'Something strange' in use of anti-gun statistics

[Kang Colby]

In the Nov. 7 Journal Gazette Furthermore item “Something strange in gun-use statistics,” the editorial board, citing the National Crime Victimization Survey, claims victims of crimes only use firearms 235,700 times to defend themselves. There are some egregious errors in citing the NCVS for defensive gun uses.

There is no wonder the NCVS is exceptionally low in estimating defensive gun use relative to other reputable, independent surveys. In fact, the NCVS is an extreme outlier in estimating defensive gun uses; no other reputable survey comes even close to the NCVS number.

There are at least 12 such surveys that estimated annual defensive gun uses, including Gallup (1,621,377 defensive gun uses) and even the Los Angeles Times (3,609,682 defensive gun uses). The only reputable survey, to date, that examined defensive gun uses exclusively was by Kleck and Gertz, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1995, which showed 2,549,862 total defensive gun uses.

http://www.journalgazette.net/opinion/columns/-Something-strange--in-use-of-anti-gun-statistics-9991488

This is a short but fascinating article that lays out the facts on defensive gun uses. The net benefits of gun ownership are incredibly positive for society. Case closed.

[Eleanors38]

1. This should be in GD, if the current rules are still in effect. IMO.

The MSM's hard-line hegemony supporting gun-control/bans makes it very difficult to get a popular forum to refute the junk data promulgated by gun ban organizations. It is a very dishonest and corrupt atmosphere which in the end only breeds more contempt for what remains of mass journalism; it does indeed come back on them, and so poisons the atmosphere for dialog in this country that sometimes I think MSM and the gun-ban groups long for a confrontation. There is little left to rationally explain their continued behavior.

[jimmy the one]

2. 'Something Strange' in those dgu surveys

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

kang cites bob Aldridge: “Something strange in gun-use statistics,” .. citing the National Crime Victimization Survey, claims victims of crimes only use firearms 235,700 times to defend themselves. There are some egregious errors in citing the NCVS for defensive gun uses.
The most flagrant error is that the NCVS never asks a single question about defensive gun use... The closest any comes to asking about defensive gun use is “Did you do anything with the idea of protecting YOURSELF or your PROPERTY while the incident was going on?” Only if a respondent volunteers a “yes” response, and then, only if the respondent volunteers to say he or she presented a firearm, does the NCVS make any record of a defensive gun use

I don't understand why pro gun author thinks that is an illogical method of prescreening for a dgu. To directly ask about using a firearm could elicit false positives.

bob: There are at least 12 such surveys that estimated annual defensive gun uses, including Gallup (1,621,377 defensive gun uses) and even the Los Angeles Times (3,609,682 defensive gun uses).

I checked Aldridge's 12 dgu surveys (tho maybe some are outdated & new ones have replaced them, but from pro gun 'guncite'), & you know what? there's something STRANGE about those dgu surveys. They don't agree much, have wide total variations, & 3 evidently are not national pan American surveys, but limited to states (calif Illinois ohio), where surprisingly Illinois 1977 and calif 1976 have more by large margins than some national total dgus. Am I reading this wrong people?

Three of the 12 surveys all had estimates of approx. 750,000 +/- 5%;
a) Gallup in 1991 had 777,000 (rounded all) while 2 yrs later had 1,621,000, the difference being respondents 1991 were from gun owning households while 1993 was restricted to gun owners. 1991 included military & police dgus, while 1993 which had a million more dgus, excluded cops & soldiers.
Which begs he Q, what was gallup measuring? Oh, a gallup dgu in both years included shooting at fido to scare him off (dgu against animals included). Oh wait, the dgu figure, while it includes animal dgus, somehow measures only 'IMPLIED' dgus against humans. Somehow animal dgus are included, then excluded? help me out here readers, opinions.
b) Tarrance had 764,000, excluding cops & mil dgus & dgus vs animals.
c) 'Ohio' evidently measured dgus in the state of ohio, & got 771,000, including cops&mil & animal dgus.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

DMIa in 1978 perhaps provides some insight as to 'dgus against animals', where including them produced 2.1 million, while excluding them produced only 1.1 million. Can one get a 'verbal dgu' against an animal? like 'go away bear or I'll get my gun'.

Here's another odd thing, bewildering if you ask me. In the 'recall period' there is no limitation as per the Gary Quack study with a one year dropback (quick edit correction, Gary Kleck) on most of the dgu surveys. Doesn't that mean they are measuring the TOTALITY of dgus a person thinks he has committed during his/her lifetime (quick edit correction, performed).

