Never trust anti gunners....they lie because they have an irrational fear of guns....

[JoeB131]

Driver peacefully surrendering to police.

so let me get this straight. Nut with a gun threatens people and the police get him to peacefully surrender...
Good thing he was white.

They shoot unarmed black kids for taking cigars.

 

[2aguy]

The NCVS survey is a government survey asking gun owners if they have a gun in the home....as if gun owners as a group will tell and anonymous phoner that they own a gun....and have used it in what might be a self defense situation......where they may now be in legal jeapordy.....get real Joe......

again....18 studies vs. the NCVS....and the NCVS is the only study with numbers that low...the only one out of 19....it is an outlier...not the truth....

 

[2aguy]

Driver peacefully surrendering to police.

so let me get this straight. Nut with a gun threatens people and the police get him to peacefully surrender...
Good thing he was white.

They shoot unarmed black kids for taking cigars.

No, they shoot violent thug teenagers who attack police officers and try to get control of their guns...and then charge them after pounding on the officer.....

 

[JoeB131]

More debunking of Kleck..

Dr. Kleck The Propaganda Professor

There’s a certain number that gun fanatics just love. Well, actually there are several numbers they love, but there’s one in particular that they lustfully salivate over: 2.5 million. That’s the putative number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) that occur in the United States every single year. That’s a highly impressive “statistic”, which is why you’ll see it starring on bumper stickers or websites or wherever else people want to emphasize the need for firearms in order to feel safe from all the THEMs out there.

Except the “statistic” is not really a statistic. It’s a projection, an estimate, put forth in a “study” by Florida criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck (in collaboration with Professor Marc Gertz), based on interviews of alleged defenders in 1993. Except the “study” wasn’t really a study; it was a survey, which is a sort of glorified poll.

Whatever terminology you choose to use, the point is that the Kleck “study”, which involved 222 respondents, didn’t really estimate how many DGU’s actually occur; it estimated how often gun owners say they occur. That’s a different thing, but just how different is it? Well, let’s see how it stacks up against the real world.

 

[2aguy]

Driver peacefully surrendering to police.

so let me get this straight. Nut with a gun threatens people and the police get him to peacefully surrender...
Good thing he was white.

They shoot unarmed black kids for taking cigars.

You still aren't getting it....the guy in the car wasn't a nut...he was some guy driving to work, home or somewhere else and his way is blocked by looters and arsonists....they surrounded his car and started to break in....just like the Rodney King riots where they pulled Reginald Deny out of his truck and beat him into a coma....or the young Serbian man the week before where they used hammers to beat on his car, and then beat him to death with the hammers....this guy was armed so he lived....Deny and the Serbian were unarmed and they died.....

Thanks for helping me make that point about the different outcomes between armed innocent victims and unarmed innocent victims who are set upon by a mob.....

See why you need a gun now....

 

[JoeB131]

The NCVS survey is a government survey asking gun owners if they have a gun in the home....as if gun owners as a group will tell and anonymous phoner that they own a gun....and have used it in what might be a self defense situation......where they may now be in legal jeapordy.....get real Joe......

again....18 studies vs. the NCVS....and the NCVS is the only study with numbers that low...the only one out of 19....it is an outlier...not the truth....

So why would the gun owner tell Kleck the truth and not the NCVS?

The NCVS is the only one that has any real validity, because it didn't have an agenda, and it used solid criteria.

 

[JoeB131]

You still aren't getting it....the guy in the car wasn't a nut...he was some guy driving to work, home or somewhere else and his way is blocked by looters and arsonists....they surrounded his car and started to break in...

Or he was an asshole who tried to run some people over...

The article doesn't talk about looting or arson. It just says they were protesting and blocking the street, which last time I checked, we had a first amendment and you could do that.

 

[2aguy]

More debunking of Kleck..

Dr. Kleck The Propaganda Professor

There’s a certain number that gun fanatics just love. Well, actually there are several numbers they love, but there’s one in particular that they lustfully salivate over: 2.5 million. That’s the putative number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) that occur in the United States every single year. That’s a highly impressive “statistic”, which is why you’ll see it starring on bumper stickers or websites or wherever else people want to emphasize the need for firearms in order to feel safe from all the THEMs out there.

Except the “statistic” is not really a statistic. It’s a projection, an estimate, put forth in a “study” by Florida criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck (in collaboration with Professor Marc Gertz), based on interviews of alleged defenders in 1993. Except the “study” wasn’t really a study; it was a survey, which is a sort of glorified poll.

Whatever terminology you choose to use, the point is that the Kleck “study”, which involved 222 respondents, didn’t really estimate how many DGU’s actually occur; it estimated how often gun owners say they occur. That’s a different thing, but just how different is it? Well, let’s see how it stacks up against the real world.

Joe.....they are lying to you....he used a sample of over 4,ooo respondents....and he defended his research...I have posted his defense several times....and again....Kleck's isn't the only research that shows a number that high...at least two other studies....not done by Kleck show the number at 3 million....and other studies 1.5, and 1.6.....

They focus on Kleck because he got a lot of coverage....and he was closer to the internet age.....more people quote him because he had to make all his research available to the anti gun nuts.....so they attack him because his research is the best known.,..but it isn't the only research...but it is the most comprehensive and most accurate....

 

[2aguy]

The NCVS survey is a government survey asking gun owners if they have a gun in the home....as if gun owners as a group will tell and anonymous phoner that they own a gun....and have used it in what might be a self defense situation......where they may now be in legal jeapordy.....get real Joe......

again....18 studies vs. the NCVS....and the NCVS is the only study with numbers that low...the only one out of 19....it is an outlier...not the truth....

So why would the gun owner tell Kleck the truth and not the NCVS?

The NCVS is the only one that has any real validity, because it didn't have an agenda, and it used solid criteria.

Well for one....the NCVS callers identified themselves as government agents......tell that to a gun owner who cares about gun rights and then ask him if he has guns in his home.....I'll post Kleck's defense of his methods and research.....

 

[2aguy]

You still aren't getting it....the guy in the car wasn't a nut...he was some guy driving to work, home or somewhere else and his way is blocked by looters and arsonists....they surrounded his car and started to break in...

Or he was an asshole who tried to run some people over...

The article doesn't talk about looting or arson. It just says they were protesting and blocking the street, which last time I checked, we had a first amendment and you could do that.

Joe.....the news coverage the whole time focused on the looting and arson...you don't have to be a genius to connect a mob blocking the street and the potential that they are violent looters and arsonists....especially after they start breaking your car windows.....really Joe?

 

[2aguy]

Here, I think this is Kleck defending his study...you can read the entire paper analyzing Klecks methods....this isn't the one he personally defends but another guy looking at his methods...

Kleck-Gertz DGU Freq Study gunsandcrime

RESULTS
222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per year was arrived at.

However, Kleck reviewed the record associated with each reported DGU and flagged every report for which: (1)it was not clear if the respondent had actually confronted the perpetrator; (2)the respondent was a police officer, soldier, or security guard; (3)the interviewer had not properly recorded exactly what the respondent had done with the gun, so it was not certain that the respondent had actually used the gun; or, (4)the record did not state a specific crime the respondent thought was being committed.

When all such cases were eliminated, the results were 1.125 percent of adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each, for a total of2.16 million DGUs per year. This, then is the K-G conservative estimate of annual DGUs. So, rather than saying that K-G found that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year, we should say that there are up to 2.5 million, or be more conservative and say something like over 2 million.

Note that an average of 1.472 DGUs per person implies that some people are involved in DGUs much more frequently than others.

In their report K-G say that the sampling error for 95 percent confidence interval is plus or minus .32 percent for the unpurged 2.55 million estimate for DGU frequency. The corresponding sampling error for the more conservative 2.16 million estimate would be something greater because the purging would have reduced the sample size. However, do not assume that the results are actually this accurate since these sampling errors do not account for any biases in the survey.

The survey had questions that provided information about DGU incidents. However, the accuracy and validity of this information was generally not as good as the information about the frequency of DGUs. The reason for this is that the sample that gave the results about the number of DGUs was 4977, but the information about the DGUs was based on a sample no bigger than 213 (the number left of the 222 after 9 respondents broke off the interviews as soon as they stated that their DGUs were against humans). In other words, the DGU case count was not as big as the overall sample size.

Some of this additional information serves as confirmation of findings from earlier studies. Some of it is new information that answers questions that arose from earlier studies. Examples of the additional results follow.

1. Consistent with past research, most of the DGU cases were relatively undramatic. Only 24 percent of the DGU respondents said they actually fired their guns. Only 8 percent said they thought they wounded the perpetrator. Note that this is inconsistent with any thought that the respondents were "bragging." This compares to 17 percent and 3 percent according to the NCVS data. The higher rates for the K-G study could be an indication that some DGUs are not reported in the government conducted NCVS, probably out of respondents' fears of reporting their own activities of uncertain legality. 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.

2. 37 percent of the DGUs occured in the respondents' homes. 27 percent of the DGUs did not occur in or near the respondent's home. This proportion would correspond to carrying the gun concealed or in some manner approching concealed carry (such as, in a locked container in the back of a vehicle).

3. For property crime DGUs, property was lost in only 11 percent of the cases. This confirms previous research showing that gun use is effective in the proper circumstances.

