Jim McCulloch wrote:

> In article , "Jerry Peacock"
>  wrote:
>
> > Jim McCulloch wrote in message ...
> > >In article , Mike Haas
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm.  Let's see.  The Austin metropolitan area, as of this morning,
> > >contains about 1/254 of the US population.  Mr. Hass is therefore asking
> > >us to believe,  based on "independent research by criminologist Gary
> > >Kleck", that in the first twelve hours of the new year here is Austin,
> > >approximately 14 crimes were averted by citizen ownership of firearms.
> > >
> > >It seems to me that this supposed statistic would test the credulity even
> > >of the truest of true believers.  But, alas, I have to say I would put my
> > >money on the credulity of the
> >
> > Sounds about right to me.
>
> I figured it would sound about right to you. Inasmuch as Kleck's figures
> are wrong by a factor of 30, if we take the NCVS statistics as our guide,
> we can assign you the full NRA credulity ranking of 30.  Most of the
> readers of tx.guns, at least, will probably score higher than that.

But Jim, the NCVS wasn't designed to properly estimate defensive firearm use.
You might as well use the New Testament to explain Islam, the Quran to explain
Mormonism, Euclidean geometry to explain quantum mechanics, or Organic Chemistry
to explain Nuclear Physics.  You are using a sledge hammer to plane a board -
the wrong tool for the job.  The NCVS is a useful tool for several things, but
it wasn't designed to estimate the number of defensive firearm uses.

Would you like to detail the shortcomings of the studies which have estimated
defensive firearm use and came to the conclusion that 1.5 million defensive uses
per year is quite reasonable?  IIRC, there are are more than a dozen of them and
only two have Kleck as an author.  I'd be happy to do the research to find the
cites for all of them if you will actually try to rebut each of them.  It will
be pretty easy to do - just look at the references for the Kleck & Gertz paper
and then look up the Kleck & Gertz paper in the Social Sciences Citation Index
for newer papers.  Here's the Kleck & Gertz cite:

Kleck G and Gertz M. "Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Summer 1995,
86:143-186.

If examining all of them is too difficult, could you at least tell the readers
of these newsgroups what the following expert missed about the Kleck & Gertz
study?

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists
in this country.  What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.
The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of
methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically
opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator." -
Marvin E. Wolfgang, _The Journal or Criminal Law and Criminology_, 1995

and again

"...the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear.
I cannot further debate it." - Marvin E. Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I have
Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995, 86:188-192 at 191

I know Dr. Wolfgang only has forty or so years of experience in criminology.
Maybe he's getting rusty and you could give him some pointers on what
methodological points he missed.


John M. Wildenthal
mailto:j-wildenthal@tamu.edu
--
"It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shooting could
be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the
offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal." -
Marvin E. Wolfgang, _Patterns in Criminal Homicide_, University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1958, p. 82

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon
the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi
"Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446