time for another "defensive gun use" thread

[iverglas]

After this, I have to get some work done so I can go away tomorrow to visit the cancerous family members, so you may have to discuss amongst yourselves.

We all recall the ludicrous figures achieved by some surveys, conducted by some famous gun militants, with respondents claiming to have averted death in multiple times more situations than there are actual homicides in the US in a year, etc. etc. etc.

"Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys"
D Hemenway, D Azrael, and M Miller

Yeah, it's aging a bit, but aren't they all? And do try to address what is said, and not who says it, eh?

The abstract:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730664

Objectives—
To determine the relative incidence of gun victimization versus self defense gun use by civilians in the United States, and the circumstances and probable legality of the self defense uses.

Methods—
National random digit dial telephone surveys of the adult population were conducted in 1996 and 1999. The Harvard surveys appear unique among private surveys in two respects: asking (1) open ended questions about defensive gun use incidents and (2) detailed questions about both gun victimization and self defense gun use. Five criminal court judges were asked to assess whether the self reported defensive gun uses were likely to have been legal.

Results—
Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

Conclusions—
Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.

Huh.

The full paper:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1730664&blobtype=pdf

A brief excerpt from the lengthy paper:

In each survey, the number of respondents reporting that they were gun victims exceeded the number of respondents reporting that they had used a gun in self defense by over three to one, 152 to 43 (p<0.001) overall.

On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners, 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a self defense gun use (table 3). After eliminating police, security guards and military personnel, approximately 1% of respondents reported a self defense gun use (43/4378).

Of the 43 respondents reporting a self defense gun use, six did not provide a description of the most recent event, and for two more the descriptions indicated that the respondent did not use the firearm (for example, one never encountered the thieves who had stolen his truck). The criminal court judges were shown summaries of the remaining 35 events; each judge rated each event. Twenty per cent of the time a judge rated a case as “as likely legal as illegal”. Excluding these ratings (when judges often said there was not enough information), a majority of the judges rated 18 of the 35 (51%) as probably illegal and 15 of the 35 (43%) as probably legal. For two there was no majority opinion. In 23 of 35 events the judges were unanimous in their ratings; nine times there was one dissenter; and in three instances the ratings were either 3–2 or 2–2 in terms of the probable legality of the self defense gun use.

... Consistent with results from the NCVS and private one shot surveys, we find that far more respondents report criminal gun uses against them than self defense gun uses by them. The results hold even though, in order to be as conservative as possible, we (1) eliminate many of the reported hostile gun uses against the respondent, and (2) include virtually all the reported self defense gun uses.

And oh look - something just never mentioned by the other guys, who in fact just go right ahead and extrapolate:

However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude.

[xchrom]

1. ...

'However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude.'

[iverglas]

3. you didn't understand that at all, did you?

[provis99]

2. thanks for the survey

unfortunately, in the guns forum, there has been too much anecdotal and single incident postings to get a good feel for what the general trend is on self defense vs. criminal gun usage. This won't change the constitutional arguments for gun ownership, but it might affect how we can manage responsible gun ownership versus irresponsible ownership.

[iverglas]

4. forgive my snickering

at the gutless wonder(s) who has/have "unrecommended" this post and had nothing to say in reply to it.

Unless, of course, there was only one "unrecommend", and it was from the person who obviously didn't understand the substance of the article that is the subject.

Speaks volumes, either way!

[LAGC]

33. What did you expect?

+50 for your anti-gun tripe?

[Richard Steele]

5. As a lifelong gun owner, may I say that this thread is about as useful as a JPEG of popcorn?

This thread is about as useful as a JPEG of popcorn.

PFFT. :popcorn:

[Statistical]

6. Serious question.

Do you think the sample size might be too small?

Only 43 incidents in survey.
Only 35 provided details.

35 incidents doesn't provide much of a confidence level for a population of 300 million (or gun owning population of 80 million).

Anyways the study was interesting but I think too small to be meaningful.

This one point stuck out at me. Please let me know what you think.

On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners, 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a self defense gun use (table 3). After eliminating police, security guards and military personnel, approximately 1% of respondents reported a self defense gun use (43/4378).

Why eliminate military & security guards. I am military and my DGU was defending myself not my country. The incident would be thrown out? Why? Instead why not remove DGU related to "official capacity" and those in "combat operations".

To exclude any entire sub population who likely is better trained that the whole population is suspect.

One point I will concede though iverglas is we need more and better training for gun owners. Even on pro-RKBA boards I have often had to correct people of use of force situations (firing warning shots when lethal force is not called for as one example, warning shot = lethal force).

