|
Kirata -> RE: Thank God...he only had a knife (10/10/2015 7:44:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
This came up in the same search results.
http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf
Interesting paper. Quoting in part:
What distinguishes this remarkable statistic is the entirely respectable source and estimation method. We usually think of mythical numbers as coming from obviously flawed procedures, generated by advocates seeking attention for the problem of homelessness or heroin addiction or youthful predators or some other cause [Reuter, 1984, 1986].
In contrast, the DGU estimate was calculated by researchers affiliated with a major research university (Professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz of Florida State University), using widely accepted methods and published in a topflight, peer-reviewed criminology journal (Northwestern University Law School's Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology). Although many mythical numbers may be debunked by simply probing beneath the press reports to identify the source, such is not the case with the DGU figure.
In particular, Kleck and Gertz conducted a telephone survey of almost 5000 American adults in 1993, with the specific intent of examining the defensive- gun-use issue. On the basis of the survey responses, Kleck and Gertz were able to generate a range of estimates depending on the exact definition and judgments concerning the credibility of responses. Their now-famous estimate of 2.5 million is at the conservative end of this array of possibilities. Their survey appears to have been conducted according to current standards, and the results have been reproduced in several subsequent surveys. In 1994, for example, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a telephone survey of 2600 American adults examining gun ownership and uses, including defensive gun uses [Cook and Ludwig, 1996]...
When we follow the example of Kleck and Gertz and exclude all respondents whose most recent DGU was part of military or law-enforcement work, who did not report a specific crime or use of the gun as part of the incident, or who did not actually see a perpetrator, we estimate 1.5 million defensive gun users... Thus, our estimate, based on the NSPOF, is in the same ballpark as that propounded by Kleck and Gertz. The difference could plausibly be due to sampling error. Kleck and Gertz's DGU estimates do not appear to be artifacts of any particular computational or weighting decisions made in their analysis. If there is a problem here, it is intrinsic to the method.
Whereupon, they bait their hook and go fishing. Kleck responds to his critics here:
Degrading scientific standards to get the defensive gun use estimate down
An article reporting on a study that approached the defensive value of firearms in a different way appeared in the American Rifleman, a print publication that I can't link, but which I found reprinted here.
K.
|
|
|
|
