----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States, now "43 times"
> Robert Seeberger wrote: > ... > > Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy > > ...a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the > > June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. > > 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more > > likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal > > intruder. > > Most of the criticisms are valid, but there are a couple of > flaws. (I've snipped all but the flaws.) > > ... > > How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the > > criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law > > and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of > > firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in > > only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. > > But this isn't fair either, since the intent of the criminal is > unknown. The factor of 1000 is used as if all of these were prevented > homicides. A large fraction were probably "prevented burglaries", > which should not be counted as high as human life. (Possessing a gun > would have to foil MANY burglaries for that to be worth a sizable > risk of killing a family member!) > > ... > > "Reverse causation" is a significant factor that does not lend itself to > > quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial > > number of additional homicides in the home. A person, such as a drug dealer, > > who is in fear for his life, will be more likely to have a firearm in his > > home than will an ordinary person. Put another way, if a person fears death > > he might arm himself and at the same time be at greater risk of being > > murdered. Thus Kellermann's correlation is strongly skewed away from normal > > defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid than a > > finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet foods in their > > refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods "cause" obesity, or that > > because so many people die in hospitals we should conclude that hospitals > > "cause" premature death. Reverse causation thus further lowers the 0.006 > > value, but by an unknown amount. > > This is often called a "confounding variable", one factor that > increases the likelihood of both the "cause" (explanatory) and the > "effect" (response) variables in a study. They seem to be proposing > "fear of death by homicide" as a confounding variable, but it is > not stated very clearly. > One can successfully argue for some connection here. > Certainly people at high risk of being killed by homicide tend to > know this. And if one is "afraid of homicide", one is more likely > to shoot people without carefully verifying they are strangers, > leading to more accidental killings of family members. > But it doesn't seem to me to be a very strong effect, and > it could well be countered by people in an armed household knowing > enough not to do things like "climb in the window when you forget > your keys, rather than knock and wake everybody up". > http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others? Dr. Kleck's Answer Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted." "It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident." "...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee." Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection." xponent Interesting Enough Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
