Wolfgang:
“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 surveyresearch, 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.”
The small little gun studies arrive at vastly different numbers because they have small samples and are just not accurate.
You still have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He is saying ALL survey research is subject to a common criticism. You are categorically wrong, you know it, so you are intentionally misrepresenting what was said. You are lying. You are a desperate liar, Cupcake.
And you still have nothing from reality that supports your ridiculous claim.
You have come unhinged, Cupcake. You have been exposed as a purposefully obtuse, intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard. My assertions are validated by solid, peer reviewed research that easily withstands your fatous denials of reality.
You have provided one peer who said the results are limited by sample size.
That doesn't mean there's only one. But the one I submitted was THOROUGHLY qualified to evaluate the study, AND he was ENTIRELY disinclined to agree with the study's conclusion.
What do you bring, Cupcake?
There are many peers who have debunked your survey.
An obvious lie.
You have no real world fact to support your ridiculous claim.
Another obvious lie.
Yet another obvious lie.
So you haven't heard of Hemenway who uses actual facts to debunk Kleck?
I obviously have heard of David Hemenway, and one-sided speculation is not "actual facts" that debunk anything, Cupcake.
"It would be understandable if some readers thought that H did present, in his Section V, empirical evidence on the relative balance of false positives and false negatives. In fact, this section presents no empirical evidence at all. Instead, H's numerical examples demonstrate nothing more than that if one arbitrarily assumes particular rates of false positives and false negatives, along with extremely low actual DGU rates, one can come up with enormous overestimates. We cannot fault H for his arithmetic. If there were any credibility to the misreporting rates he assumes out of thin air, they would indeed imply huge overestimates."
Maybe. But I'm not lying.
It's been over 20 years since Kleck came out with his survey. Please share all the peers.
I don't really know if I can provide the exhaustive list you fatuously demand, but I can submit what this gun-control advocate says:
Phillip J. Cook--
"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."
And then of course there are these guys who you will predictably dissmiss off-hand:
Stephen G. Bronars
Donald B. Kates
William M. Landes
John R. Lott
David B. Mustard
Tom W. Smith
Harry L. Wilson
But if you are really looking for a list of the peers who reviewed the work of Kleck and Gertz, you can start with the peers at
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology where the work was published, and then search out all the peer-reviewed work that uses Kleck's and Gertz's work for support.
I've asked you many times for any real world fact and you provided nothing.
Another lie.
So if I'm lying provide it now.
"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.
So do you just believe the Kleck numbers?
"Just believe"? Nope.
How many DGUs do you believe there are each year?
On the order of 1 or 2 million.
"The
(NSPOF) survey instrument was designed by Gary Kleck, Philip Cook, and
David Hemenway and uses a sequence of defensive gun-use questions quite similar to those found with the 1993 Kleck and Gertz (1995) survey. Unlike the Kleck and Gertz survey, the NSPOF randomly selects one adult per sampled household, does not oversample telephone numbers from the South and the West, and uses standard sample-weighting techniques (Cook and Ludwig 1996). The results support an estimate of 1.3 million defensive gun users each year (table 2), which is within the 95 percent confidence interval of the Kleck and Gertz estimate (Cook and Ludwig 1998). A more recent national survey sponsored by the National Insitute of Justice suggests 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (
Hemenway an Azrael 1997, and forthcoming)."
So, you haven't heard of the David Hemenway who uses "actual facts" to affirm Kleck and Gertz?
Since crime has come down 30% since his debunked survey do you at least lower your estimate by that much?
The Kleck and Gertz survey was in no way "debunked", but it's certainly fair to assume the frequency DGUs should fall in response to falling call for defensive gun use.
All surveys have limitations.
Not in contention. The question is are those limitations recognized and accounted for; are they crippling because they are a function of a misapplied methodology, Mr. NotgoingtoaskaboutDGUs; or are they crippling because they are intentionally designed to support a pre-concieved conclusion, Mr. Gunuserequiresadeadguy?
That is why you have to find something in the real world to validate the results.
What's your point?
You obviously cannot do that.
This is untrue.
HEMENWAY CRITICISM OF KLECK
“Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias.
Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."
By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news—but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists. Yet the ABC News/Washington Post data on aliens are as good as or better than that from any of the thirteen surveys cited by K-G as supporting their conclusions about self-defense gun use.”
"An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high.
...
"Hemenway's critical technique is simple: one-sided, and often implausible, speculation about flaws that might have afflicted our research, and that might have been consequential enough to significantly affect our conclusions. H devotes his attention almost exclusively to suspected flaws that might have contributed to the overestimation of defensive gun use (DGU) frequency. He either ignores well established sources of underreporting, or briefly and superficially discusses them only for the sake of dismissing them."
"Debunker" debunked.
