Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The NCVS survey (8+ / 0-)

    counts only incidents where the defender kills their assailant. It's safe to say there are many DGU's where there are no shots fired.
    http://www.forbes.com/...

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:32:17 PM PST

    •  Um (7+ / 0-)

      How could they possibly only count DGU where the assailant is killed when the NCVS survey lists DGUs in the ~100k annually? That's 10x the gun homicide rate.

      Are armed citizens really killing off assailants 10x more than citizens are being killed themselves by assailants?

      Makes no sense. We would shortly run out of assailants.

      Additionally, if incidents where an armed citizen thinks DGU is necessary affect non-armed citizens proportionally, then the crime rate involved in those non-DGU unarmed defenders would be orders of magnitude higher than the reported levels.

      That is, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that armed vs. unarmed citizens is 1:100. Then, for every situation where an armed citizen defends himself with a gun, there are 100 situations where the unarmed citizen is undefended.

      Since this isn't even close to the real numbers reported for crime, then either the DGU number is completely worthless, or armed citizens use DGU overwhelmingly in non-threatening situations. Neither of which is very encouraging.

    •  Actually, the NCVS only includes incidents (6+ / 0-)

      where the information is volunteered to agents who have arrived at your home to question you, having flashed agency badges, and informing you they'll come back for a follow-up.

      The potential intimidation factor of a non-anonymous survey conducted by people associated with a law enforcement agency should not be underestimated.

      That, and DGUs were not part of the battery of survey questions, but were noted if the interviewee volunteered information about them in the course of their responses. Since the NCVS wasn't even designed to study DGUs, only recording them if they happened to come up, there's no reason to believe it captured more than a minor fraction of them.

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

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 03:04:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you look through the studies (0+ / 0-)

        I believe they came up with a number of 64% of DGUs reported to the police during the commission of a crime.

        You can try to dig further on that if you feel so inclined.

        •  Again, the survey was not *asking* about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          DGUs, they merely extrapolated from the DGUs that were volunteered in the course of the interviews.

          If your survey isn't asking about an event, then those events incidentally recorded are hardly a reliable guide to their actual frequency. Talk about massive false negatives.

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

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:54:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, bmcphail

            according to Kleck's own survey, 64% of DGU defenders reported their use to the police. It strains credibility to assume that they would tell the police and not a follow up interview.

            You're hand waving the false negatives, but if you have actual stats to back it up feel free to add them to the discussion.

            Personally, I think the external validation regarding deaths is enough to completely tank the Kleck number, and even cats doubt on the NCVS number.

            According to Kleck's own survey, 8% of the time, the attacker was wounded or killed. If you look at gunshot wounds in general, you find about a 20% mortality rate according to the national statistics.

            Now, one of Kleck's big arguments why you don't see a flood of 200k gunshot wounds annually from DGU is that the attackers would likely not seek medical treatment, likely increasing the mortality rate.

            However, let's stay conservative and use the 20% number. That means you have 40k annual deaths from DGU that just don't show up, anywhere. Justifiable homicides are in the range of 300-400/year, indicating that Kleck's numbers are inflated by about a factor of 100.

            It's one thing to hide a DGU where you flash a gun or fire a warning shot. It's quite another to hide dead bodies. Homicide statistics are probably the most precise in this entire discussion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (80)
  • Freddie Gray (59)
  • Bernie Sanders (58)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Elections (40)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Media (33)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Racism (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Education (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Politics (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Police (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site