ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Chicago incidents , concealed carry , shooting incidents

Reply
Old 26th April 2015, 09:57 AM   #81
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
So all in all I'm pretty confident that a higher rate of gun ownership, coupled with ease of access to those firearms does indeed lead to a higher murder rate..
But you're comparing from different countries. If firearm ownership rates were really directly related to murder rates then you'd expect areas in the USA with higher gun ownership rates to have higher murder rates, yes?

So how could we verify that claim? Let's use my home state of Illinois to test this theory of yours. Since Illinois requires a FOID card to legally purchase or possess firearms it is very easy to get a reasonably accurate estimate of firearm ownership rates. On this page you will find a color-coded map of FOID card rates by county, with light yellow being the lowest rate and darker colors representing higher rates of firearm ownership. If your theory holds true we would expect those darker areas to have correspondingly higher murder rates, correct?

And if your theory holds true Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago and has the lowest rate of firearm ownership in the state (6.86% of the Cook population has a FOID card) would have the lowest murder rate in the entire state, correct? And Calhoun County, where a whopping 44.17% of people have a FOID card should have the highest murder rate in the state, correct?

How do you think your theory will hold up when the numbers are crunched? Does Calhoun County sport a murder rate 6-7 times that of Cook County?
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 26th April 2015 at 10:03 AM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:06 AM   #82
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Well, I'm convinced.

Gunners like to repeatedy claim that there are 80 - 120 million gun owners in the US.

Then they like to caim there are (low end) 500,000 defensive gun uses a year.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
You don't need to purchase it, you can read it from the link I provided. I was wrong though with my figure of 300,000. According to that report (page 15) the low end of DGUs per year is 500,000.
So, assuming 100 million gun owners in the US (the middle of 80-120), and taking WC's 500,000 number, that means one in every 200 gun owners has had a DGU. (Or is it maybe the same guy a couple of times?)

That's astounding.

You'd think we'd hear more about that.

Anyway, I guess the country would indeed spiral into lawlessness if it were not for the 100 million gun owners and their 500,000 DGUs a year keeping us safe and the criminals in check.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:12 AM   #83
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,191
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
...I'm open to the idea that I've interpreted the data incorrectly but then you'll need to do a bit better then just claiming that without any corroborating evidence. The ball is in your court.
I think to really understand the problem we would need to separate out handguns from rifles used for hunting or target shooting. We also need to estimate the number of illegally owned guns in circulation. Then, instead of just concentrating on murders, add in the number of deliberate non-fatal shootings, the number of accidental shootings (both fatal and non-fatal) plus the number of times guns -- again primarily handguns -- are used in the commission of a crime.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:16 AM   #84
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And some have less guns and more crime, like the UK.

Link to the evidence for this statement please.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:26 AM   #85
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
You don't need to purchase it, you can read it from the link I provided. I was wrong though with my figure of 300,000. According to that report (page 15) the low end of DGUs per year is 500,000.
Maybe we should look at the entire paragraph.

Quote:
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It comes from a survey in which the question wasn't even asked!
See the highlited part?

Quote:
The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.
So people were surveyed as to whether or not they ever had a DGU. High-end number? OK because survey. The low-end number? Not OK because survey.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:27 AM   #86
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,499
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It's bollocks.
How about the Violence Policy Centers report, not exactly known for being pro-gun:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

They used the NCVS numbers to debunk Kleck, and using their numbers we get to somewhere around 47,000 DGU's per year:

According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of both attempted and completed violent crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.8 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal “threatened or attacked with a firearm.”11 As detailed in the chart on the next page, for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the NCVS estimates that there were 29,618,300 victims of attempted or completed violent crime. During this same five-year period, only 235,700 of the self-protective behaviors involved a firearm. Of this number, it is not known what type of firearm was used or whether it was fired or not. The number may also include off-duty law enforcement officers who use their firearms in self-defense.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:27 AM   #87
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Well, I'm convinced.

Gunners like to repeatedy claim that there are 80 - 120 million gun owners in the US.

Then they like to caim there are (low end) 500,000 defensive gun uses a year.



So, assuming 100 million gun owners in the US (the middle of 80-120), and taking WC's 500,000 number, that means one in every 200 gun owners has had a DGU. (Or is it maybe the same guy a couple of times?)

That's astounding.

You'd think we'd hear more about that.
Why would you hear more about it? Unless shots are fired they're very unlikely to make the news or generate a police report.

Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Anyway, I guess the country would indeed spiral into lawlessness if it were not for the 100 million gun owners and their 500,000 DGUs a year keeping us safe and the criminals in check.
Perhaps our crime rate would increase to equal that of the UK?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:28 AM   #88
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Maybe we should look at the entire paragraph.






See the highlited part?



So people were surveyed as to whether or not they ever had a DGU. High-end number? OK because survey. The low-end number? Not OK because survey.
The low end of the studies examined in that report was 500,000. So throw out the high and low and what do you end up with?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:35 AM   #89
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
More interesting stuff about these numbers.


Quote:
In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.”


Quote:
In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz.

However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.

Last edited by 12AX7; 26th April 2015 at 10:36 AM.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:42 AM   #90
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Wait. There's more!

Debunking Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz


Quote:
Thoroughly debunked years ago, the gun lobby’s favorite research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses (DGU) each year in the United States. Yep, you read it right; 2.5 million DGUs PER YEAR!

The Kleck study claims that 2.5 million times per year, someone uses a gun to defend themselves. That’s more defensive gun uses than happened in WWII in Europe in 1944. The Kleck study is so flawed the only thing it measures is the wild imagination of gun owners.
At this link, you'll get links to "many peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles published that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim."

All free. It's long reading though. The top ones:


“The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997


“The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance – American Statistical Association, 1997


“Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998


“The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000


“Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000


“Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use” Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:42 AM   #91
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
You don't need to purchase it, you can read it from the link I provided. I was wrong though with my figure of 300,000. According to that report (page 15) the low end of DGUs per year is 500,000.

Now, please provide your evidence.
Can you please give a page number?

Thanks much.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:44 AM   #92
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,499
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Interesting thing is they debunk Kleck et al, but don't cite a number for their estimate of DGU's using the NCVS numbers.

VPC was honest enough to do so, and at 47,000 m/l DGU's per year that number still exceeds homicides, suicides and fatal accidents.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:45 AM   #93
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Can you please give a page number?

Thanks much.
It feels like I'm missing something, but wasn't the page number referred to in the quote??
Monketi Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:48 AM   #94
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,499
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Can you please give a page number?

Thanks much.
I've linked to the VPC study, which as I understand it cites the lowest estimate of DGU's.

Is 47,000 instances of DGU's a number that you agree or don't agree with, and if so, do you have a link to a study that refutes VPC's estimated number?
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 10:53 AM   #95
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Can you please give a page number?

Thanks much.
It was page 26 when I opened it.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 11:19 AM   #96
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
The low end of the studies examined in that report was 500,000. So throw out the high and low and what do you end up with?
I suppose that, if none of the studies are reliable, then you end up with bupkiss.

You can't take a whole slew of unreliable estimates, throw out the ends, and pretend you're left with good numbers.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 11:26 AM   #97
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost View Post
It feels like I'm missing something, but wasn't the page number referred to in the quote??
Well, don't I look stupid?

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that. Sorry to all.

Far as I can tell, the report only discusses the reliability of the outliers, and says the actual number is controversial. I don't see that there's anything in the report that gives credence to any estimate at all.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 11:27 AM   #98
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I've linked to the VPC study, which as I understand it cites the lowest estimate of DGU's.

Is 47,000 instances of DGU's a number that you agree or don't agree with, and if so, do you have a link to a study that refutes VPC's estimated number?
I don't have any opinion at all on the number of instances.

I honestly haven't a clue as to what the right number is.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 11:29 AM   #99
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, don't I look stupid?

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that. Sorry to all.

Far as I can tell, the report only discusses the reliability of the outliers, and says the actual number is controversial. I don't see that there's anything in the report that gives credence to any estimate at all.
LOL
No, it's usually me that can't follow along which is why I was suspicious that it was just me.
For once I actually followed something correctly.
Monketi Ghost is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:15 PM   #100
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Wait. There's more!

Debunking Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz




At this link, you'll get links to "many peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles published that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim."

All free. It's long reading though. The top ones:


“The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997


“The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance – American Statistical Association, 1997


“Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998


“The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000


“Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000


“Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use” Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
Provide quotes from those studies defining DGU and their numbers. Can you do that?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:17 PM   #101
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Can you please give a page number?

Thanks much.


Page 15, it's right there in the quote...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:19 PM   #102
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I suppose that, if none of the studies are reliable, then you end up with bupkiss.