Survey: Time/CNN Mauser Gallup Gallup LATimes Tarrance
Recall Period: Ever .. 5 yrs.. Ever .. Ever .. Ever ......... 5 yrs.

Here's another quirky stats result inspector clouseau has noticed. The LATimes pan America dgu study in 1994 resulted in 3,609,000 dgus, while the gallup pan America survey a mere year prior in 1993 resulted in 1,621,000 dgus.
Did Americans do twice as many dgus in 1994 than in 1993? I suppose that's possible, but the only different criteria was that gallup surveyed only gun owners, while the LATimes, with double the dgus, measured 'ALL', I presume means all respondents including non gun owners???? How do non gun owners get credit for a defensive gun use? especially when they more than double the total dgus? former gun owners? ex-2ndA addicts? unless they fake it with a verbal dgu, as in 'go away or I'll get my gun' (which I don't really own, or maybe 'go away or I'll get my fathers/friends gun' - eureka!).

And note this footnote, where both 1993 gallup & 1994 LATimes had the very same daddy: .. the Gallup polls of 1991 and 1993, L.A. Times poll, and Tarrance poll were taken from a search of the DIALOG Public Opinion online computer database.

More fun footnotes: a. 1.4% in past year, 3% in past two years, 8.6% ever.>> 1976 Calif pan am.
b. Implied number of def. gun uses Estimated annual number of defensive uses of guns of all types against humans, excluding uses connected with military or police duties, after any necessary adjustments were made, for U.S., 1993. Adjustments are explained in detail in Kleck (1994).
c. Covered only uses outside the home.
d. 1% of respondents, 2% of households.
e. 9% fired gun for self-protection, 7% used gun "to scare someone." >>> I could not even find 'e'.
An unknown share of the latter could be defensive uses not overlapping with the former

[jimmy the one]

3. a dgu is quite an experience

bob Aldridge remark which caused me to cough & need get up for a drink of water: The only reputable survey, to date, that examined defensive gun uses exclusively was by Kleck and Gertz, 1995, which showed 2,549,862 total defensive gun uses.

The above kleck dgu study made ~5,000 phone calls pan am, rec'd ~60 total dgus with a dropback of 5 years, of which ~11 respon ses were 'woundings', & just 2 justifiable homicides. 54% were 'verbal dgus' (tho this could include overlapping).

Aldridge: The JG piece would have us believe data from 12 reputable, independent surveys, including the only one that examined defensive gun use exclusively, “isn’t true.”

And what are you contending Aldridge? that with their wide variations in results like from gallup 1.6 million and LAtimes 3.6 mill, these dgu surveys have a lock on credibility????

(Kleck study 1995) asked specifically whether or not anyone in the household had used a gun during the last year or past 5 years to protect self or property against a person perpetrating a crime ... 222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their household in the past 5 years.. correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

wiki corrects me: After correcting for oversampling in some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had experienced at least one DGU.

So I stand corrected. One does not 'commit' a dgu, nor 'perform' a dgu. One EXPERIENCES a dgu.
Wow. What have I been missing all these years?

kang: This is a short but fascinating article that lays out the facts on defensive gun uses. The net benefits of gun ownership are incredibly positive for society. Case closed

Maybe in the 2nd amendment mythology bible the case is closed. But for us readers who don't subscribe, the fascinating article you note, is simply another canard. You need explain the wide discrepancies in dgu totals, as well as the apparent 'forever' dropback, which seems to me would negate 'per year' basis for those studies. Unless it is somehow compensated to achieve a per year basis, maybe that's it, eh?

[Kang Colby]

4. So in summary...

there are between several hundred thousand DGUs and several million.

[jimmy the one]

5. why, kang? (dgu surveys)

kang: So in summary... there are between several hundred thousand DGUs and several million

What you write above is problematic, since such a large difference makes reasonable people wonder why such wide variations over a year's time, in such close proximity to each other in time. How can one year produce 1.6 million dgus by one pollster, then 3.6 million the next year by another pollster using similar standards of measurement? Why kang? why?
.. or, as you say, the yearly range of dgus go from ~700,000 up to the 3.6 million. How can there be 5 times more dgus in one year than in a recent previous year? There must be some dichotomy in polls which produce this kind of margin of error, 400%.
In the 12 polls there tends to be an inconstancy of homologous standards of measurement which in good part produces the wide variation in results. This suggests the surveys are subject to a false equivalency &/or misinterpretation or false positives or telescoping or even manipulation.

