US Supreme Court Continues To Justly Serve The People...

[mongoose06]

The figures put forth by mongoose are from the NCVS survey conducted in '93 and has been stated they are weak for many different reasons. They are in fact the low-ball estimation by some way the next lowest survey estimated ten times as many.

 

Mongoose the DoJ also made an estimate of 1.5 million defensive uses annually in the report titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.

 

As I pointed out in the London thread using the low or high ball estimates is being intellectually dishonest.

 

Well, I didn't see this one coming. I used primary-source statistics provided by the government, and I'm accused of being "intellectually dishonest"...?

 

Okay, ... well let's use your statistics then.

 

First off, if by "other surveys" you are reffering to the NSPOF survey, I really must pause to laugh. The article you cited is basically a 12 page scathing criticism of that study. If government statistics are considered "low ball" estimates, then the NSPOF would be considered stratospheric estimates.

 

I was intrigued by author's point taken from p.12. Referring to the methods of the NSPOF survey:

 

"Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults... This surprising figure [of total DGUs] is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!"

 

Does this suggest that maybe the best way to attract crime is to own a gun?

 

As to how DGU incidents are often exaggerated on surveys:

 

"In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the

followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"" p. 10

 

On page 8 of the paper you cited, they have a nice little graph of their estimates of total uses, adjusted for the methods of the Kleck and Gertz study. Total DGU: 1,250,000

Total Crime: 4,093,000

1:3.27

 

One point made in the paper that I hadn't previously considered is the unknown amount of crime deterred by the knowledge that a high percentage of people own guns in an area.

 

"When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim."

 

Perhaps the old adage is true: "A well-armed society is a polite society".

 

Either way, I think I'm out of this thread for good. It's been a good exercise in debate, but I can only see this ending in mud-slinging, and we all know what they say about arguing on the internet...

 

 

 

 

[expvideo]

You can justify your sources however you want, but no matter how you look at it, they are making the numbers up out of thin air.

[Chimpy]

Well, I didn't see this one coming. I used primary-source statistics provided by the government, and I'm accused of being "intellectually dishonest"...?

 

No you are intellectually dishonest for not considering the other surveys.

 

First off, if by "other surveys" you are reffering to the NSPOF survey, I really must pause to laugh. The article you cited is basically a 12 page scathing criticism of that study. If government statistics are considered "low ball" estimates, then the NSPOF would be considered stratospheric estimates.

 

I was intrigued by author's point taken from p.12. Referring to the methods of the NSPOF survey:

 

"Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults... This surprising figure [of total DGUs] is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!"

 

Does this suggest that maybe the best way to attract crime is to own a gun?

 

As to how DGU incidents are often exaggerated on surveys:

 

"In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the

followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"" p. 10

 

On page 8 of the paper you cited, they have a nice little graph of their estimates of total uses, adjusted for the methods of the Kleck and Gertz study. Total DGU: 1,250,000

Total Crime: 4,093,000

1:3.27

 

One point made in the paper that I hadn't previously considered is the unknown amount of crime deterred by the knowledge that a high percentage of people own guns in an area.

 

"When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim."

 

Perhaps the old adage is true: "A well-armed society is a polite society".

 

Either way, I think I'm out of this thread for good. It's been a good exercise in debate, but I can only see this ending in mud-slinging, and we all know what they say about arguing on the internet...

 

I am not just refering to the NSPOF survey I've cited a table of the results of previous surveys already in this thread as well as numerous other studies.

 

I refer you back to Harmless' post a couple before yours for another.

 

I've cited many papers so far detailing both sides arguments because it's the intellectually honest thing to do in this debate. Supply as much information as possible in a non-partisan manner and try to draw conclusions from it.

 

expvideo - You have read the methodologies right? They are actually asking people questions and using the information generated by that to determine the trends. It's not 'picking numbers out of the air'. There is definitely some doubt at the actual number but at the moment they are the best source of information to go on. Similar statistical methods are used for lots of public health surveys.

 

[Guinness]

Good Christ!

 

This thread is still plodding along?!?!

 

I can't be bovered to read it all the way back- so what's the consensus, America still am bad and backward for allowing guns? or what.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slainte!

[Sale]

These are the highlights:

 

1) It indeed is an individual right. And no, it doesn't mean you can own nukes.

2) Legal guns are used more often for saving a life than taking one.

3) Guns overall are a question mark and that's the debate.

 

I don't think the thread is that much alive anymore, though. Being as the previous post was three days before yours and all.

 

-Sale

[TheKurodaVagrant]

Yeah, way to poke at a dead thread, Guinness.

[Guinness]

lol

 

I guess I missed the '3-day rigor-mortis' rule in the by laws....

 

 

...seems like a lot of threads chill for 3 or more days until a response though