In the "Gun Control Battle of TAMU -vs- UTexas": John M. Wildenthal
wrote in message :
} In message
} Jim McCulloch wrote:
}
>> In article , "John M. Wildenthal"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim McCulloch wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Really? That would be news to the NCVS's statisticians. They need
>> to know this. Perhaps you should write and tell them.
Disingenuous to a fault; aren't you, Jim?
> I'll do you one better. I'll list some of the NCVS shortcomings
> when used as a tool to estimate DGUs. Feel free to forward them
> to whomever you feel appropriate. Of course, I am cribbing these
> shortcoming from Kleck & Gertz. I'll also ask again now, and
> throughout this response - what do you feel are the methodological
> deficiencies of the Kleck & Gertz study?
>
>>> The NCVS is a useful tool for several things, but it wasn't
>>> designed to estimate the number of defensive firearm uses.
>>
>> Again, this would be news to the NCVS.
>
> Maybe you should read what the BJS says about the NCVS (from the
> BJS website):
>
> "National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary
> source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data
> are obtained from a nationally representative sample of roughly
> 45,000 households comprising more than 94,000 persons on the
> frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal
> victimization in the United States. The survey fully reports the
> likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery,
> assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for
> the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population
> such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city
> dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national
> forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics
> of violent offenders."
>
> We could also look at the NACJD description:
>
> "The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) series was designed
> to achieve three primary objectives: to develop detailed information
> about the victims and consequences of crime, to estimate the number
> and types of crimes not reported to police, and to provide uniform
> measures of selected types of crime. All persons in the United States
> 12 years of age and older were interviewed in each household sampled.
> Each respondent was asked a series of screen questions to determine
> if he or she was victimized during the six-month period preceding the
> first day of the month of the interview. Screen questions cover the
> following types of crimes, including attempts: rape, robbery,
> assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The data include
> type of crime; severity of the crime; injuries or losses; time and
> place of occurrence; medical expenses incurred; number, age, race,
> and sex of offender(s); and relationship of offender(s) to the victim
> (stranger, casual acquaintance, relative, etc.). Demographic
> information on household members includes age, sex, race, education,
> employment, median family income, marital status, and military
> history. A stratified multistage cluster sample technique was
> employed, with the person-level files consisting of a full sample of
> victims and a 10 percent sample of nonvictims for up to four
> incidents. The NCVS data are organized by collection quarter, and six
> quarters comprise an annual file. For example, for a 1979 file, the
> four quarters of 1979 are included as well as the first two quarters
> of 1980."
>
> Jim, where do you see DGUs in the above descriptions? They are not
> the primary focus of the NCVS. Decisions improving the accuracy of
> the primary focus could reduce the accuracy of other estimates.
>
> The most common complaint against the NCVS as a measure of DGUs is
> that if an incident is not a crime by the definition of the NCVS
> survey, a DGU for that incident cannot be listed. If you warned
> or fended off an attacker without any loss or injury, would you
> consider yourself a victim? I wouldn't always, particularly if
> no explicit crime occurred.
vic�tim n. 1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of
a mugging. 2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice
during a religious rite. 3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer
from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a
voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the
victim of a cruel hoax. [Latin victima.] --vic�tim�hood� (-h�d�) n.
--American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language v.3.6a 1994
> The NCVS only surveys DGU by individuals who answer "yes" to having
> an enumerated crime against them. This allows for standardization
> and increased accuracy in classifying the various criminal
> activities. But if an individual is overwhelmingly successful in
> defending themselves, possibly preemptively, they might not consider
> themselves a victim of any of the enumerated crimes.
>
> Let's think about a few other instances where the NCVS isn't going
> to even ask whether a DGU occurred:
>
> Some spousal abuse - if the abused spouse does not consider the abuse
> a "crime," question 42 notwithstanding.
>
> DGU by a felon - since the NCVS does not allow anonymity, individuals
> might not report a DGU since they might fear that accurately
> reporting their use of a firearm could be illegal and lead to
> subsequent prosecution. Or the incident where they had a DGU might
> have been illegal - maybe a drug buy turned heist - so they don't
> report the crime in the first place. Since criminals frequently
> target other criminals, this undercount could be significant.
>
> These are problems in the NCVS methodology *if* you are interested
> in the actual number of DGUs. These problems result in an undercount
> of DGUs.
Another _big_ source of un/undercounted DGus is the law enforcement
community; as unless there is a shot fired, few agencies require
the officer who utilizes his firearm in a defensive manner (i.e.:
point it at a criminal to induce the criminal to stop whatever
offensive maneuver he/she is ingaged in) will _never_ show up.
In my usages thusly over the past 16 years, this would add literally
_hundreds_ of DGUs to the overall numbers. (And you can _easily_
multiply that by hundreds of thousands _per_year_ of DGUs by LEOs
which _never_ get "reported": officially or unofficially.)