I would like to see a larger study and rank results based on level of training or if that is too difficult compare CCW permit holder (~12% of gun owners) vs non CCW (even for non CCW usage). Since most states require basic self defense legal topics in CCW course I wonder if even the inclusion of a small amount of training would alter the results.

[TXRAT2]

7. Do you think the sample size might be too small?

Sample size doesn't bother me as much the incident's do.


Was the incident reported to LE, was an Incident report made out, If not then why not?

[iverglas]

8. a re-re-incarnation??

How do?


Was the incident reported to LE, was an Incident report made out, If not then why not?

The same question has of course been often asked about the various data offered as evidence of the widespread occurrence of "defensive gun uses".


For some examples of questions raised in the past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=150671&mesg_id=151036

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230941&mesg_id=231367

-- something like 300,000 people believe a death would or probably would have occurred if they hadn't "defensively" used their firearm. And not even those incidents got reported??

If they had, I think the numbers for things like offences against the person -- about 1.5 million recorded in a year in the US -- would look a little different.

And of course one just has to keep wondering why it's only people with guns to hand who so narrowly escape murder. There are about 15,000 homicides a year in the US ... and 300,000 more people think there would have been a homicide if they hadn't flashed/pulled their piece.

Hmmmmmmm, eh?

[TXRAT2]

35. It was the defensive gun use I was questioning.

I can't imagine anybody not calling LE immediately after a defensive use incident, it makes it extremely difficult for me to believe the incidents, actually took place.

[iverglas]

38. and I was, obscurely,

agreeing with the questioning. If it was serious enough ya had ta pull yer piece, shurely it was serious enough ta call da cops about. Aboot.

You heading north next month?

[Strong Atheist]

30. Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[iverglas]

10. what was Kleck's sample size?

Surely somebody knows it by heart.

Did Kleck issue a caveat about generalizing from the sample to the population at large? Nope. He did the generalizing himself.

I don't know why the categories in question were eliminated.

On the 1999 survey, 131 respondents reported a hostile gun uses against them. One man reported 97 gun uses and was excluded. We also excluded 15 police, security guards and military personnel, 14 people who responded that the gun user might have thought s/he was a criminal, and one who reported that the event took place six years before the survey.

... On the 1996 survey, 14 civilian respondents reported using a gun in self defense in the past five years, accounting for 54 incidents. On the 1999 survey, 29 civilian respondents reported using a gun in self defense, accounting for 92 gun uses. For both surveys combined, a total of 146 self defense gun uses were reported by 43 people who were not police, military personnel, or security guards (table 2).

They seem to have been eliminated from both the victimization and use groups. It may be that the victimizations and uses reported did in fact occur in the line of duty.

Table 2 shows that 6 police respondents reported a total of 161 defensive gun uses in a year, and Table 1 shows that 10 police respondents reported a total of 150 hostile gun uses against themselves, so I think that would be a reasonable assumption there. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. Why were the police, security guards and military excluded?

Seems you could just ask them to exclude self defense instances that involved work or wartime. That would give you a more accurate response then just excluding them.

David

[TPaine7]

29. LOL

what was Kleck's sample size?
Posted by iverglas

Surely somebody knows it by heart.

I think it was about 5,000 (the exact number was something like 4,995 or so.)

Did Kleck issue a caveat about generalizing from the sample to the population at large? Nope.

Perhaps he would have had he had such a tiny sample size (per Statistical post 6):

Only 43 incidents in survey.
Only 35 provided details.

iverglas: He did the generalizing himself.

Just like all those other scientific polls that extrapolate to the entire population from sample sizes of 5,000 (and often less) and are well received? How terrible!

To pretend that a tiny sample of 43 incidents with 35 detailed reports is just as representative of the population as a survey of 5,000 with a sophisticated gauntlet--specifically designed to catch liars and inconsistencies--for all positive responses is... well... iverglas.

[iverglas]

40. you don't understand this stuff, do you?

To pretend that a tiny sample of 43 incidents with 35 detailed reports is just as representative of the population as a survey of 5,000 with a sophisticated gauntlet--specifically designed to catch liars and inconsistencies--for all positive responses is... well... iverglas.

And to compare the apples in one survey (those who reported "defensive gun uses") to the oranges in the other survey (THE ENTIRE SAMPLE SURVEY) is ... well ... what would you call it? TPaine7, I guess, in addition to the obvious.

Perhaps he would have had he had such a tiny sample size (per Statistical post 6):

Only 43 incidents in survey.
Only 35 provided details.

You do know what a "sample" is? Do you? Eh?

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

The methods used to compute the Table 2 estimates are very simple and straight-forward. Prevalence ("% Used") figures were computed by dividing the weighted sample frequencies in the top two rows of numbers by the total weighted sample size of 4,977. The estimated number of persons or households who experienced a DGU, listed in the third and fourth rows, was then computed by multiplying these prevalence figures by the appropriate U.S. population base, age eighteen and over for person-based estimates, and the total number of households for household-based estimates.

