Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

51. just a few things

Reply to flamin lib (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 06:20 PM

Jun 2016

1. He randomly surveyed 5000 phone numbers. The best information we have is that only 34% of households have guns, so 66% of his sample is flawed.

he used a larger sample size than polls that call only a few hundred phone numbers. If his poll is wrong, then every poll is wrong. But at least you didn't do what Hemenway did, which was to claim that Gertz's employees falsified data. Can you explain how two thirds would be flawed outside of maybe those would be the bulk of the no answers?

2. He had no way of verifying the data gathered; no police reports, no secondary witnesses, nothing. He just took their word for it.

He didn't do that either. Every positive response was passed to a supervisor who asked a variety of questions aimed to weed out false positives. BTW, false negatives are probably more common.

5. He took the results of his flawed sample and extrapolated it to all households even though 66% did not have guns and therefore could not possibly have had a DGU.

Assumption not based on evidence. You provided no evidence that the poll was flawed other than simply claim that it is.

The man does not know how to research and doesn't care to do quality work.

So how come you, well really Hemenway can find so called flaws yet no one else could, not even Marvin Wolfgang? Why did this study, and the book that was spawned from it, received an award from his professional society? Can you also explain that Phil Cook of all people were among the researchers that verified his results?

The CDC had one reference to his 2 million DGUs/year and gunners lap it up while at the same time denigrating every other study they've done

because they were not done by researchers trained in that area, was funded by Bloomberg, and usually didn't show up in a peer review criminology journal. Oh, the the studies were objectively shit.

Have you actually read the book and study, or just read what others say about it?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A recent thread sort of asked why we can't have cogent discussions about guns. [View all] flamin lib Jun 2016 OP

Recommended. My addition would be the words guillaumeb Jun 2016 #1

Yes, people will reject you if you attribute to them things they have not said and do not believe. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #14

Universes... beevul Jun 2016 #2

"separate universes with separate rules of logic..." jmg257 Jun 2016 #3

We can dismiss your argument... theatre goon Jun 2016 #4

That's not a derogatory remark, simply saying that people who hang out in flamin lib Jun 2016 #5

Sure, keep moving those goalposts. theatre goon Jun 2016 #6

And then there are some people . . . nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #7

What if you hang out in discussion groups TeddyR Jun 2016 #10

who is also a crappy musician gejohnston Jun 2016 #13

You called me fringe Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #12

Noting the same "like this one." I do seem pretty leftist, now that you bring it up. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #20

The NRA membership may be only 3% of gun owners, benEzra Jun 2016 #52

Yes, I saw that Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #11

Some of them do seem to believe... theatre goon Jun 2016 #15

What you're describing... beevul Jun 2016 #17

Wonder how much of that Skinner will tolerate with his renewed rules of civility? DonP Jun 2016 #18

Uh huh. beevul Jun 2016 #19

Add ammosexuals to the list Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #27

Do you think that juries sarisataka Jun 2016 #28

It would be surprising Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #29

An appeals process means those ignoring the rules will be recognized... beevul Jun 2016 #30

I hope so Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #31

I also note this singling out of the NRA in the context of pre-banned RW sources... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #22

Reminds me of an incident in H.S. I was a big civil rights supporter, a redneck friend wasn't... Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #21

That reminds me of "bailing out" my daughter in High School DonP Jun 2016 #24

Heh-heh. Those were the good ol' days. (Afraid it sounds like an old tale, too.) Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #25

She's 40 now and teaches English Lit at Chicago's top High School DonP Jun 2016 #26

He best legends are family legends. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #34

Bansalot Puha Ekapi Jun 2016 #23

The OP is a rather weak dancer IMO. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #36

Bear in mind this is originating from a universe where words have... Marengo Jun 2016 #39

K&R - great post! Kang Colby Jun 2016 #8

Wonder why the OP never responded to your question about the book he was reading. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #32

Reminds me of of another poster Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33

Guess we got our answer re. why we can't have cogent discussions, eh? pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #35

I would use a stronger term Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #37

I can't imagine the answer to be so awkward or revealing as to trigger... Marengo Jun 2016 #40

I could kick at your analogies a bit, but that'd be nitpicking. Decoy of Fenris Jun 2016 #9

Oh, look. It's another "It's hard to have a civil discussion because you 'people' suck" thread. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2016 #16

What is the name of the book? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #38

I would also like to know the title of this book... Marengo Jun 2016 #41

Seems like "Suing the Gun industry" by Timothy D. Lytton jmg257 Jun 2016 #42

Sorry to be so late but that's the book. flamin lib Jun 2016 #43

Thanks for the heads up - and about the "sleep inducing". Cheers! nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #44

Must say.....not surprised that you'd be drawn to a book with that title. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #45

Kleck couldn't research his way out of a paper bag with a road map and a razor blade.nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #46

Would you say that... Puha Ekapi Jun 2016 #47

There are several issues with Klecks methods. flamin lib Jun 2016 #49

just a few things gejohnston Jun 2016 #51

Sorry, GE, but you are positively, absolutely WRONG on every point. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #54

Asserted without evidence -- dismissed without evidence. NT pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #57

You talking to me or to GE? flamin lib Jun 2016 #59

"Either way you bring NOTHING to the conversation. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #61

Mr. Johnston did a good job on slapping your nonsense down.....but more points: pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #55

Yeah and suppressors will save your hearing. Naaa, they just make your gun longer flamin lib Jun 2016 #60

That nonsense again? Straw Man Jun 2016 #62

After all the complaining about a lack of cogent discussion... Marengo Jun 2016 #64

From that right-wing CDC: (Ooooooops!) pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #56

But the CDC is banned from doing research regarding guns! theatre goon Jun 2016 #63

No........you don't need the sarcasm tag. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #65

LOL - even though pro-control academics have reached the same conclusions re. DGU's. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #48

See #47. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #50

I still have yet to see many on the gun control side acknowledge the rarity of rifle misuse, benEzra Jun 2016 #53

Part of the reason is faith-promoting rumor like the following-note who the author is: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #58