Skip to main content

View Diary: A closer look at DGU numbers (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You actually present two studies, not four. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, KVoimakas, fuzzyguy

    Kleck 95 and Cook and Ludwig 98 are studies.  Hemenway 97 is a lit review.  Kleck 97 is a response to Hemenway and others.

    Two, you mistakenly apply the false positive rate to the entire sample rather than to the subset that actually acceded and qualified for DGU interview.  1 percent of 222 is just a bit over 2, or just 3 percent of the positive responses.

    Three, as you've pointed out in other comments, neither Cooke-Ludwig nor Hemenway attempt to estimate false positive or recall failure rates.  Kleck pointing this out isn't arguing from incredulity; he's highlighting the same fallacy committed by his critics (and yourself).  Contrast with Kellerman criticism, in which we have known bounds to the interference of confounding factors.

    Four, 2.5 million events is a very rare set of events in a year with an unusually high rate of victimization (1993).  And while you may have never personally encountered people who've used guns defensively, others may have encountered one or more (I know of at least five).  In any case, that is an argument from incredulity if there ever was one.

    •  Welcome to Daily Kos! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, Sandino, WakeUpNeo

      Wow! You've jumped in with both guns blazing (so to speak).

    •  That wasn't a mistake (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, Wee Mama, Sandino, vcmvo2, devis1

      when you survey 5000 people, the false positive rate is applied to the entire survey population, especially since the 2.5 million is computed by taking the 'confirmed' DGU respondents of 66 and deriving the fraction by comparing to 5000. It wouldn't make sense to derive the 2.5 million from the 5000, but only apply the false positive rate to the 222.

      And the other studies did attempt to compare false positives to other activities, some more seriously than others. It was on Kleck's head to estimate and include this number in his study and error bars. His failure doesn't mean that the 2.5 million number is then without reproach.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 2.5 million DGUs, even in 1993, is 7000 per day. The fact that our newspapers, TV reports, and personal experience is completely at odds with those numbers mean something. It means that either there is a huge effort to suppress or hide all of these DGUs, or they just aren't happening in that number.

      I was alive, watching TV, reading the newspaper, and meeting people in 1993 as well. There was no amount of significantly higher DGU activity that I was aware of then compared to now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site