(Table 2)

See the two-digit numbers there? Those are the ones you want to be looking at.

Those are the ones that Kleck EXTRAPOLATED TO THE ENTIRE U.S. ADULT POPULATION from.

66 people had a "defensive gun use" in the past year, in his "study".

The US adult population at the time was 190,538,000.

66 divided by 5,000 times 190,538,000 --- and THAT is how Kleck got his 2,549,862 people having a "defensive gun use" in a year.

One and a bit per cent of 5,000 people, extrapolated to the entire population.
Kinda really a whole lot like what the study I presented REFUSED to do because of the TINY numbers involved and the HUGE likelihood of the result being "off by orders of magnitude".

Boy, I'll bet you feel really stupid now.



(couldn't reduce the size of that table)

[X_Digger]

47. Wow.. you must be off your game tonight..

"While all Rs reporting a DGU were given the full interview, only a one-third random sample of Rs not reporting a DGU were interviewed. The rest were simply thanked for their help. This procedure helped keep interviewing costs down. In the end, there were 222 completed interviews with Rs reporting DGUs, another 1,610 Rs not reporting a DGU but going through the full interview by answering questions other than those pertaining to details of the DGUs. There were a total of 1,832 cases with the full interview. An additional 3,145 Rs answered only enough questions to establish that no one in their household had experienced a DGU against a human in the previous five years (unweighted totals). These procedures effectively under-sampled for non-DGU Rs or, equivalently, over sampled for DGU-involved Rs. Data were also weighted to account for this over sampling. "

1832 + 3145 = ... 4977!

[iverglas]

49. your problem isn't mine

whatever it might be.

And there just ain't anything I can do ... or at least am willing to waste my time doing ... to help you.

You could try reading this bit of what you cut and pasted again:

In the end, there were 222 completed interviews with Rs reporting DGUs, another 1,610 Rs not reporting a DGU but going through the full interview by answering questions other than those pertaining to details of the DGUs. There were a total of 1,832 cases with the full interview.

and maybe look at the bleeding table.

What you cut and pasted there said there were 222 INTERVIEWS in which "defensive gun uses" were reported IN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS.

How much plainer could that be?

[TPaine7]

51. Good point iverglas!!!

You got me.

Boy, I'll bet you feel really stupid now.

No, not really. I do feel like I had an alien encounter, however.

I made a mistake, and you caught it. It doesn't make me feel bad; it's actually entertaining.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Great, meaningless surveys to go along with my meaningless anecdotes.

[iverglas]

11. you go ahead and unrecommend it now, Dave

The unrecommends in the Guns forum will be a sure measure of the intelligence/good faith of its denizens, I think.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Surely you must know me better than that. Stifling debate in that way is downright un-American.

I wouldn't even do it to a Canadian.

[spin]

14. The most interesting part...

This research was supported in part by the grants from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of
Justice, the Open Society Institute, and the Joyce Foundation.

Lets examine the Joyce Foundation for kicks and grins:

Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations<10><1>. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970<10> between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.<13> The Joyce Foundation's position on gun control has led to frequent opposition and criticism from gun rights groups, particularly the National Rifle Association, which calls the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose "shadowy web of huge donations" leads "straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups".<14>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation#Gun_violence_prevention_and_gun_control

Interestingly Obama has ties to the Joyce Foundation:

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722

This report from the Open Society Institute on Gun Control in the United States ... A Comparative Survey of State Firearm Laws reminds me of something from the Brady Campaign. The report rates states by the strength of their gun control laws, the stricter the better.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport.pdf

Interestingly, George Soros is the chairman of the Open Society Institute. Soros is definitely anti-gun.

Since the OP posted a report from some obviously anti-gun sources, I'll feel free to quote from the NRA/ILA which is also a rather biased organization.

George Soros: Anti-Gunner Who Would Remake America

George Soros has made an immense fortune manipulating international stock and currency markets. Over the past few years the Hungarian-born billionaire has used that fortune to become a preeminent funding source for global gun control. Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funneled cash to various anti-gun groups, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven rich friends founded their own political committee--Campaign for a Progressive Future--and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=151

But after pointing out that the sources of the report favor the anti-gun position, the basic conclusion may be fair.

I would agree that firearms are used more often by criminals to intimidate victims than by the victims to stop an assault. Most citizens are not licensed to carry weapons and criminals do carry as they obviously don't follow the law and a firearm is a often just a tool of their trade. No surprise or great revelation in that statement.

However, if the criminal does encounter an armed citizen either on the street or in a home, the criminal's advantage may be neutralized. Quite possibly the armed citizen may be able to stop the attack often without firing a shot.

