Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Two Words. (0+ / 0-)

    Study Up.

    Try here to start: and

    And, Dr. Hemenway's research, often cited as refutation of Dr. Kleck's work, suffers from an arguably fatal number of methodology problems arising from the Census procedures he relies upon ... if you care investigate the issue.  And in any event, Dr. Hemenway whose estimates constitute the lowest point of DGU statistical conclusions, puts the number over 100,000 -- with the greater estimated frequency of other researchers ranging from some 300,000 to 800,000 or more.

    All of these DGU figures by credible researchers in the field dwarf the annual firearm related fatality rates.  Surely you can see and admit that.

    •  The comparison has never been (0+ / 0-)

      between all DGU uses and firearm homicide rates. It's been between DGU uses and violent crime statistics which DGU claims to prevent.

      DGU numbers probably are higher than the 10k of firearm deaths a year. However, the are probably not higher than the number of violent crimes, and also possibly not higher than the annual number of non-fatal gunshot victims.

      We are trying to assess the positive social utility of DGU, therefore it makes no sense to include criminal DGU uses, illegal DGU uses, or DGU uses when no threat was offered. In fact, those particular DGU uses could count as a negative.

      •  One can make any number of relevant (0+ / 0-)

        comparisons between co-related data sets.  You are in obvious error to dismiss one that you simply do not care to make.

        IIRC, all reported violent crimes are around 1.5 million or so (I am open to correction on that point, though I believe the order of magnitude is in range).  

        If so, whatever the quibbles and arguments over DGU sampling and analysis (some phony, some valid and some ... we don't know yet and need more data) a very certain conclusion we can draw is that DGU is a statistically significant quantum and as a policy matter certainly justifies a 2A constitutional argument for the right to keep and bear arms -- self-defense.

        Many of the misplaced critiques of Dr. Kleck's data, as presented in this diary for example, are polemical in nature.  One of the better basic rules I ever learned in science was "fall in love with your data, not your hypothesis."

        •  If you wish to maintain (0+ / 0-)

          that comparison to gun homicides is the relevant metric, feel free to support it. The reasoning behind my comparison is that I want to find out how much benefit guns provide to society compared to how much harm they do. DGU is a potential source of benefit.

          However, the harm is more than just deaths. Wounding, and the enabling of violent crime are also a large negative societal factors that can be attributed to guns. Increased suicide rates are also a negative social factor.

          I hope you see the irony in calling the critiques 'misplaced' without offering any specific countering arguments (other than a appeal to authority later shown to be misplaced), and then following that with 'polemical' and a quote about data driven science.

          There are ample threads for you to start injecting any actual data you might feel is missing from the discussion. Until you do, you're just the pot calling the kettle.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site