Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
44. since he addressed that
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 07:37 PM
Dec 2011

in his studies, I am guessing you did not read them. I don't remember you explaining how Cook got a number closer to Kleck's than NCVS but had to explain it away to keep his Joyce Foundation Grant.

His words:

"Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, 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, 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."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."



My MIL bought one of Ian Ayres' weight loss books,The $500 Diet, for her Kindle.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

another business dispute gejohnston Dec 2011 #1
100% agreed. burrfoot Dec 2011 #3
I've always wondered if perhaps Gary Kleck wasn't inspired to some degree by liberal criminologists Simo 1939_1940 Dec 2011 #4
I would add pipoman Dec 2011 #71
Who was the shooter? Remmah2 Dec 2011 #2
They don't know. ellisonz Dec 2011 #5
No, it is a proper and needed question. oneshooter Dec 2011 #6
Innocent people are already being punished. DanTex Dec 2011 #7
But we have registration and licensing, yet anti 2A persons continue to call for more legislation. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #10
What is an anti 2A person? DanTex Dec 2011 #12
Gun culture or drug culture? Remmah2 Dec 2011 #20
gun culture, no gejohnston Dec 2011 #23
Oh, thats easy. beevul Dec 2011 #55
It's always curious that so many pro-gunners really don't know the basic facts surrounding 2A. DanTex Dec 2011 #60
The Scalia interpretation is what? gejohnston Dec 2011 #61
Umm... no that's not what Heller basically amounted to. DanTex Dec 2011 #63
pretty much the end result. gejohnston Dec 2011 #65
Even more curious, that others with less knowledge about it, would be so presumptuous. beevul Dec 2011 #67
Please... spare me the naive grammar lesson... DanTex Dec 2011 #68
Do you know how to diagram a sentence? PavePusher Dec 2011 #83
Get back to me once you graduate from third grade. DanTex Dec 2011 #87
I will, IF you spare me and everyone else, your ignoring of fact. beevul Dec 2011 #85
As I mentioned above, there's more to constitutional interpretation than grammar. DanTex Dec 2011 #88
When I read the post, I didn't see much of anything worth responding to, but just for you... beevul Dec 2011 #90
"That war is over. YOU lost. Get over it." DanTex Dec 2011 #91
Yep, its over. Your side lost. beevul Dec 2011 #92
Ignoring the substance. Citing opinion polls. Again. LOL! DanTex Dec 2011 #93
What substance? beevul Dec 2011 #94
LOL. You crack me up dude. DanTex Dec 2011 #95
The substance is this: We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #96
What is it with you guys and being wrong! DanTex Dec 2011 #97
Problem for you is.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #98
Do you believe equally strongly in, say Bush v Gore, or Citizens United, etc. DanTex Dec 2011 #99
Whether or not I agree with it... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #100
Actually, reverting to the natural and original... DanTex Dec 2011 #101
Oh dan.... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #102
We really don't have registration or licensing We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #17
You have confused "victimized" with "punished". ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #13
So why punish more innocent people? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #30
That whole argument depends on the assumption that licensing and registration wouldn't do anything. DanTex Dec 2011 #35
Its not assumption We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #36
Fact? LOL. DanTex Dec 2011 #37
It isnt "NRA propagand" We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #39
Actually, the issues are far more complicated than you would like them to be. DanTex Dec 2011 #41
back to your patronizing self I see? gejohnston Dec 2011 #42
Speaking of cognitive issues, have you really forgotten our previous discussions about Kleck et al? DanTex Dec 2011 #43
since he addressed that gejohnston Dec 2011 #44
Would you be so kind as to find exactly where he addresses the points I made? DanTex Dec 2011 #47
while you are waiting gejohnston Dec 2011 #49
Let the tap dancing begin! DanTex Dec 2011 #52
it was awhile ago since I read it gejohnston Dec 2011 #53
How did I know this was going to happen... DanTex Dec 2011 #54
about three or four years gejohnston Dec 2011 #56
Well it's not working in places like Illinois and New York. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #74
You have your facts wrong. DanTex Dec 2011 #78
Good information Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #79
Probably has nothing at all to do with a lot of poverty, drug abuse.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #84
"Tens of thousands of people lose their lives every year due to gun violence." PavePusher Dec 2011 #45
31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 DanTex Dec 2011 #48
How many due to actual "gun violence", i.e. crimes? PavePusher Dec 2011 #50
Ah yes, the old "suicides don't count". One of the classics! DanTex Dec 2011 #51
No, they do not count as "violent crime". Stop conflating the two. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #57
Funny how you just swapped out "gun violence" for "violent crime". DanTex Dec 2011 #59
"gun violence" is a buzz term to add suicides gejohnston Dec 2011 #62
Actually, the "suicides and accidents don't count" talking point was devised by gun propagandists... DanTex Dec 2011 #64
more likely we are both right gejohnston Dec 2011 #66
By "rather absurd", I assume you mean that it is the consensus opinion... DanTex Dec 2011 #69
as usual you are wrong gejohnston Dec 2011 #86
Suicides DON'T count. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #75
It's no surprise that you don't care about suicide victims. DanTex Dec 2011 #77
That's right. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #80
Now you are morphing an argument against including suicides in an inappropriate statistical count... PavePusher Dec 2011 #82
Still waiting. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #89
Correction.. pipoman Dec 2011 #72
Exactly. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #76
Not hyperbole, more like high school discipline. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #8
False analogy. ellisonz Dec 2011 #15
More like... We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #18
"guns are no different than anything else" ellisonz Dec 2011 #19
The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify guns, does it? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #25
Semantics. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #26
No, not just semantics We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #27
Semantics. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #28
Say it however much you want We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #29
I have to write in simple terms. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #22
Not hyperbole We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #9
Describe specifically how real gun control... ellisonz Dec 2011 #14
Asked and answered more times than I care to count We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #16
Why are you here in the first place? ellisonz Dec 2011 #21
Nope - did you? We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #24
How gun control punishes legitimate owners: Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #32
guns keep corrupting innocent people... ileus Dec 2011 #11
For even making the suggestion We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #31
No, it's not an appropriate request. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #33
The National Guard call up ain't likely burf Dec 2011 #34
It would be a violation of Federal Law to have Federal troops doing police duty. oneshooter Dec 2011 #38
To many here We_Have_A_Problem Dec 2011 #40
Actually, it means a lot to them.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #46
Um, hello? Posse Commitatus, anybody? BiggJawn Dec 2011 #58
Not just a "gun" problem in NOLA. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #70
Just what I want pipoman Dec 2011 #73
Option 1: krispos42 Dec 2011 #81
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Lawmaker wants military p...»Reply #44