As to the legality of the citizen's actions, a lot depends on the state where the incident occurs. A judge from Illinois or Massachusetts may consider the self defense actions taken by a Florida citizen to be illegal. In a Florida courtroom the citizen may be exonerated.

Self defense laws vary considerably from state to state. The report in in OP mentions that three judges were consulted, without saying where those judges came from. (I would seriously doubt they came from states with a castle doctrine law or a "stand your ground" law. Therefore, they would obviously disagree with the legality of many of the incidents involving self defense.)

Most anti-gun right groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Pro-gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

edited for fat fingers and to add that I recommended the thread.

[iverglas]

15. interesting to anybody who's been living under a rock, I guess

Obviously, all of that applies in spades to Kleck. Nonetheless, Kleck's work can be debunked on its own, entirely apart from this too-obvious bias.

Your comments about self-defence laws would appear to be wholly inapplicable to the periods covered by the study: 1996 and 1999. The foul Florida legislation, for instance, was not yet a gleam in the NRA's eye at the time.

The report in in OP mentions that three judges were consulted, without saying where those judges came from. (I would seriously doubt they came from states with a castle doctrine law or a "stand your ground" law.

Such crap did not exist.

[spin]

17. Oops, the statement was...

Only five judges, from three states, assessed the self defense gun incidents from the surveys.

Florida had a version of the castle doctrine law prior to 1996.

History
# The crucial precedent for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law came in 1895 when Beard v. United States set forth the principle that there is no duty to retreat from a place one has the right to be. Another landmark Supreme Court Decision came in 1921 when Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled the justification of force as self-defense was determined by the defendant's reasonable belief of immediate danger, not on whether it was reasonably possible to escape or disarm the assailant. These cases were the foundation for the "Castle Doctrine," which provided rights of self-defense in the home.
Considerations
# Even in the case of an intruder in the home, under the old Castle Doctrine, use of deadly force is limited. The use of force must be proportionate to the threat, limiting deadly force to extreme cases, or at least to cases where a clear physical danger is present. Pre-emptive use of force to neutralize a threat can fall under self-defense, but if an assailant ceases to be a threat, self-defense no longer applies. Self-defense does not justify retaliatory attack after a crime has taken place, such as a rape victim who later tracks down and kills the rapist. Florida's self-defense laws, however, have significantly modified several of these limitations.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4577787_florida-selfdefense-laws.html

BTW, I attempted to recommend the thread but my computer hung up at that point. I rebooted but still can't recommend it. Something strange going on.

[iverglas]

19. well I can't recommend it ;)

You have to have javascript enabled now, in case that is the problem. It was for me.

I'm afraid that unless I saw an actual case in which an actual distinction between one state's law and another's was potentially relevant, and evidence that the judges were unaware of local law and erred as a result ...

[spin]

25. Rebooted and tried again...

The time to recommend may have passed as it's after midnight. I was able to recommend another thread in the latest posts section.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. There are two forms of it.

There is a positive statement of 'Castle Doctrine' that actively protects defensive gun use in certain circumstances, and there is a softer form of it, where the state has no 'duty to retreat' law. Some American states do, some do not.

In the states with no 'duty to retreat' and no 'castle doctrine', the burden of proof is still generally on the DA to establish that the person who fired in self defense feared for their life. (and then there's the compounding of whether or not the state has a 'justifiable homicide' or 'excusable homicide' statute (washington state has both)

So, anyway, hurf blurf aside, some states have effectively had 'castle doctrine' like law and legal precedent, long before the actual so-named laws started cropping up.

[iverglas]

21. oh, let's not start (ed)

There is a positive statement of 'Castle Doctrine' that actively protects defensive gun use in certain circumstances, and there is a softer form of it, where the state has no 'duty to retreat' law.

Of course, those laws make no reference to firearms at all.

And "actively protects", I take it, is a euphemism for "prohibits investigation of the use of force or prosecution or conviction for the use of force" in certain circumstances, regardless of whether the individual who used the force had any reasonable belief that injury or death was foreseeable if it were not used, even apart from whether there was any reasonable alternative to the use of force.

Those laws -- that create a non-rebuttable presumption to protect anyone who uses force in certain circumstances -- did not exist at the time.

I really don't assume that judges are idiots generally, or that the authors would have consulted idiot judges.

Self defense gun use incidents were summarized and sent to five criminal court judges (from California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) who were assured anonymity. The judges were told to assume that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun and had described the event honestly from his/her own perspective. The judges were then asked to give their best guess whether, based on the respondent’s description of the incident, the respondent’s use of the gun was very likely legal, likely legal, as likely as not legal, unlikely legal, or very unlikely legal.