You can't take a whole slew of unreliable estimates, throw out the ends, and pretend you're left with good numbers.
You can't say the numbers are inaccurate without providing evidence of better numbers. Much like we don't let creationists claim the ToE is wrong when they have no alternative scientific theory.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:25 PM   #103
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Provide quotes from those studies defining DGU and their numbers. Can you do that?
All links provided. I'm not doing your homework for you.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:28 PM   #104
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
All links provided. I'm not doing your homework for you.
It's your burden to support your claim. I looked up one of your studies and it offers no estimates at all on DGUs, it merely discusses the problem of getting reliable data from phone surveys.

So once again, your claim your burden of proof.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:28 PM   #105
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
You can't say the numbers are inaccurate without providing evidence of better numbers. Much like we don't let creationists claim the ToE is wrong when they have no alternative scientific theory.
Well, what we can say is that the numbers are not shown to be reliable. If a study is done showing that the number of X's is n, but the study is obviously flawed, then we conclude that the study is not evidence of the number of X's at all. Could there really be n X's? Sure, there might be, but a flawed study is no evidence of that.

Now, if I was telling you that 300,000 is the wrong number, then the analogy with creationists might be apt, but I haven't said that because I don't have any opinion about the right number at all. Nor have I said the numbers are inaccurate, since I don't know the right numbers.

All I've said is that, if you have a number of unreliable studies, then throwing out the endpoints doesn't give you a reliable number.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:37 PM   #106
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, what we can say is that the numbers are not shown to be reliable. If a study is done showing that the number of X's is n, but the study is obviously flawed, then we conclude that the study is not evidence of the number of X's at all. Could there really be n X's? Sure, there might be, but a flawed study is no evidence of that.

Now, if I was telling you that 300,000 is the wrong number, then the analogy with creationists might be apt, but I haven't said that because I don't have any opinion about the right number at all. Nor have I said the numbers are inaccurate, since I don't know the right numbers.

All I've said is that, if you have a number of unreliable studies, then throwing out the endpoints doesn't give you a reliable number.
You can argue they're unreliable all you like, but until you can cite a more reliable one they're the best we have.

Now, can you cite a DGU number you feel is more accurate?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 12:48 PM   #107
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Well, what we can say is that the numbers are not shown to be reliable. If a study is done showing that the number of X's is n, but the study is obviously flawed, then we conclude that the study is not evidence of the number of X's at all. Could there really be n X's? Sure, there might be, but a flawed study is no evidence of that.

Now, if I was telling you that 300,000 is the wrong number, then the analogy with creationists might be apt, but I haven't said that because I don't have any opinion about the right number at all. Nor have I said the numbers are inaccurate, since I don't know the right numbers.

All I've said is that, if you have a number of unreliable studies, then throwing out the endpoints doesn't give you a reliable number.
Agree, but save your efforts.

WildCat & Co. knows there is no way to accurately arrive at a concrete number. This thread has happened many times in the past. So, they choose the highest number and go with it because guns!

In reply to their claims, I've stated I don't believe it to be 300,000 (or 500,000) times a year. I've put up links to pages where experts agree that number is way off, just on mathematics alone. Others debunk those numbers based on methodology as well.

The burden of proof lies on the gunners claiming that there are 300,000 (or 500,000) DGUs a year. That burden has not been met and will not be. They know it, and so do we. It won't stop them from trotting that number out though. Hell, they don't even have the intellectual honesty to say that DGUs "are somewhere between x and y"; they just pick the highest and go with it, then challenge you to refute it.

All he'll do now is just keep you busy jumping through his senseless hoops.

Last edited by 12AX7; 26th April 2015 at 12:50 PM.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 01:35 PM   #108
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Tatyana View Post
Link to the evidence for this statement please.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crim...ecdjan2012.pdf

Note assault rates - the UK has 2 of the top 3 countries in the world. Scotland (#1) and England/Wales (#3). There are 12 western European countries with lower rates of assault then the USA. And not that the definition is assaults resulting in serious injury, it's not an issue of definition differences as has been claimed in the past here. And it's not a small difference either, the assault rate in Scotland is about 7 ties that of the USA and England/Wales is about triple the USA rate.

Not surprising when self defense is so restricted by law, easy pickings for street thugs.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 01:36 PM   #109
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,515
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Agree, but save your efforts.

WildCat & Co. knows there is no way to accurately arrive at a concrete number. This thread has happened many times in the past. So, they choose the highest number and go with it because guns!

In reply to their claims, I've stated I don't believe it to be 300,000 (or 500,000) times a year. I've put up links to pages where experts agree that number is way off, just on mathematics alone. Others debunk those numbers based on methodology as well.

The burden of proof lies on the gunners claiming that there are 300,000 (or 500,000) DGUs a year. That burden has not been met and will not be. They know it, and so do we. It won't stop them from trotting that number out though. Hell, they don't even have the intellectual honesty to say that DGUs "are somewhere between x and y"; they just pick the highest and go with it, then challenge you to refute it.

All he'll do now is just keep you busy jumping through his senseless hoops.
But we do that violent crime has continually decreased as concealed carry has increased. Seems very obvious that either lawful carriers are (a) a good thing (in which case it should be permitted) or (b) statistically negligible impact (in which case it should be permitted as there is no compelling reason to ban it). Simple.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 01:42 PM   #110
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Agree, but save your efforts.

WildCat & Co. knows there is no way to accurately arrive at a concrete number. This thread has happened many times in the past. So, they choose the highest number and go with it because guns!
I actually went with the lowest number, while you've offered no number at all.

Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
In reply to their claims, I've stated I don't believe it to be 300,000 (or 500,000) times a year. I've put up links to pages where experts agree that number is way off, just on mathematics alone. Others debunk those numbers based on methodology as well.
Still waiting for numbers you think are better. Your 'experts" can bloviate until they're blue in the face, but until they can come up with alternative numbers of their own then they haven't really shown anything.

So, once again, feel free to offer up DGU rates you feel are more accurate. But we both know you will be doing no such thing, don't we?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 04:13 PM   #111
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
You can argue they're unreliable all you like, but until you can cite a more reliable one they're the best we have.

Now, can you cite a DGU number you feel is more accurate?
I don't think you understand my point.

If the only studies we have are unreliable, then the best number we have is not really worth citing. We should try to only use numbers that are reliable, and if we haven't any, then perhaps we should admit that don't yet have a good estimate.

As I said before, I have no numbers to provide. I've never looked into this issue at all.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 05:16 PM   #112
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,912
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
You'd think we'd hear more about that.
If I had to defend myself with a gun, I might not report it depending on the circumstances. Why would I expose myself to police scrutiny for something I did in self defense? No way I want to spend money on a lawyer just because the police might think I broke the law defending myself.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2015, 08:51 PM   #113
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't think you understand my point.

If the only studies we have are unreliable, then the best number we have is not really worth citing. We should try to only use numbers that are reliable, and if we haven't any, then perhaps we should admit that don't yet have a good estimate.

As I said before, I have no numbers to provide. I've never looked into this issue at all.
No one has shown the studies to be unreliable. All we have are claims that they could be unreliable.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 02:57 PM   #114
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
No one has shown the studies to be unreliable. All we have are claims that they could be unreliable.
As I understand it, the very source you cited said that the estimates are in dispute. Seems to me that until we have a clear and reliable method for estimating the actual number, it is not worthwhile to use controversial figures to bolster your case.

I'm not necessarily opposed to your conclusion that gun rights are a good thing. But if you're going to make a case, you should use data that all parties -- or at least enough authoritative parties -- agree is accurate, reliable, well-derived in short. Taking a bunch of different numbers and choosing a somewhat low figure (though not the lowest cited number in that publication, since that was 108,000) is not a good way to convince those skeptical of your position.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 03:26 PM   #115
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
As I understand it, the very source you cited said that the estimates are in dispute. Seems to me that until we have a clear and reliable method for estimating the actual number, it is not worthwhile to use controversial figures to bolster your case.
Until someone comes up with a more accurate number those are the best we have, and the actual number is likely somewhere in that range between the high and low. You don't get to say "your numbers are not perfect therefore they are wrong". Produce better numbers, and yet none seem to be forthcoming. I wonder why that is, seeing as it's been 20 years since Kleck's first study. My money is on the anti-gunners not being able to come up with numbers that are much different, it's certainly not for lack of time or effort.

Doesn't this remind you of creationists constantly pointing out flaws in the ToE, while not producing any better theory? Just as the criticism doesn't mean the ToE is not correct, criticism of the DGU numbers don't invalidate them. They stand until better numbers are produced.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm not necessarily opposed to your conclusion that gun rights are a good thing. But if you're going to make a case, you should use data that all parties -- or at least enough authoritative parties -- agree is accurate, reliable, well-derived in short. Taking a bunch of different numbers and choosing a somewhat low figure (though not the lowest cited number in that publication, since that was 108,000) is not a good way to convince those skeptical of your position.
You're just moving the goalposts to an impossible point. And I'll note once again that the 108,000 number is derived from poll data where the question of DGU was never even asked. It's manufactured out of thin air.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 03:48 PM   #116
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,907
From post #89:


Quote:
:
In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz.

