Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
p 168 Kleck says "only about 3% of DGUs among NCVS Rs are reported to interviewers." On pp 154-6 he argues that this is because Rs are worried they might get into trouble if the authorities find out about the DGU. And yet 64.2% said that the police were aware of the incident. (Table 3) Doesn't make sense...
Steve D. Fischer writes:
D'uh!!!! Since when does "police were aware of the incident" translate into "I reported the incident to the police?" The Kleck paper (page 186) says:
"L. Were Police Informed of the Incident OR OTHERWISE FIND OUT?"
You have to be assuming that most of those 64.2% reported the incident. There is no justification for that. Most of the respondents could have been referring to "OTHERWISE FIND OUT.!"
Ridiculous. Maybe one or two, but it is ridiculous to suppose most. The typical incident was a burglary where no shots were fired. How are the police going to find out unless the respondent or family member reports it?
If someone gets shot, they often end up in the hospital where the cops will find out about it. If gunshots are fired, neighbors may report hearing them.
Even this scenario doesn't make sense. The respondent has to find out that the neighbours reported the shots, so let's suppose the police come round asking questions:
Police: A neighbour reported gun shots coming from your house last night. Do you know anything about it?
R: No. Must have been the next house. (because the gun is illegal or something)
Now six months later:
Surveyer: Have you used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property?
R thinks: (must be those police trying to trick me)
R: No.