... Only five judges, from three states, assessed the self defense gun incidents from the surveys; they were a convenience rather than a random sample, and the sample is too small to be confident of the stability of the aggregate ratings we report here.

They're actually honest about their study's limitations.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. correct on both counts

I do use it as a euphamism.

I recc'd, but didn't get the 'one it has 5 votes, off to the greatest' message I am used to....

[TPaine7]

31. "Obviously, all of that applies in spades to Kleck"

I noticed that spin's allegation...

This research was supported in part by the grants from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of
Justice, the Open Society Institute, and the Joyce Foundation.

... was supported with documentation--quotes and links.

You allegation is supported by... nothing. (Unless you are using the gun control reality distortion field as a source.)

Do you have anything to back up your emphatic allegation?? Anything at all? Can you show Kleck being funded by the NRA or any other group, or are you just spouting BS?

(I think I know the answer, so I won't hold my breath.)

[iverglas]

16. fyi

Two examples from the 1999 survey of incidents that were unanimously deemed probably illegal were:

x A 62 year old male said that at 6 pm “the police called. My alarm at my business went off so I went there to shut it off. Two men were outside my building, so from my car I shot at the ground near them”. The respondent said the men were trespassing.

x A 58 year old male was inside his home at 2 pm. “I was watching a movie and (an acquaintance) interrupted me. I yelled that I was going to shoot him and he ran to his car”. The respondent said his acquaintance was committing a verbal assault. The respondent’s gun, a .44 Magnum, was located “in my holster on me”.

Two examples of self defense gun use from the 1999 survey that were unanimously deemed probably legal were:

x A 26 year old male was with friends at another’s home. At 8:30 am “a friend of mine was in the process of getting robbed and he was drunk. We went to help him just as the robbers were leaving”. The respondent’s gun was not loaded and “I never really took it out of my pocket”.

x A 38 year old male was inside his home at 4 am. “Someone broke in; I woke up to the sound. I got my gun from the safe (loaded it) and went downstairs. The person left and I called the police”. The respondent did not know whether the burglar had a weapon.

You be the judge.

And I wonder how many of Kleck's involved situations like any of the above.

[spin]

20. The sample size is too small to determine...

if the incidents are representative of most self defense encounters.

It might be interesting if an unbiased and independent source conducted a truly large survey. Obviously you can question Kleck's data and I don't feel comfortable with data generated by anti-gun organizations.

[iverglas]

22. and once again

Obviously you can question Kleck's data

I question Kleck's data, and his analysis of and conclusions from his data, on their merits, not his.

What was his sample size?


and I don't feel comfortable with data generated by anti-gun organizations.

But you sure do feel comfortable misrepresenting anything that it serves your interests to represent.

[spin]

24. I think you will agree that...

with an issue this important, we should be able to access a more recent survey that was reliable and unbiased and large enough to be meaningful.

[iverglas]

26. I think we're pretending the survey was something it wasn't

The survey was not intended to produce anything that could be extrapolated to the entire population in terms of frequence of occurrences and so on.

It was intended to determine the nature of the alleged defensive/hostile firearms uses, in large part.

The question would then be whether the sample used can be called unrepresentative in that regard -- whether somehow the circumstances in the firearms uses described by respondents were, or could be expected to be, wildly different from the firearms uses in the population as a whole.

I don't know what basis there would be for saying that.

Except in relation to respondents who claimed to have defended with / been victimized with firearms who refused to describe the circumstances. One would safely assume, I think, that these were circumstances that would have cast the respondents in question in a bad light. So if anything the survey would appear to understate unlawful "defensive" uses and sanitize the "average" such use, it seems to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. This looks to be the first "less than zero" thread here in the Gungeon

Congratulations to iverglas

[TPaine7]

32. It was a very strong entry in the "less than zero" category.

I second the congrats. They are well deserved.

[iverglas]

41. sorry, I beat you to that

It was "less than 0" when it had only one post in it.

Please don't imagine that I was surprised by the total absence of good faith demonstrated by anyone who would glance at a thread consisting solely of a report of a piece of research and "unrecommend it"!

[TPaine7]

28. Yawn...

I only have time to refute some of this sophistry, but I'll do what I can.

We all recall the ludicrous figures achieved by some surveys,... with respondents claiming to have averted death in multiple times more situations than there are actual homicides in the US in a year, etc. etc. etc.

I answered this frail argument here:

Of course the data would show that, even if collected by an omniscient, infallible observer. Thugs often put their victims in fear of their lives so that they can obtain their objectives. Think about a few crimes:

1) Carjacking
2) Rape
3) Armed robbery

If the felon could get {you} to give him what he wanted without putting you in fear of your life (or at least in fear of serious bodily injury) there would be no crime. It wouldn't be a carjacking; it would be a car borrowing or the generous gift of a car. It wouldn't be rape; it would be seduction. It wouldn't be armed robbery; it would be panhandling.