I apologize for not including the link to guncite in my last post, a clumsy oversight on my part, since it was a crucial part of my evidence. It is below, & I've added by edit to my previous post #2. http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Here is a rough copy I made. Note that DMIa DMIb comprise one survey, a & b to separate dgus against animals. And is that 'Mauser' what I'm thinking of? shouldn't they recuse themselves?

Are these the 12 dgu studies which bob Aldridge is referring to, kang? Note that two have 'not available' for their dgu estimates. Three evidently pertain to states of calif, Illinois & ohio. One is by 'mauser'. Three have yearly dgu figures of ~750,000, way off the LATimes 3.6 million.
Tarrance & LATimes both surveyed in 1994, yet LAT had 3.6 million dgus, while Tarrance only 764,000 dgus. LATimes included dgus against animals, but tarrance pertained to evidently respondents in a household, LAT just the respondent, how does that explain it?

FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS
Survey:
Time/CNN ..Mauser ..Gallup ..Gallup ..L.A. Times ..Tarrance {=6}
Area:
U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S.
Year of Interview
1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 1994
Population Covered
"Firearm owners" Residents NoninstAdult NoninstAd NoninstAd NoninstAd
Gun Type Covered
All guns All guns All guns All guns All guns All guns
Recall Period:
Ever 5 yrs. Ever Ever Ever 5 yrs.
Excluded Uses Against Animals
No Yes No No No Yes
Excluded Military, Police Uses?
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Defensive question asked of:
Gun owners ..All Rs.. Rs in hgun hshlds ..Gun owners ..All ..All
Defensive question refers to:
Respondent.. Hshld.. Respondent.. Resp.. Resp ..Respondent/Hhold
% Who Used
n.a. 3.79 8 11 8[c] 1/2[d]
Implied number of def. gun uses
n.a.. 1,487,342.. 777,153.. 1,621,377.. 3,609,682.. 764,036

FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS [80]
Survey:
Field.. Bordua ..CambridgeReports ..DMIa DMIb ..Hart ..Ohio {=6}
Area:
California.. Illinois ..US.. US US... US .. Ohio
Year of Interview
1976 .. 1977.. 1978 ..1978 1978 ..1981.. 1982
Recall Period:
Ever/1, 2 yrs. Ever Ever Ever Ever 5 yrs. Ever
Excluded Uses Against Animals
No No No No Yes Yes No
Excluded Military, Police Uses?
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Defensive question asked of:
All Rs.. All Rs ..Protection hgun owners ..All Rs All Rs.. All Rs ..Rs in hgun households
Implied number of def. gun uses
3,052,717 ..1,414,544.. n.a.. 2,141,512 - 1,098,409 ..1,797,461 ..771,043

[jimmy the one]

6. syg wyg dgu, omg

Need your opinion kang; not official yet, but should this one be deemed a bona fide Defensive Gun Use (DGU)?
Stand your ground with a pistol vs fists and all that.

{Navy Seal} Martin and Glenn, 33, became engaged in a fight. Glenn went and got his weapon.
Martin charged at Glenn despite the gun. Glenn then fired the weapon.The two men knew each other...
Glenn has not been charged with a crime..detectives are still gathering facts about this case, which could end up being self-defense.
Martin was a ski instructor, firefighter, rescue scuba diver and skydiver. In addition to his vast resume, he was a father to 4-year-old Rocco.
http://wfla.com/2015/12/01/navy-seal-dies-after-soho-backyard-shooting/

There ya go, gary kwack fans, another 'dgu/defensive gun use' for the records. Ain't you proud of this one?
What do you think kang, another Zimmerman style dgu?

[Kang Colby]

7. tl;dr....

Gun control is a lost cause. We won.

http://myfox8.com/2015/11/03/no-charges-after-suspect-shot-while-trying-to-rob-winston-salem-jewelry-store/

[jimmy the one]

8. go away fido or I'll get my gun

No one denies that dgu's exist or are done.
How do defensive gun uses against animals help reduce violent crime?

You won? dec 7, 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.
Police say the attackers in San Bernardino used such weapons as did the gunman who attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic two weeks ago in Colorado.

The court declined to take up a challenge to a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than ten rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. It specifically includes certain rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact-n475421

[ManiacJoe]

9. Jimmy, what part of the Martin story suggests it is not a valid self defense claim?