Just like the unconcious act of touching your hip through a coat
(checking to make _sure_ your sidearm is still where you left it
and hasn't slide forward/backward on your belt due to normal
movements) when you see suspicious persons approaching. This simple
act can cause a possible perp to change his mind about that little
act of strong-arm robbery he had in mind. No firearm is seen: no
shot is discharged: no perp winds up in the ER or Morgue -- yet
this is most _certainly_ a "Defensive Gun Usage" (aka: "DGU").
People like Jim McCulloch _only_ consider "DGUs" that involve a
"body count": all other instances "never happened".
>> Not only do Kleck's figures diverge wildly from the NCVS's figures,
>> but they diverge wildly from each other. Kleck has actually done
>> a number of studies of this problem, and his methodology, which Dr.
>> Wolfgang (who I would guess is getting along in years) admires so
>> much, gives him vastly different results each time.
>
> Actually, it isn't only Dr. Wolfgang. Kleck publishes in
> peer-reviewed journals. In my field, that means that three other
> professionals with experience in that area would have looked over
> the paper, including the original data set, and tried to find errors.
> They would first look for whether the paper had some new insights to
> bring to this area of study. Then they would look for methodological
> errors. I presume that Criminology has similar standards.
>
> I haven't seen Kleck's numbers widely diverge from each other because
> usually I look at the ranges he estimates, not the point estimates.
> The ranges of his and most other comparable studies overlap in the
> 1.5-2 million DGU range.
>
> Again, what are the methodological deficiencies in the Kleck & Gertz
> paper? If you can't point them out and don't like the results, you
> have nothing constructive to add to accurately estimating DGUs.
>
>> One of the more amusing improbabilities of Kleck's recent figures,
>> is that the logically required body count of criminals killed or
>> wounded by the defensive uses he reports exceeds the known number
>> of persons wounded by guns from all causes every year.
>
> Ah, the first possible criticism - consistency. Your appear to
> suggest that since some people probably overestimate the effects
> of their shooting, are they also lying about whether they used a
> gun or not? I can imagine an interviewee making errors on the
> effects - they may not have direct knowledge of whether their shots
> hit. But they would have direct knowledge about whether they used
> a gun or not.
>
>> Leaving aside the question of where the bodies of the killed have
>> been hidden, the question of where wounded got treatment is an
>> interesting one indeed. Kleck, I have read, believes they got
>> treatment secretly.
Since all professional medical treatment facilities are required
by law to report gunshot wounds to their local law enforcement
authority, is it all that difficult to understand why _many_
non-life threatening woundings of memnbers of the criminal
community are _not_ treated in such facilities?
> Why do you believe they all went for professional treatment? A wound
> through the arm or leg won't necessarily cause any problems requiring
> professional medical attention.
>
> I've asked you to describe the methodological faults in the Kleck &
> Gertz DGU study. You haven't named any, though you do question the
> consistency of some estimates. You only disagree with the results,
> not the methodology. Would you therefore agree that Kleck & Gertz
> have a superior methodology for determining DGUs, compared to the
> NCVS? Let's discuss the methodologies. I've already pointed out
> two reasons why the NCVS results might be biased downward. Kleck
> & Gertz specifically addresses the NCVS shortcomings. Or do you
> feel that biased estimates are better than unbiased estimates?
>
> John M. Wildenthal
> mailto:j-wildenthal@tamu.edu
> --
> "I don't like the idea that the police department seems bent on
> keeping a pool of unarmed victims available for the predations
> of the criminal class."
> - David Mohler, orthopedic surgeon, on being denied a permit
> to carry a handgun by the New York City police, _Manahattan, Inc._
> magazine, April, 1989
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (16+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"Five years after permitting law-abiding citizens to carry guns,
10 states found that their murder rates dropped by an average of
15 percent, rape by 9 percent, and robberies by 11 percent.
The likelihood of a mass shooting in those states dropped from
75% to zero. ... It's hard to be enthusiastic about a weapon of
death, but facts are facts: Guns save lives."
--Gazette; Schenectady, NY 7/13/98
"I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought
it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened.
All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.
No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good
things about the citizens who have permits. I am a convert.",
--Glenn.White, President of the 2,350-member Dallas Police Association
in a Dallas Morning News interview 12/23/97
"(I'm) eating a lot of crow on this issue. It isn't something
I necessarily like to do, but I am doing it on this."
--John Holmes, Harris County District Attorney on the success
of the TxCHL program
"...I haven't seen an instance of persons with permits causing
violent crimes, and I'm constantly on the lookout."
--John Fuller, general counsel for the Florida Sheriffs Association
on Florida's successful Concealed Handgun Licensing program
"As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.
But what will deter liberals? Certainly not the facts.
They have too much invested in their vision of themselves
as the saviors of us all."
--Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians
realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
--
John Johnson
TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com
� 1998 All rights reserved
|