Those aren't crimes. They wouldn't show up on official records. They wouldn't show up in surveys. They wouldn't even show up on our omniscient, infallible observer's crime records.

Now in some people's thinking, the fact that most of the people who are put in legitimate, rational fear for their lives aren't actually killed is very significant in indicating proper gun policy. I disagree.

Let us say that only 1 in 20 of those people was correct that they would have been killed without their DGU. Let us say that Joe Blow is one of those people. He is cornered by two thugs with knives who ask for his wallet and watch. He judges the situation and determines that he can defend himself with his concealed weapon. Should he give them his wallet? Odds are, they won't hurt him if he pays the "thug tax."

Let's change the picture slightly, but not the odds. Let's say that a felon has an innocent person tied up. He has a special revolver with 20 cylinders, and he is playing a game of Russian roulette. He has been going around "playing" with lots of people; Joe Blow has read the stories and knows how this psychopath works. He uses one bullet, puts the gun to the terrified victim's head, counts down, and pulls the trigger one time and one time only. The vast majority of victims survive with only psychic scars.

Anyway, Joe Blow is armed and has a very clear shot at the psychopath's head. He is absolutely certain he can destroy the his brain and leave the victim untouched. The thug is counting down--3, 2,... Should Joe pull the trigger? Or should he endanger the innocent person out of regard for the psychopath's safety? Do you think it a moral imperative to preserve the life of the felon at the 5% possible expense of the innocent victims life?

I absolutely don't.

We all recall the ludicrous figures achieved by some surveys, conducted by some famous gun militants...

Kleck is a gun militant?! Why, because he doesn't believe in Canadian style gun control? Because he doesn't agree with you? Kleck is a criminologist who started his career firmly in the gun control camp--believing that the need for stringent gun control was self-evident TRUTH, just like you do, iverglas. He was attempting to put hard numbers behind this TRUTH when reality shocked him. He published his work--to the respect and recognition of his peers. A scientist whose work demolishes his own prejudices, who then changes his mind to match reality is a gun militant?! Or is he only a militant if he refuses to keep the facts he has uncovered secret? The (gun control reality distortion) field has you, iverglas.

Hemenway--isn't he the guy who compared defensive gun uses to alien abductions? He's clearly objective, right? Not an anti-gun militant, no sir!

And oh look - something just never mentioned by the other guys, who in fact just go right ahead and extrapolate:

However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude.

Of course this is an honest concession to the limitations of their tiny "study", not part of a concerted effort to imply that NO survey, past future or present is or ever can be representative of the population--lest people get a clearer picture of reality, right? Right.

Conclusions—
Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.

That's definitely a conclusion about the relative frequence of defensive vs illegitimately offensive uses. Across the population.

Now here's iverglas, post 26:

The survey was not intended to produce anything that could be extrapolated to the entire population in terms of frequence of occurrences and so on.

It seems this study was

1. Conducted by a man who thinks that defensive gun uses are numerically comparable to alien abductions--someone who lives under the gun control reality distortion field with iverglas.
   
2. Intended as a vehicle to advance the gun control agenda.
   
3. Worded to help advance the idea that no survey has, will, or even could represent the population.
   
4. Intended, despite the above point, to advance the anti-gun message that guns are used--across the entire population, of course--more often for evil than for good.
   

[iverglas]

42. "Hemenway--isn't he the guy who compared defensive gun uses to alien abductions?"

Okay. I have only one question.

Do you believe that Hemenway compared defensive gun uses to alien abductions?


... Oh, all right. Two.

If the answer is 'yes', will you provide the source that is the basis of that belief?

I mean, assuming it isn't something like "the alien who abducted me whispered it in my ear" ...

[TPaine7]

50. Yawn...

Apparently he didn't compare DGUs to alien abductions but to alien encounters. Big difference. I guess it's easier to explain the person responding to surveys if they're still on planet:

Using a gun in self-defense, like having contact with an alien, is an interesting, potentially exciting event that might well be heroic. In the K-G survey, many of those who report a self-defense gun use apparently see themselves as quite heroic. Were we to accept their claims, people using guns in self-defense are saving about 400,000 people each year from being murdered. Yet most people do not have guns and there were only a total of 27,000 homicides in 1992. <35>

Survey respondents, like most mortals, like to present themselves in the best light. Many respondents who claim to have had contact with alien life forms are probably not deliberately lying, but are putting an interesting interpretation on circumstances which were not clear cut. Similarly, many respondents who claim to have used a gun successfully in the past year may be unconsciously improving on the truth--e.g., on situations in which they were afraid, they retrieved a gun, and nothing bad happened. It would not be surprising if respondents tended to embellish their stories of potentially dangerous events which occurred many months in the past. Their replies to the questions about the benefits of their gun use and how many "bad guys" they shot support that expectation.

