NCVS on DGUs

W A Collier writes:

How the NCVS miscounted DGUs

Undersized sample, poor methodology, bias in the questions, unsound
methods and procedures in eliminating bias, and unlike Kleck, they
started with the conclusion (there are only a small number of gun
defenses) as an objective to be proven (not the scientific method)
whereas Kleck started with the question (How many DGUs are there) and let
the numbers supply the answer, pro or con.

You need to inform yourself better about the NCVS.

  1. The sample size is about 100 times that of Kleck’s survey.
  2. The NCVS methodology has been refined over 25 years of use and is
    the benchmark for all other victimaization surveys.
  3. The questions are not biased (I bet you don’t even know what they
    are.)
  4. The NCVS does not use unsound methods to eliminate bias. There is
    extensive documentation on the methods they use. I suggest you
    consult it.
  5. The NCVS did not start with a conclusion. The NCVS was designed
    to measure crime and responses to crime. The DGU estimate is just one
    of the statistics you can get from it. On the other hand, Kleck was
    famous for his spirited advocacy of the existence of large numbers of
    DGUs before he conducted his DGU survey.