Comment Preferences

• What numbers are you using for defensive gun(10+ / 0-)

use?

Even the lowest number estimated by a government sponsored study found 108k defensive gun use (a year). Which is about roughly equal to the number of people getting shot.

Share Our Wealth -10, -7.23

[ Parent ]

• It should be noted that said study didn't(6+ / 0-)

actually survey defensive gun use. It collected information about it incidentally.

Every study specifically designed to study it, and as of 2000, there were about 19 of them, individually put the defensive uses at around 2 million a year, with a statistical uncertainty of  plus/minus a little over a million.

Of course, when these 19 studies are combined, the statistical uncertainty drops into the low hundred thousand range, meaning the 2 million number is probably pretty close to the mark.

Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

[ Parent ]

• 2,000,000 / 365 = 5479.45 a day(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DefendOurConstitution, oldpunk

313.9 million people in America / 2,000,000 = 156.95

If only half the people in America own a gun then
156,950,000 people / 2,000,000 = 78.475

Or am I getting the math wrong ?

"please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

[ Parent ]

• Yes, 5500x a day, somewhere in the country,(7+ / 0-)

someone uses a gun to defend themselves or their home or property. In very few of these DGUs does anything more than a display of, or verbal warning about, the gun occur; and 1 in 78 gun owning households will do so in a given year.

Put another way, in a given year ~1.5% of the population (or 3% of gun owners) will engage in armed act of self-defense, again mostly displaying the weapon or issuing a verbal warning.

Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

[ Parent ]

• And the rest of it ?(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DefendOurConstitution, oldpunk
313.9 million people in America / 2,000,000 = 156.95

If only half the people in America own a gun then
156,950,000 people / 2,000,000 = 78.475

Do these numbers look right in your eyes ?

If every person had a gun , 156.95 ?
If only 1/2 have a gun , 78.475 ?

..........................

Does this mean , "I've got a gun", even when there is no gun , counts as a DGU ?

"please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

[ Parent ]

• As I understand with the protocols used by(6+ / 0-)

Kleck and the leads of the various other studies, the answer is generally no. It's only counted as a DGU if the respondent had a gun in his/her possession.

Your other numbers are more or less order of magnitude correct, but simplify the matter a bit - conflating individuals with households, and the fact that only 43% of households admit to owning a gun.

Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

[ Parent ]

• So if 43% of households own guns (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
oldpunk

and a household is , lets say , Mom Pop Girl Boy ,
Lets say 1/2 of them have access .
43% / 2 = 21.5%
21.5% of 313,900,000 = 67,488,500
67488500 / 2,000,000 = 33.75
1 out of 33.75 gun owners a year ?

If only 1/4 of them have access
43% / 4 = ...
1 out of 16.87

"please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

[ Parent ]

• You're attempting to calculate with(6+ / 0-)

insufficient information.Starting with a serious overestimation of household size.

Similarly, the number of incidents is generally based on self-reported uses, not household uses. Ownership rate is by household.

But let me stop you here. You're trying to cook numbers to create an argument from incredulity. That's a fallacy, not a reductio ad absurdiam.

Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

[ Parent ]

• It's not cooking numbers(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
oldpunk

it's using external validation to perform a sanity check, such as working backwards from justifiable homicides.

Here's another one.

Take those 2M DGUs. Consider the fraction that occur out of the home (~60% Kleck), consider the fraction of people that carry (2%?), divide by that fraction and you should roughly get the total crime rate (assuming that DGU is used to prevent crime, which I guess is the diary's point?)

So, that would be roughly 50M incidences of violent crime/year or ~1 in 6.

Of course, the real stats for violent crime are ~ 1 in 1000, so again we're looking for about two orders of magnitude discrepancy, just like the external validation from justifiable homicides.

Do you think it's any accident that the two external validations come up with roughly the same number? Maybe this should tell you that self-reported surveys, especially for gun use, aren't worth the paper they are written on.

One potential criticism for these validations is that they target 'justifiable' DGU, DGU that is used to prevent crime, so maybe the 2M DGU number is real. It just isn't 'justifiable'.

Is that what you want to argue?

[ Parent ]

• Edit:(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
oldpunk

Violent crime rate should be closer to 1 in 250-300, not 1 in 1000, point still stands.

[ Parent ]

• A sanity check that has more assumptions(5+ / 0-)

than the Drake equation.

Starting with the assumption that DGUs must involve a weapon fired.

Or, you could ask several thousand people. 19 times, different groups, slightly varying methodologies, and get the same answer each time.

Refusing to accept that answer is science denial.

Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

[ Parent ]

• Holy crap(0+ / 0-)

what is with your comprehension skill?

What assumptions are you talking about?

The external validation vs. the violent crime stat does not depend AT ALL on whether a gun was fired. The only assumption in this check is that the number of people with carry permits are always carrying, and are always able to invoke a DGU to prevent crime. I admit this is an overestimate, but this makes the situation worse for you, not better.

The external validation using the justifiable homicide rate uses the Kleck DGU survey of 8% as the percentage a gun is fired and hits during a DGU. If you want to get a better number using the mean from multiple studies, have at it!

So no, you are wrong, no such assumptions are made and the only thing you can take away from those surveys is that people lie, or exaggerate if you will, at a pretty consistent rate when it comes to defensive gun use.

But if you have a specific criticism instead of a general denial, feel free to present your case.

You need to make up two orders of magnitude discrepancy, and you have damn few numbers to do it with. Is Kleck wrong by two orders of magnitude? Is the rate of carry closer to 100%? Neither of these things seem plausible to me, but I'm willing to hear your explanation.

The ONLY assumption that is credible to question is that when we talk about DGU, we're talking about DGU that is used to prevent a crime. I am quite willing to concede to you that 2M DGUs that are not related to preventing crime may indeed occur, ~100x the rate of 'crime prevention' DGUs.

If that's the source of our disagreement, consider the issue settled.

[ Parent ]

• Your saying I'm trying to cook the numbers (0+ / 0-)

isn't correct . My intent was to look at the number .
Feel free to correct any mistakes ,
I didn't say my numbers were correct ,
I'm open to talking about them .

Starting with a serious overestimation of household size.
So inform me what a household size is . I didn't say , this is the household size . I said "lets say".
Similarly, the number of incidents is generally based on self-reported uses, not household uses. Ownership rate is by household.
That's interesting . That would make calculations fun .

"please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

[ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

• Recommended (155)
• Community (74)
• 2016 (53)
• Elections (50)
• Bernie Sanders (45)
• Environment (39)
• Climate Change (37)
• Culture (36)
• Hillary Clinton (34)
• Republicans (33)
• Civil Rights (31)
• Science (31)
• Media (30)
• Education (30)
• Barack Obama (28)
• Law (25)
• Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
• Congress (22)
• Labor (22)
• Economy (21)