Kleck's DGU numbers

Steve D. Fischer writes:

While you're at it, keep in mind that one of Pim's favorite
scientists (i.e. one who also hates guns), Colin Loftin, has said
publically that the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) survey
- the "Gold Standard" (guffaw) of surveys - undercounts spousal
abuses by as much as a factor of 12, and rapes by a factor of 33.

Err, no. He said it might undercount them by this much.
Criminologists do agree that NCVS significantly undercounts
non-stranger crimes. It does not follow that it undercounts stranger
crimes. Since the uses reported to Kleck were mostly against
strangers this does not explain the enormous discrepancy between Kleck
and the NCVS.

If you've had to discharge your weapon and you've shot someone
then the police have probably become involved and you have the
incident on your record. There is no reason to lie about it when
talking with an interviewer from the government.

The Kleck estimate of the number of times defensive gun users shot
someone is more than twice the the NCVS for all DGUs.

However, if no
shots were fired, the odds are that you didn't report the incident
and only you and the bad guy know about it.

Not according to Kleck's study. 64.2% said the police knew about the
incident.

You're not likely to
admit that to an interviewer who represents the Justice Department,
regardless of how much they might insist that your responses are
confidential.

According to Kleck's study in 64.2% of cases the police already knew
about it, so there seems no reason for these to hide it from the
Census Bureau.

Secondly, you're naturally going to feel ill at ease admitting
to someone sitting in front of you that you may have broken the law,
even if it was to defend your life. People have a natural tendency
to want to please the interviewer even if that person is a stranger.
That face to face contact makes all the difference in the world.

NCVS interviews are mostly conducted by phone. The natural tendency
to give a response to please the interviewer is a threat to both the
NCVS and Kleck's study. Kleck wanted to study the nature of
self-defense with a gun. Each additional piece of data would
undoubtedly please him.

You can argue about how many people the NCVS interviews
versus the other surveys until you're blue in the face, but it
won't alter the fact that if 97% of the people you interview about
certain victimizations lie, the size of the study is irrelevant.

And you can argue (as Kleck does) about how many other surveys give
similar results and it won't alter the fact that if 5% of the people
you interview about defensive gun use lie, the number of studies is
irrelevant.

Tags

More like this

Steve D. Fischer writes: The NCVS is clearly the most lied-to study in the manifold of studies we have available to date. Even your pal, Colin Loftin has accused it of undercounting your "direct family" spousal abuses by a factor of 12 and rapes by a clean factor of 33. I'd call that lying of a…
Steve D. Fischer writes: Now, you've got 100 lines to convince me WHY I should risk getting myself into trouble with the law, when all I wanted to do was report a crime that happened to me. The trouble is that Kleck would have you believe that this accounts for the discrepancy between his survey,…
Kleck reckons that 97% of defensive gun users lie to the census bureau about it. Are we to suppose that 97% of the people don't believe legal guarantee of confidentiality? And yet those same people will tell a complete stranger (who may be a government agent posing as a pollster working for Kleck…
Eugene Volokh writes: (Incidentally, am I mistaken in thinking that it's the NCVS numbers which are usually cited to show that self-defense with a firearm decreases the likelihood of injury, compared to no self-defense?) No, you are not mistaken. In "Point Blank" Kleck dismisses the NCVS as not…