However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.
Apples/oranges. Unreported GDUs / reported burglaries. Lets get on the same page:

The 845,000 GDUs were mostly not reported, and neither would the burglaries have been. So let's add the 33% of 1.3M, (340,000) to the 845,000, and we get 1,195,000, of which 845,000 times involved GDUs. Not only mathematically possible, but beleivable.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 27th April 2015 at 03:50 PM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:05 PM   #117
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
As I understand it, the very source you cited said that the estimates are in dispute. Seems to me that until we have a clear and reliable method for estimating the actual number, it is not worthwhile to use controversial figures to bolster your case.

I'm not necessarily opposed to your conclusion that gun rights are a good thing. But if you're going to make a case, you should use data that all parties -- or at least enough authoritative parties -- agree is accurate, reliable, well-derived in short. Taking a bunch of different numbers and choosing a somewhat low figure (though not the lowest cited number in that publication, since that was 108,000) is not a good way to convince those skeptical of your position.
Remember when I said:

Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Agree, but save your efforts.

WildCat & Co. knows there is no way to accurately arrive at a concrete number. This thread has happened many times in the past. So, they choose the highest number and go with it because guns!

In reply to their claims, I've stated I don't believe it to be 300,000 (or 500,000) times a year. I've put up links to pages where experts agree that number is way off, just on mathematics alone. Others debunk those numbers based on methodology as well.

The burden of proof lies on the gunners claiming that there are 300,000 (or 500,000) DGUs a year. That burden has not been met and will not be. They know it, and so do we. It won't stop them from trotting that number out though. Hell, they don't even have the intellectual honesty to say that DGUs "are somewhere between x and y"; they just pick the highest and go with it, then challenge you to refute it.

All he'll do now is just keep you busy jumping through his senseless hoops.
This is what I meant.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:12 PM   #118
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,011
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Until someone comes up with a more accurate number those are the best we have, and the actual number is likely somewhere in that range between the high and low. You don't get to say "your numbers are not perfect therefore they are wrong". Produce better numbers, and yet none seem to be forthcoming. I wonder why that is, seeing as it's been 20 years since Kleck's first study. My money is on the anti-gunners not being able to come up with numbers that are much different, it's certainly not for lack of time or effort.

Doesn't this remind you of creationists constantly pointing out flaws in the ToE, while not producing any better theory? Just as the criticism doesn't mean the ToE is not correct, criticism of the DGU numbers don't invalidate them. They stand until better numbers are produced.
No, it's not analogous. If the studies really don't have a good methodology, then the numbers they produce are not the "best estimate". They're just unreliable numbers.

Here, let me give you an example. I have the best estimate for number of used hypodermic needles on Wollaston Beach. There are, I estimate, twenty-eight of them there. (I added up the digits in my dead dog's birthdate.) No one else has produced a study of the number of needles, so my number is the best estimate we've got.

Obviously, that's bogus. Now you have several studies, not one, but the numbers are so far apart that there's no faith that any of them are measuring what they say they measure. Estimates range from 108,000 to the wildly implausible 2.5 million. You can't just say the right thing to do is pick somewhere on the low end, because the fact that these numbers are so vastly different indicates that we haven't found a good way to measure the real number.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:21 PM   #119
12AX7
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hollywood East
Posts: 10,889
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
No, it's not analogous. If the studies really don't have a good methodology, then the numbers they produce are not the "best estimate". They're just unreliable numbers.

Here, let me give you an example. I have the best estimate for number of used hypodermic needles on Wollaston Beach. There are, I estimate, twenty-eight of them there. (I added up the digits in my dead dog's birthdate.) No one else has produced a study of the number of needles, so my number is the best estimate we've got.

Obviously, that's bogus. Now you have several studies, not one, but the numbers are so far apart that there's no faith that any of them are measuring what they say they measure. Estimates range from 108,000 to the wildly implausible 2.5 million. You can't just say the right thing to do is pick somewhere on the low end, because the fact that these numbers are so vastly different indicates that we haven't found a good way to measure the real number.
Seriously, don't chase his goalposts and jump through his hoops.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2015, 06:40 PM   #120
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Remember when I said:



This is what I meant.
Originally Posted by 12AX7 View Post
Seriously, don't chase his goalposts and jump through his hoops.
Now demanding evidence for your ridiculous claims is "chasing goalposts" and "jumping through hoops".

Are you aware this is a critical thinking forum?

Still waiting for your number of DGUs btw. Sadly, I don't think my prediction that you won't provide one will win me the $1 million because, well, that's like predicting sunrise.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.