Now on ScienceBlogs: Twitter: as in actual science jargon (something to do with marmosets and shrews)

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Deltoid

Fabrication of DGUs

John Briggs writes: [Calculation of number of justifiable shootings deleted] This would suggest 15,000 to 20,000 civilian justifiable woundings or 17,500 to 22,500 incidents in which a civilian shot and hit an assailant. Kleck does a similar calculation in "Point...

Search

Profile

Tim Lambert Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.

Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences

Deltoid Facebook Group

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Full archives

Links

Blogroll

16th

« Fabrication of DGUs | Main | Assault rates in US cities »

Fabrication of DGUs

Category: dgu
Posted on: September 11, 1997 5:52 AM, by Tim Lambert

John Briggs writes:

[Calculation of number of justifiable shootings deleted] This would suggest 15,000 to 20,000 civilian justifiable woundings or 17,500 to 22,500 incidents in which a civilian shot and hit an assailant.

Kleck does a similar calculation in "Point Blank" to get an estimate of 10,000 to 20,000.

(This represents an awfully high figure if there are only 80,000 civilian DGUs as the NCVS reports--of course, the NCVS could be low.)

As you have noted, if we know A, the fraction of DGUs where the defender shot at the criminal, and B, the fraction of DGUs where one or more of the shots fired at the criminal actually hit, then we could estimate the number of DGUs. Unfortunately, the only information about what the value of A is comes from the NCVS and Kleck's survey and if we are going to trust either one, we might as well just use the direct estimate of DGUs that it produces.

Furthermore, we don't know B that well either. Kleck gives figures of 37% for police and 18% for criminals (p173), but it might be different for civilian DGUs. So, I'll use both NCVS and the Kleck survey to estimate B and see if the results are reasonable.

NCVS: A=0.4, so B=(10,000 to 20,000)/(0.4*80,000)=30 to 60%
Kleck: A=0.16 to 0.24, so B=(10,000 to 20,000) /((0.16 to 0.24)*2,500,000) = 2 to 5%

The top of the NCVS range for B seems rather high, but 30% seems like reasonable number for B. Kleck's survey gives numbers for B that are way too low.

Share on: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/93424

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM