I used to believe Kleck's estimate

I used to believe that Kleck's estimate of DGU's was correct, but
overwhelming evidence to the contrary has convinced me otherwise.

Sam A. Kersh writes:

To the best of my knowledge, you have never accepted Kleck's DGU
estimates. At least not in the last 5 years that you and I (and Pim)
have debated guns, crime and 'Point Blank.'

Here's what I wrote about it back in 1991:

A most interesting paper! Like any good scientific paper it raises a lot of
questions. The estimate of 1M defensive uses arises from about 50 (4% of
1228) yes respondants. Don't you just want to have a follow-up survey to
find out the circumstances of those 50 defensive uses? Alas, the original
data no longer exists. I hope someone funds a larger better survey along
similar lines.

Tags

More like this

Peter Boucher writes: Tim wrote that he, at first, agreed with the Kleck DGU estimates, but has since been convinced by the evidence that they were wrong. Tim, I've known you (well, sort of) for over 5 years, and I've never seen you post anything that indicated that you agreed with Kleck's DGU…
"Eugene Volokh" writes: I should say that I agree with some of your criticisms of the Kleck & Gertz results, and of the 1.5 million count arrived at by the NSPOF study; In case anyone remains who finds the Kleck estimate credible, let me make a couple more observations: On page 170 Kleck "…
"Eugene Volokh" writes: Please, please, let's take special care to be polite in these exchanges. This is a sensitive subject, but even when we think the other person is dead wrong, it's better to say this in a subtler way. OK, I'll do my best to be polite. I won't say anything in reply to the ill…
J. Neil Schulman writes: When a dozen surveys which are specifically attempting to quantify DGU's finds DGU's an order of magnitude larger than the NCVS, then you have your answer. None of those surveys other than Kleck's were designed to quantify DGU's and they all have problems when used for…