Ray wrote:
They promise confidentiality, and back it up with a law that's at
the top of every survey: "NOTICE: Your report to the Census Bureau is
confidential by law (US Code 42, Sections 3789g and 3735). All identifiable
information will be used only by persons engaged in and for the purposes
of the survey, and may not be disclosed or released to others for any
purpose."
John Briggs writes:
No doubt these data will be as secure as your FBI files and will be
closely held by the BOC and DOJ and the White House security office...(Well, there are people who don't particularly trust the government
even when they get a guarantee in writing. Look what the government
has done to the guarantee known as the 2nd Amendment.)
Kleck reckons that 97% of defensive gun users lie to the census bureau
about it. Are we to suppose that 97% of the people don't believe
legal guarantee of confidentiality? And yet those same people will
tell a complete stranger (who may be a government agent posing as a
pollster working for Kleck) about it? Come now.
Ray:
Schulman/Kleck would have us believe that it's poor technique to
ascertain that a crime was attempted, before asking if the respondent
resisted it. Actually, this technique cuts back on boastful respondents
who want to exaggerate and lie about their use of guns defensively.
Briggs:
Ignoring your tendentious phraseology, the concern is that one who
successfully defended oneself might not see oneself as a "victim" (even
though they would qualify as a victim of an attempted crime or at
least an assault). The technique may weed out those who lie but it
should not weed out those who refuse to see themselves as victims.
You are evidently unfamiliar with the questions used by the NCVS.
There are no questions which would weed out those who refuse to see
themselves as victims. If you claim that there are, I suggest you
post the exact wording.
Ray:
Schulman/Kleck begin by claiming that the NCVS must be wrong, because
all other (pro-gun) surveys are right. This is the weakest argument of all.
The fact is that the NCVS is the most comprehensive, complete,
accurate crime survey ever done.
Briggs:
Even accepting your assertion, so what? As Kleck suggests, the NCVS is
not designed to elicit information specifically about DGU's,
although the NCVS is used (some would say, abused] for that purpose.
Used for that purpose by Kleck himself when it suits his purposes.
That is what Kleck focuses on. He notes that independent (of each other
and of the government) surveys, some by pro-gun, some by pro-control,
some by neutral groups, are all wildly at variance with the NCVS.
These should at least raise questions about the NCVS, just as the NCVS
should raise questions about the various DGU surveys.
Yes, it should, but it doesn't prove the NCVS to be wrong as Kleck
claims.
Schulman quotes Kleck:
The health system cannot shed much light on this
phenomenon either, since very few of these incidents involve
anyone, defender or criminal, being injured.53 In the rare cases
where anyone is hurt, it is usually the criminal, who is unlikely
to seek medical attention for any but the most life-threatening
gunshot wounds, since this would ordinarily result in a police
interrogation. ...
Ray:
Lets see. Schulman/Kleck are claiming that criminals
don't go to hospitals when they get shot (maybe they go to the North
Pole instead?). How ridiculous. Besides, the NCVS does NOT use hospital
data, so this claim is irrelevant as well.
Briggs:
Do you deny that criminals have strong incentives to avoid contact
with doctors who will report the gunshot wound? It is not ridiculous
at all. The question is how many wounds are so serious that the
criminals overcome their fear of apprehension and seek medical care.
Since gunshot wounds are often only flesh wounds they are often
treatable with OTC antiseptics and bandages. Painkillers, OTC or more
potent, are readily available without a doctor's prescription. Do
all criminals go to the emergency room for all of their crime
related injuries? You imply they do. Kleck argues, more reasonably,
that all do not.
Let's look at some numbers:
Medical data indicate that about 50,000 gun-shot wounds from assaults
are treated in hospitals each year. The NCVS indicates that about 80%
of people with gun-shot wounds get hospital treatment. That suggest
there are about 60,000 gun-shot wounds altogether. With roughly 10,000
homicides that means that the death rate from gun-shot wounds is
around 15%. If criminals avoid medical treatment, their death rate
will be somewhat higher. Kleck's survey implies that 200,000
criminals are shot each year which should produce at least 30,000 dead
criminals. Where are the bodies?
...
Schulman:
And Kleck, in my September, 1993 interview with him, himself
downplays that part of the database, saying: "Keep in mind that the 8
percent figure is based on so few cases that you have to interpret
it with great caution."
Ray:
So Kleck admits that the individual pieces of his finding were wrong,
but that the 2.4 million figure is right? Yeah, sure.
Briggs:
No, he doesn't admit any pieces are wrong; he says pieces are less
certain, i.e., more likely to be other than he estimates, because
they involve a smaller number of cases, thus suffer from greater
uncertainty.
Yep. A 95% confidence interval is 100,000 to 300,000 wounded
criminals. Even the lower end of the interval is flat out
impossible.
Ray:
Kleck's survey also alleges that 23% of the 2.4 million self defenses
were against robbery. Do the math, and you get 552,000 Kleckonian self
defenses with guns against robbery a year. But according to FBI figures,
there are only about 600,000 robberies of all types a year. Kleck would
have us believe 90% of all robberies are defended with guns. >Impossible.Kleck seems to be saying that there were hundreds of thousands
more robberies than ANY survey has discovered. In fact, Kleck's
excuse is that HE has discovered a huge NEW category of crime. Robberies
no one else knew about.
Schulman:
Kleck already handled that question. Rapes are vastly underreported.
Ray:
Only in Kleck's dreams
Briggs:
It is widely accepted that rapes are indeed underreported. This may be
due to fashion, political correctness, feminism or it may be true.
Kleck is hardly alone in believing this. It is not just pulled out of
thin air as are so many of your criticisms.
Of course, the quote above is about robberies. The NCVS was
specifically designed to measure robberies and attempted robberies.
The criminological community have helped refine the questions and
methodology over the 25 years it has been operating. It seems
unlikely that Kleck has discovered a whole New World of robberies that
no other criminologist suspected existed.