4. The perpetrator threatened or attacked before the DGU in 84 percent of the DGU cases. The respondent did not threaten or use force in any of the 11 cases in which the respondent was injured. The respondent used the gun only after being attacked or threatened, and usually after already being injured. These results show that gun control advocate representations of self defenders being "Rambos" are false.

5. 18 percent of the DGU respondents faced criminals who had guns too, although (per NCVS) 14 percent of all violent crime victims are victims of criminals with guns. The DGU respondents said they faced multiple criminals in the 53 percent of the DGU incidents, compared to 24 percent for all violent crime per the NCVS. The DGU respondents faced somewhat more serious crime than the general violent crime victim. These facts are consistent with the idea that more desperate circumstances dictated more desperate defensive measures. Offenders had a weapon in 48 percent of DGU cases, but were armed with guns in only 18 percent of them. The defenders were not generally foolhardy.

6. Only 16 percent of the DGU cases involved the respondent shooting at the offender. In only 4.5 percent of the cases did the offender shoot at the respondent. They both shot at each other in only 3 percent of the DGU cases.

7. About 1/4 of the DGU respondents reported not owning a gun at the time of the interview. This probably indicates distrust of anyone calling up on the telephone and asking about possession. It also casts doubt on past surveys that ask about DGUs only after obtaining an affirmative answer as to whether or not someone in the household owns a gun. It also casts doubt on recent surveys that indicate lower rates of gun ownership than was found in the past.

 

[2aguy]

Here is what another researcher thought of the National Crime Victimization Survey....and points out that this survey does not specifically ask about defensive gun uses but waits for the respondee to admit to it...

INPUT BY A "NEUTRAL" RESEARCHER
Tom Smith of the National Opinion Research Center had an article in the same journal as the one in which the K-G and Hemenway papers were published. In his article he tried to evaluate the other authors' positions and concluded with a call for further research to resolve identified issues. Smith agreed that NCVS based estimates are too low because some crimes are not covered by the NCVS and because not specifically asking about DGUs guarantees that DGU estimates will be lower than the truth. He did not believe the K-G contention that respondents would naturally mistrust a survey by a government activity, and cites the great cooperation obtained by the census surveyors. He apparently did not understand that what K-G actually claim is that respondents will naturally be hesitant to report possibly illegal activities to a government agent.

 

[2aguy]

Here is Kleck...again, I think....defending his study himself....almost...but he is interviewed and explains his findings....



Private Guns Stop Crime 2.5M Times A Year In US

 

[2aguy]

Maybe this is the one....as Hans Landa said in "Inglorious Bastards" "It's a Bingo...."

Klecks defense of his study

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95



Vernick claims that it was "difficult to address the
methodology" of the survey I did because the results were not
published in peer-reviewed literature. This is no excuse for
Vernick's shoddy efforts, since he could have obtained a copy of
the report directly from me, just as over a hundred different
people have already done. The details of this survey are one of
the least guarded secrets in the scholarly world, having been
presented in detail last year at the annual meetings of the
American Society of Criminology. The full written report has been
available for over a year.

-------------

Vernick refers to "a relatively small sample size" used in
my research, noting that "about 5,000 respondents" were
interviewed. This was substantially correct (it was 4,977), but
this is in fact an unusually large sample for survey research.
Most national surveys have samples in the 600-1600 range. The
number of persons who reported a DGU is not "the sample size."
Rather, the sample size is the number of persons who were asked
the DGU question, i.e. 4,977. It is this number which influences
the precision of the estimates, not the number who answer "Yes"
to the DGU question. In any case, Vernick's guess that only 50
people reported a DGU is incorrect. A total of 194 persons
(weighted; 213 unweighted cases) reported a DGU involving either
themselves or someone else in their household, 165 reported a DGU
in which they had personally participated in the previous five
years, and 66 reported a personal DGU in the past one year
preceding the survey (see Table 2, p. 54 of the report).

 

[westwall]

Oh, yeah, if any study tells me a number is between 500,000 and 3,000,000, I have to truly wonder about the accuracy of that study. That's a 600% difference.

Imagine going into your boss and saying, "Hey, Boss, the budget for that project is going to be either $500,000 or $3,000,000."

Doesn't matter. The point is a group that wants to outright ban firearms found that a MINIMUM of 500,000 defensive uses occurred. That makes your assertion that defensive uses are rare, absurd on its face.

 

[westwall]

BTW, I think I see the reason why you got fired. Anyone who is as baldfaced lying as you, or so clueless as to believe the crap you post here, is not employable. Just sayin...

If I were a baldfaced liar, i'd be a manager. Those fuckers do nothing BUT lie.

Maybe, maybe they just didn't want an unethical person working for them. Based on the crap you post here I would rule in their favor.

