More Junk Science -Branas

[ServiceSoon]

Foremost, here is the source for my comment. There appears to be 14 different surveys conducted to support the numbers I posted.

First of all the Justice Department does not keep any statistics on how many times firearms were used to thwart a crime. NO ONE collects that data. Secondly the NRA stat is just as much junk science as the study in this thread. It's based on methodology where if someone thought they were in danger, but never even saw their assailant and they produced a weapon and were not attacked it counted as a defensive gun use. We shouldn't have to stoop to junk science to make our case our case either. Blind telephone interviews where people were asked about defensive gun use is hardly conclusive.

Junk science is a very broad, ambiguous term. Instead of "poisoning the well," it'd be easier for you to explain why the study is flawed. That way I don't have to post this first paragraph, and you don't have to read it.

After reading the OP I come to the conclusion that the author wants people to think 1. they are safer without a firearm 2. firearms should be illegal because only criminals use them. The author completely neglected to mention when firearms are used properly in a modern society. That's why I posted what I did. The author looked at the negatives, without mentioning the positives. That's an obvious ulterior motive and just plain dishonest.

The only person who said anything about an official statistic was you. That's one reason why I said "estimated"

What about the Justice Departments estimated 1.5 million or the NRA's estimated 2.5 million times per year that lawful use of firearms are used by citizens to prevent crimes?

I gave two data points because the truth probably lays somewhere in between. Phone surveys are flawed. I admit to that, but they are probably more accurate that you admit. During the recent presidential election, I recall that phone surveys were used. The accuracy surprised me.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 2008 private citizens were involved in 204 justifiable homicides. 204 mean that either the public at large needs a lot of remedial marksmanship training, or there aren't nearly 2 1/2 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offe...rtable_15.html

Very bad conclusion to draw on your part. A defensive use of a firearm doesn't mean you have to kill somebody. I'd guess that a firearm has caused more career choices than www.monster.com. The same table says that law enforcement were involved in ~391 justified homicides. I guess the police aren't that better of a shot than the average citizen

Given the way people like to exaggerate their claims on the gun boards behind the anonymity of a screen name, is it that hard to believe that people who are randomly called by telephone and asked about how many times they stopped a crime with their firearm that they would be more truthful? The truth is, the antis numbers are pulled out of their posterior and so are many of them on our side. It might be just a little more believable if the researchers hadn't admitted to counting incidents in which no attacker was even seen as a defensive gun use.

If the researchers were honest this post would only count as a defensive gun use, provided a police report exists somewhere to verify it:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....8&postcount=13

The problem is, no one collects that data, not every police department in the country even reports their data to the UCR, some states have their own reporting system.

Under the criteria for the research that produced the 2.5 million DGU figure, this is a defensive gun use:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....8&postcount=65

There is no way to tell how many real defensive gun uses there are, if you screw with the methodology enough you can come up with numbers to prove anything.

An exaggeration would be more prevalent during a random phone call or somebody bragging on a gun friendly message board. I can only guess that it would be less likely when somebody announces they are from the Justice Department. Some information is collected in the same manner for the Census Bureau. Do you believe all of that information is "junk science too?"

I'd appreciate it if you'd prove that your scenario above would be considered as a "defensive use of a firearm" in any of the studies in the link at the beginning of this post.

Do I think there are a lot of DGUs annually in the US? Yes, do I believe there are 2.5 million every year, not on your life....When someone comes up with real quantifiable numbers I'll believe them. Until then the 2.5 million number is as bogus as the study that is the subject of this thread.

We agree on one thing, suspicion of any statistic is a good thing. It's beyond our monetary and I'd argue intellectual capacity to create the perfect study. The variables are endless.

 

[mljdeckard]

Epidemiology studies are useless if they only study getting people getting shot......while leaving out any information about lives getting SAVED because of the presence of guns.