The likelihood of social desirability response bias (self-presentation bias) is clear. For example, many respondents own firearms for self-protection. The successful use of a gun in self-defense shows their foresight as well as their competence in protecting themselves. The vast majority of self-reported self- defense gun uses in the K-G study appear to have been successful. <36>

Source: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

And he makes the same frail argument that I answered in post 28--comparing people who claimed to have been put in legitimate fear for their lives to people actually killed. I guess you--or whatever intermediate writer you followed--swallowed that sophistry whole.

[iverglas]

53. "Apparently he didn't compare DGUs to alien abductions but to alien encounters. "

Apparently he did not do either thing. But then, you know that.

I mean, I live in hope that you know that, and many other things ...

[TPaine7]

54. How's your nose, iverglas?

TPaine7: "Apparently he didn't compare DGUs to alien abductions but to alien encounters."

iverglas: "Apparently he did not do either thing. But then, you know that.

I mean, I live in hope that you know that, and many other things ..."

And here's the quote:

"Using a gun in self-defense, like having contact with an alien, is an interesting, potentially exciting event that might well be heroic."

It's simple enough English--"A, like B..."

Let's see if you can follow a similar sentence structure if we remove the gun control aspect:

The online character iverglas, like Pinocchio, seems to have difficulty telling the truth.

Am I, or am I not, comparing you to Pinocchio in that sentence?

PS: Is English your second language (after bullshit, of course)?

[iverglas]

56. not impeding my view of the pixels, unlike yours?

Survey respondents, like most mortals, like to present themselves in the best light. Many respondents who claim to have had contact with alien life forms are probably not deliberately lying, but are putting an interesting interpretation on circumstances which were not clear cut.

It's as plain as my rather shapeless and proportionately shortish nose (damned high forehead throws evrything out of whack) that what he was comparing was the reporting of "defensive gun uses" and the reporting of alien encounters by survey respondents.

You know it, I know it, anybody who doesn't pretend that words exist outside contexts knows it.

[TPaine7]

58. You are so confused

He did both; one does not preclude the other.

Survey respondents, like most mortals, like to present themselves in the best light. Many respondents who claim to have had contact with alien life forms are probably not deliberately lying, but are putting an interesting interpretation on circumstances which were not clear cut.



It's as plain as my rather shapeless and proportionately shortish nose (damned high forehead throws evrything out of whack) that what he was comparing was the reporting of "defensive gun uses" and the reporting of alien encounters by survey respondents.

Yes, the fact that he was comparing "the reporting of 'defensive gun uses' and the reporting of alien encounters by survey respondents" in the sentence you quoted cannot refute the fact that he compared defensive gun uses to alien encounters in the sentence I quoted.

If I said in one sentence that you were a sophist and in another that you were under the thrall of the gun control reality distortion field, one statement would not destroy the other. You can actually perceive a false reality due to extreme bias and intentionally warp the bits of reality that you manage to accurately grasp. You can be deluded and a sophist. You are living proof.

Get some kind and patient soul to explain "context" to you. It doesn't mean that a plain unambiguous statement in the fifth sentence nullifies a plain unambiguous statement in the second sentence. Really.

It's hard for me to believe that Canadian judges and juries fall for this type of sophistry. "Your honor, my client is accused of shooting the victim, however, I can establish using videotape and multiple witnesses that my client threatened the victim. This context shows, definitively that my client did not shoot the victim, as it is impossible for a single person to both threaten and shoot the same person."

[aikoaiko]

34. Does the method section say whether or not the respondents were told their stories

would be evaluated by judges?

[iverglas]

43. you'd have to read that

and I would wonder why it would be relevant.

So they'd be forewarned to tart their stories up to look good?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. To what fruitation does this survey lend itself?

What's the point of this survey (other than to raise awareness of an obscure survey)?

[iverglas]

44. ya got me there

I'm gonna have to go look up "fruitation" -- while I wonder how the point of a survey could be to raise awareness of a survey ...

[iverglas]

45. best I can do on that first bit

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fruitation&defid=3169384

1. fruitation

When an idea ripens like fruit. It's what stupid people use for the word fruition. Fresh fruit, stinky rotten fruit, any kind of fruit for any kind of idea or plan. You've got to picture the blossoming flower then the growth of the fruit depending on the idea or plan it represents.
I love it when a plan comes to fruitation.

... not that I see how "fruition" would be relevant ...


Still pondering how the point of a survey could be to raise awareness of a survey ...

