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
In reply to the discussion: A recent thread sort of asked why we can't have cogent discussions about guns. [View all]pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)55. Mr. Johnston did a good job on slapping your nonsense down.....but more points:
The best information we have is that only 34% of households have guns, so 66% of his sample is flawed.
WTF?! Your "logic" is not just ill, but excruciatingly so! The percentage of respondents who provided a 'yes' response to the DGU query was so small that it's perfectly plausible that they fall within the category of gun owning households. As GE queried - can you provide a plausible explanation of why this would not be the case? The burden of explanation is on YOU.
He just took their word for it.
Simply a brazen lie -- as has already been pointed out. There are some very skilled individuals who can "lie on the fly" as they answer a series of questions.....but such persons are in the great minority. If a respondent claimed a DGU they were asked if the conversation could be recorded from that point -- and yes answers were scrutinized for false positives. Also - as the CDC has admitted - the Kleck/Gertz survey is not an outlier. There are something in the order of 14-15 surveys that support their conclusions. Academia isn't exactly known for it's 'right-wing bias'. So what --- is there some sort of vast "left wing conspiracy" to inflate defensive gun use by "just taking respondents word for it"? Lunacy!
He asked a question that guaranteed a very high false positive rate of response.
There is some validity to this criticism --- but even if all of the DGU surveys are off by a wide margin, it's still pretty ludicrous to suggest that they're off by such a margin as to invalidate the conclusion that DGU's happen with enough frequency to completely or largely offset gun misuse - given the relatively low numbers of gun misuses by criminals. (Quote from CDC on this forthcoming)
He failed to correct for 'telescoping'. Did the respondents actually have a DGU in the last 12 months or was it 15 months?
Mr. Johnston addressed this......but more on this in a moment.
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.
"Logical" fruit from the poisoned tree. See response to #1.
The man does not know how to research and doesn't care to do quality work.
That asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
NOW -- HERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT W/REGARD TO **ALL** OF KLECK'S RESEARCH:
Targeting Guns contains detailed responses to all of Kleck's DGU critics. Before he went to print, Kleck provided said critics (Hemenway, Wintemute, Ludwig, Cook, Kellerman etc.) with his manuscript --- offering them a chance to rebut any/all of his statements. TO DATE, NOT ONE OF HIS CRITICS HAS RESPONDED. Why would they? Their political purposes were served the moment they tendered their rebuttals -- fully aware that the press would lap up what they had to say and disregard Kleck's comments.
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.
Another falsehood. What a shocker! In point of fact, the latest statement by the CDC is hostile to the gun-restriction position on numerous fronts. More on that in a bit.
WTF?! Your "logic" is not just ill, but excruciatingly so! The percentage of respondents who provided a 'yes' response to the DGU query was so small that it's perfectly plausible that they fall within the category of gun owning households. As GE queried - can you provide a plausible explanation of why this would not be the case? The burden of explanation is on YOU.
He just took their word for it.
Simply a brazen lie -- as has already been pointed out. There are some very skilled individuals who can "lie on the fly" as they answer a series of questions.....but such persons are in the great minority. If a respondent claimed a DGU they were asked if the conversation could be recorded from that point -- and yes answers were scrutinized for false positives. Also - as the CDC has admitted - the Kleck/Gertz survey is not an outlier. There are something in the order of 14-15 surveys that support their conclusions. Academia isn't exactly known for it's 'right-wing bias'. So what --- is there some sort of vast "left wing conspiracy" to inflate defensive gun use by "just taking respondents word for it"? Lunacy!
He asked a question that guaranteed a very high false positive rate of response.
There is some validity to this criticism --- but even if all of the DGU surveys are off by a wide margin, it's still pretty ludicrous to suggest that they're off by such a margin as to invalidate the conclusion that DGU's happen with enough frequency to completely or largely offset gun misuse - given the relatively low numbers of gun misuses by criminals. (Quote from CDC on this forthcoming)
He failed to correct for 'telescoping'. Did the respondents actually have a DGU in the last 12 months or was it 15 months?
Mr. Johnston addressed this......but more on this in a moment.
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.
"Logical" fruit from the poisoned tree. See response to #1.
The man does not know how to research and doesn't care to do quality work.
That asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
NOW -- HERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT W/REGARD TO **ALL** OF KLECK'S RESEARCH:
Targeting Guns contains detailed responses to all of Kleck's DGU critics. Before he went to print, Kleck provided said critics (Hemenway, Wintemute, Ludwig, Cook, Kellerman etc.) with his manuscript --- offering them a chance to rebut any/all of his statements. TO DATE, NOT ONE OF HIS CRITICS HAS RESPONDED. Why would they? Their political purposes were served the moment they tendered their rebuttals -- fully aware that the press would lap up what they had to say and disregard Kleck's comments.
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.
Another falsehood. What a shocker! In point of fact, the latest statement by the CDC is hostile to the gun-restriction position on numerous fronts. More on that in a bit.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A recent thread sort of asked why we can't have cogent discussions about guns. [View all]
flamin lib
Jun 2016
OP
Yes, people will reject you if you attribute to them things they have not said and do not believe.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2016
#14
Noting the same "like this one." I do seem pretty leftist, now that you bring it up.
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#20
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
Heh-heh. Those were the good ol' days. (Afraid it sounds like an old tale, too.)
Eleanors38
Jun 2016
#25
Wonder why the OP never responded to your question about the book he was reading.
pablo_marmol
Jun 2016
#32
Oh, look. It's another "It's hard to have a civil discussion because you 'people' suck" thread.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2016
#16
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
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
LOL - even though pro-control academics have reached the same conclusions re. DGU's.
pablo_marmol
Jun 2016
#48
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