This is why I asked for the source

By: kal kommie



Because I am quite familiar with the way "conservatives" like to debate: using fraud and deliberate misrepresentation.

Let's start with the points quoted by whatever right-wing agitprop farm wrote the article you pasted here, specifically #2, the claim that "estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year". A quick look at the actual study text reveals this particular fraud (p.15):

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997)."

So your propaganda article claims the estimates of defensive firearms use ranges from 500k to 3mil, while the very next sentence in the report includes a 108,000 estimate. This was just an oversight, right?

Next let's take a closer look at those estimates. Spoiler alert: we're going to find more "conservative" chicanery.

Where did that 3mil upper range come from? The pen of Gary Kleck, a professor at FSU and a champion of gun ownership rights. The methodology he used to get this 3mil number? He called 5000 homes, asked respondents how many times they used their gun for self defense (if they have one) and then multiplied the number to the proportion of the national population (slightly over 1% claimed to). There have been multiple papers in peer reviewed journals from multiple different disciplines (economics, statistics, public health, law) trashing Kleck's methodology. One exception pointed out an impossibility in Kleck's ridiculous estimate: 34% of respondents claiming gun use in self defense during a burglary, or about 800,000 instances. However, according to DOJ statistics, a burglarized home is only occupied 22% of the time and estimated total national burglaries at 6 million in a year. With the national gun ownership rate at 42%, a gun would have to be used in self defense during more than 100% of burglaries of homes with a gun user present. 

Where did the 108,000 estimate come from? Data from the DOJ's Bureau of Crime Statistics. Which sounds like the more reliable source to you?

Not that it matters, but Gary Kleck also happened to be a member of the 14 person committee of experts who advised the construction of this CDC report.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/03/the-atlantics-jeffrey-goldberg-calls-for-loosen/191650

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

Finally let's talk about your gross misrepresentation. In several posts you claimed "anywhere from 500k-3M live saved by citizens with firearms"...the report said nothing of the sort. Not even the propaganda article you pasted made that claim. The number you are claiming is defensive use of firearms, not firearms used in defense against lethal force. If a burglar comes into a house, sees the victim is home and has gun and runs away you're just going to assume the victim would certainly be killed otherwise?

There are more problems with this crap but I'll stop here so I can ask you if this is the standard of honesty you had in mind when you branded CNN as lies?

Post Please Log in OR Register for an account before posting.