Good afternoon, sir/madam. I'm conducting a survey. Could you tell me whether you are aware of the survey done ...

... nah, still not getting it ...

[gorfle]

37. This is all I need to know about defensive gun use.

You can be like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

Or you can be like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related

It's your choice how to prepare for such events. I've made my choice.

[jgraz]

39. Wow, deciding public policy on the basis of two videos

I guess that puts you ahead of the Roberts court.

[iverglas]

46. and a hokey one at that

Nothing like a good reconstruction. That belongs on A&E, surely!

I dunno. I've broken my foot twice. I've never been "unable to move". I would have been out the door as soon as I heard the noises. (In fact I've done just that. Late one night years ago I heard noises in my attic. I was in the grips of panic and anxiety over my bar ads income tax exam, and under the influence of a little valium and a little something else. I was sitting in bed studying with two cats slumbering at my feet. I said to myself: it's just the house creaking in the cold. If it were anything else, the cats would know. At that instant, the smartest cat sat bolt upright, stared at the bedroom door toward the attic staircase across the hall, and growled a mighty growl. I grabbed a coat and my boots and ran out the door to my friend's house six blocks away. I assume the cat was just being as nervous as I was.)

Odd that the woman says she's on her couch and unable to move, and the video (which she was presumably a party to, since she's interviewed) shows her standing in the kitchen (pregnant? was she?).

The call was real, the incident was real, the woman had choices -- leave, call police -- she called police, and she survived. Hm.

[jgraz]

52. But she didn't get to shoot anybody!!!!1111

That woulda been cool. PEW! PEW PEW!!

[iverglas]

48. right, well I was finally bored enough to "watch" them

"Watching", of course, consists, in the first instance, of looking at a bunch of thoroughly icky verbal propaganda, and in the second, of a hokey enactment (I don't say re-enactment, because it is plainly not an honest representation of the event).

So the first one: "you can hear her very real fear filled call." No, I can't. I hear several minutes of her quite calmly conversing with the 911 operator. Very calmly, and with no indication of any fear at all, to my ear. It seems that the woman knows quite well who the individual is, and I'm never sure why all the retailing of this tale never includes the sort of details that would provide some context for this incident.

I'm having a hard time telling exactly when she fired at the other individual, but it seems to be at the precise moment she starts yelling at him.

Evidently the police/judicial response to the earlier problems was inadequate. Isn't that kind of a problem? Are gun militants everywhere joining with women's advocates and anybody else handy to demand reforms in how problems of this sort are addressed by police and the courts? Not seeing it, myself.

Also not seeing any reason to believe that the woman in question would have been killed or seriously injured before the police arrived if she had not killed the man who broke into her home ...

[TPaine7]

55. Some people are having trouble understanding the difference between

"public policy" on the one hand and "your choice" and "my choice" on the other.

[iverglas]

57. actually

Some people are having trouble understanding the difference between "public policy" on the one hand and "your choice" and "my choice" on the other.


A disproportionately large number of people in this vicinity are quite unable/unwilling (who ever knows??) to grasp/acknowledge the relationship between public policy and their choice.

Good of you to bring this up.

[TPaine7]

59. I fully recognize the relationship

between my choices and public policy.

As an American citizen, I can vote, contact my representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives, contact my local representatives, and help to inform my fellow citizens. So yes, my choices affect US public policy.

Now, were I to be an international busybody with delusions of grandeur who felt entitled to limit the rights of people in other countries--say for example, Canada--the relationship between my illegitimate choice and Canadian policy would be significantly less. Or, if you prefer, less significant.

But while your point may not apply to me, I am sure that there are some here who don't understand this. So good point, iverglas!

What's that, two points in as many days? You're on a roll!!!

[iverglas]

60. dang, I missed this

Now, were I to be an international busybody with delusions of grandeur who felt entitled to limit the rights of people in other countries

Why have you suddenly started talking about Adolph Hitler? Or was it one of the Georges Bush maybe? Or some other US President of our acquaintance? Most any one in mid to recent memory would likely qualify, I know.

And of course there were the people who voted for 'em. Anybody who voted for a president to invaded/occupied, oh, Vietnam, Iraq ... or funded/gave material assistance to the overthrow of, oh, Allende ... well, I guess the description applies to them too, eh?

I get the feeling, though, that you meant it to apply to someone who uses speech to argue for and against policies -- actually, seldom even that; mainly, just to refute and expose right-wing crap.

Did you? Really? You meant to characterize someone engaging in discourse as someone "with delusions of grandeur who felt entitled to limit the rights of people in other countries"?

And if so, you thought it wise to say this in public, notwithstanding how unpleasantly irrational it made you look?

Huh.



typo fixed