On 2012-10-22 00:26, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-10-21 10:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
So I did a bit of reading last night. There are basically two kinds of gun statistics in America. You have injury and body counts, which tend to be pretty uncontroversial. Then you have social scientists getting people to tell them how many criminals they've shot at, and it's a mess. Criminologist Gary Kleck from Florida State has estimated gun numbers that have led two discussions: one noting how horrible life would be without guns, and one counting alleged methodological errors in his study. While I didn't (and won't) have the time to look closely at Kleck's work, it doesn't look good at first glance. (One obvious problem with Kleck's work is that he doesn't get his respondents to explain what they mean by "using a gun in self defense". Shooting a charging elk would count, as would being a soldier in a combat zone, or being a police officer. Nobody knows what he's measuring, including Kleck.)

In short, it looks as though there is way too much noise in the data for me to say anything about yesterday's claim, so I'll withdraw it. I suspect that more innocent people than felons are shot by fearful civilians, but the evidence is nowhere near clean enough to back it up.

John

Seems like you missed what Kleck said is good about guns at home for protection.

Here is research discussion by Kleck as I looked him because you mentioned him. I never heard of him before. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html Seems guns are quite safe in home defense as opposed to what you have thought. Also much better than cooperating with the criminal or doing nothing.

On 2012-10-22 10:50, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-10-22 00:26, acesover wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-10-21 10:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
So I did a bit of reading last night. There are basically two kinds of gun statistics in America. You have injury and body counts, which tend to be pretty uncontroversial. Then you have social scientists getting people to tell them how many criminals they've shot at, and it's a mess. Criminologist Gary Kleck from Florida State has estimated gun numbers that have led two discussions: one noting how horrible life would be without guns, and one counting alleged methodological errors in his study. While I didn't (and won't) have the time to look closely at Kleck's work, it doesn't look good at first glance. (One obvious problem with Kleck's work is that he doesn't get his respondents to explain what they mean by "using a gun in self defense". Shooting a charging elk would count, as would being a soldier in a combat zone, or being a police officer. Nobody knows what he's measuring, including Kleck.)

In short, it looks as though there is way too much noise in the data for me to say anything about yesterday's claim, so I'll withdraw it. I suspect that more innocent people than felons are shot by fearful civilians, but the evidence is nowhere near clean enough to back it up.

John

Seems like you missed what Kleck said is good about guns at home for protection.

Here is research discussion by Kleck as I looked him because you mentioned him. I never heard of him before. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html Seems guns are quite safe in home defense as opposed to what you have thought. Also much better than cooperating with the criminal or doing nothing.

Either I was unclear, or you misread me. I am familiar with the Kleck work (i.e. I've read it and spent a bit of time going through some of the published critiques; I have not studied it in depth). Almost every social scientist disputes his methods and his reporting. From what I have read deeply enough to understand, Kleck's work is methodologically awful. (e.g. his samples aren't random, he over samples some regions, he oversamples some ethnic groups while undersampling others, he oversamples males and undersamples females, his questions are vague and leading).

It isn't hard to see why special interest groups such as the NRA rely heavily on Kleck and ignore everything else.

The problem is that his work has generated so much response that it is very difficult to tell a) which, if any, of his results are solid, and b) which of the alternate studies are worth believing.

In short, I have no faith in Kleck's work, but I do not know the field well enough to make positive conclusions about numbers.

John

On 2012-10-22 23:26, acesover wrote:


I was realy questioning why you used him at all if you disagree with him so much. It just does not make much sense to quote someone then dispute them in the next breath, but not reference someone else...However you did throw in some off the wall comment about elks or moose being shot at that you feel he included in his researach but that was your opinion. Really a strange series of posts on your part.

On 2012-10-23 00:41, acesover wrote:
Just glad the little girl is OK.