 

[2aguy]

Kleck discusses the National Crime Victimization Survey and why it is wrong....he wrote about those numbers back in 1988, 6 years before he did his own research.....keep in mind...at the time he did his research he was anti gun....again....he was anti gun when he did his research....his research changed his mind on the topic....for that heresy....the anti gunners must destroy him.,.,.

Finally, Vernick seriously cites the now thoroughly
discredited DGU estimates derived from the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). This is the only source of
information that has ever indicated the defensive uses of guns
are substantially less common than criminal uses. I first
reported the NCVS estimates in my 1988 article in Social Problems
(p. 8) but dismissed them as invalid because of their wild
inconsistency with all other known estimates. As further
information has accumulated, this position has been reinforced:
no survey has ever confirmed, even approximately, the extremely
low DGU estimates derived from the NCVS. Each of the other 14
known surveys have yielded estimates at least 10 times larger
than those yielded by the NCVS. This survey is notorious for
grossly underestimating the frequency of criminal gunshot
woundings, domestic violence, rape, and many other forms of
violence, 80 it is hardly surprising that it is also grossly
underestimates DGU. The reasons for the victim survey's
invalidity are discussed in the report on pp. 4-11.

 

[westwall]

Maybe this is the one....as Hans Landa said in "Inglorious Bastards" "It's a Bingo...."

Klecks defense of his study

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95



Vernick claims that it was "difficult to address the
methodology" of the survey I did because the results were not
published in peer-reviewed literature. This is no excuse for
Vernick's shoddy efforts, since he could have obtained a copy of
the report directly from me, just as over a hundred different
people have already done. The details of this survey are one of
the least guarded secrets in the scholarly world, having been
presented in detail last year at the annual meetings of the
American Society of Criminology. The full written report has been
available for over a year.

-------------

Vernick refers to "a relatively small sample size" used in
my research, noting that "about 5,000 respondents" were
interviewed. This was substantially correct (it was 4,977), but
this is in fact an unusually large sample for survey research.
Most national surveys have samples in the 600-1600 range. The
number of persons who reported a DGU is not "the sample size."
Rather, the sample size is the number of persons who were asked
the DGU question, i.e. 4,977. It is this number which influences
the precision of the estimates, not the number who answer "Yes"
to the DGU question. In any case, Vernick's guess that only 50
people reported a DGU is incorrect. A total of 194 persons
(weighted; 213 unweighted cases) reported a DGU involving either
themselves or someone else in their household, 165 reported a DGU
in which they had personally participated in the previous five
years, and 66 reported a personal DGU in the past one year
preceding the survey (see Table 2, p. 54 of the report).

I commend your efforts but JoeB is a troll. He only reads that which conforms to his preconceived notions. He's not interested in fact.

 

[2aguy]

Joe....now go and do a report on Kleck's study and come back and we will grade it together....

 

[2aguy]

Maybe this is the one....as Hans Landa said in "Inglorious Bastards" "It's a Bingo...."

Klecks defense of his study

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95



Vernick claims that it was "difficult to address the
methodology" of the survey I did because the results were not
published in peer-reviewed literature. This is no excuse for
Vernick's shoddy efforts, since he could have obtained a copy of
the report directly from me, just as over a hundred different
people have already done. The details of this survey are one of
the least guarded secrets in the scholarly world, having been
presented in detail last year at the annual meetings of the
American Society of Criminology. The full written report has been
available for over a year.

-------------

Vernick refers to "a relatively small sample size" used in
my research, noting that "about 5,000 respondents" were
interviewed. This was substantially correct (it was 4,977), but
this is in fact an unusually large sample for survey research.
Most national surveys have samples in the 600-1600 range. The
number of persons who reported a DGU is not "the sample size."
Rather, the sample size is the number of persons who were asked
the DGU question, i.e. 4,977. It is this number which influences
the precision of the estimates, not the number who answer "Yes"
to the DGU question. In any case, Vernick's guess that only 50
people reported a DGU is incorrect. A total of 194 persons
(weighted; 213 unweighted cases) reported a DGU involving either
themselves or someone else in their household, 165 reported a DGU
in which they had personally participated in the previous five
years, and 66 reported a personal DGU in the past one year
preceding the survey (see Table 2, p. 54 of the report).

I commend your efforts but JoeB is a troll. He only reads that which conforms to his preconceived notions. He's not interested in fact.

Actually WestWall...I don't do this for Joe, or Brain or the other anti gunners....I hope to reach casual readers who just drop in...and I use Joe and the other silly, irrational anti gun nuts to focus my posts on the anti gun arguments....

I also post this stuff so that other gun rights supporters know where to find information to fight back against the lies from the anti gun movement....it is hard to argue against the mounds of research done in this area....of course they do....but they don't do it rationally....