all three of the following elements of the event: (1) a crime victimization experience, (2) his or her possession of a gun, and (3) his or her own commission of a crime. The last element is relevant because most DGUs occur away from the user’s home, and only about 1 percent of the population in 1993, when we conducted our survey, had a permit that allowed them to legally carry a gun through public spaces.

Thus, although survey-reported defensive gun uses themselves rarely involve criminal behavior (that is, the defender did not use the gun to commit a criminal assault or other offense), most (at least back in 1993) involved unlawful possession of a gun in a public place by the defender.



So again........they are not criminals defending against criminals.............

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......

Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed.

YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

Read the actual research....he explains everything......

I posted a quote where he said most were at home. Lott has said all his were home. How is he now saying most are in public?

again....read the research and trying to distort what he says in his research is weak........

 

[Brain357]

Mostly the same stuff he has said before that I don't buy. Interesting he now says most DGUs aren't at home, while everyone else seems to say they are. Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed. Carrying has nothing to do with home defense.

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......

Also he is shooting down his own explanation for why he had more home burglaries in his survey than were committed.

YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

Skeptical readers can check for themselves if we failed to refute them—the 1998 version is publicly available here. More seriously motivated readers could acquire a copy of Armed, a 2001 book by Don Kates and me, and read chapter six.

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

Read the actual research....he explains everything......

I posted a quote where he said most were at home. Lott has said all his were home. How is he now saying most are in public?

again....read the research and trying to distort what he says in his research is weak........

You are not answering the question. He has previously stated most defenses are at home. He is now stating most are in public. Explain that? Also he is claiming people were illegally carrying, what does that have to do with defending a home from a burglary?

 

[2aguy]

And here he specifically addresses this point you make.....This is his discussion of the anti gun advocates who did research and then attacked Kleck's research...he points out that the Police Foundation Survey, done independently from his research, came to a high number....around 1.5 million defensive uses....and then the two anti gun researchers trashed their own research......


YOu can find the below points linked here....from the original article....

From page 90 and 91 of the link........

Cook and Ludwig likewise claimed that the estimated number
of DGUs connected with particular types of crimes were
inconsistent with NCVS estimates of the total number of crimes
of a given type, with or without DGUs. For example, they
claimed to have shown that the estimated number of DGUs
linked with rapes exceeded the total number of rapes, as
estimated by the NCVS. One fatal flaw in their reasoning had
already been anticipated in a passage in the original article
reporting the NSDS estimates (Kleck and Gertz 1995, pp. 167-
168), a passage that Cook and Ludwig evidently chose to ignore.


The same applies to burglaries...........


That passage noted that the reasoning later applied by Cook and
Ludwig relied on the assumption that the universe of events
covered by the NSDS (and thus Cook and Ludwig’s survey) was
a subset of the universe of events covered by the NCVS. This
assumption is implausible.

As noted in that passage, “a large
share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside
the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to
either the NCVS or police” (p. 167).
It is likely that only a minority of all crime incidents

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

Read the actual research....he explains everything......

I posted a quote where he said most were at home. Lott has said all his were home. How is he now saying most are in public?

again....read the research and trying to distort what he says in his research is weak........

You are not answering the question. He has previously stated most defenses are at home. He is now stating most are in public. Explain that? Also he is claiming people were illegally carrying, what does that have to do with defending a home from a burglary?

Brain.....he is responding in general to criticism of a study he did in 1995.....any issue you bring up is addressed by him in his many defenses of his study going back 20 years

.......trying to say he is inconsistent with this article is blatantly dishonest....and typical of anit gunners......

And as I have posted before....having a gun in your home is not as legally safe as you always try to portray...the other posts where I have shown the nightmare legal situations law abiding people find themselves in when they defend themsevles in their home are out there...I don't have time to repost them......

 

[Brain357]

How can he now claim most defenses are in a public place when he has previously stated most are at home?

Read the actual research....he explains everything......

I posted a quote where he said most were at home. Lott has said all his were home. How is he now saying most are in public?

again....read the research and trying to distort what he says in his research is weak........

You are not answering the question. He has previously stated most defenses are at home. He is now stating most are in public. Explain that? Also he is claiming people were illegally carrying, what does that have to do with defending a home from a burglary?

Brain.....he is responding in general to criticism of a study he did in 1995.....any issue you bring up is addressed by him in his many defenses of his study going back 20 years

.......trying to say he is inconsistent with this article is blatantly dishonest....and typical of anit gunners......

And as I have posted before....having a gun in your home is not as legally safe as you always try to portray...the other posts where I have shown the nightmare legal situations law abiding people find themselves in when they defend themsevles in their home are out there...I don't have time to repost them......

I posted where he said most defenses were at home. Your article he says most are in public. Both can't be right.