Studying Firearm Related Violence

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bone

So the data is so unreliable in your opinion, we can’t know what happened, but we do know that based on anonymous people funded by the Joyce Foundation that most instances of reported DGU from one study were probably illegal. Critical examination appears inconsistent here.

You know, I’ve spent a lot of time responding to your various issues, concerns and objectives. I critiqued a response from Lott for you without any reply or response on your part. I explained some issues regarding the modeling of count data. I explained in detail matters related to grant funding. You have nothing to say, except to make the most trivially stupid comments in response (e.g., “community?”; “probably illegal?”)

Your response here is obviously willful ignorance. There’s little point in giving you the time to respond. I will explain the very simple logic here, and I predict you will give no indication of getting it.

When you don’t ask anything about the details of an incident of DGU, you cannot have any sense about what it is that people are calling defensive gun use.

When you do get contextual information, you can evaluate the incident further. If you do not have expertise in criminal law, you can consult with a criminal court judge. Recognizing the potential for an individual judge to see things differently, you can even arrange for a panel of judges and can rely on their consensus. That’s what Hemenway did.

So, getting the evaluation of judges reveals that half of the DGUs obtained in that survey describe probably illegal behavior.

Trying to impugn the results by suggesting that the judges were anonymous or that it was funded by the Joyce Foundation are just a desperate efforts at knee-jerk negation without any basis in fact. The only outcome of publishing the names of the judges would be to have them get harassed by a bunch of gun nut douchebags.

In what way would you say that the NCVS data is not objective? How would objective data be identified?

Now I have to explain the definition of the word “objective” to you?

Consider the hypothetical I posed, “If an unarmed person starts trying to kick in my door, and through the window they see me display a firearm so they run off, no shots fired, no police report - do you consider that a DGU? If yes, how would that be captured by any study you’d accept? If no, why not?” If you could address these items, it would go a long way towards understanding your position.

Gun nuts have shot people turning around in their driveway, knocking on the door looking for directions or trick or treating. They overestimate threats dramatically. I’m very sure they would suggest that those people were “trying to kick in my door”.

I’m also certain that they interpret benign sounds as intruders. I’m certain that this results in many circumstances of hearing an intruder, getting their gun, and not finding any intruder subsequently. Thus, a successful defensive gun use.

I’d be fine with any method that did not rely on the self-report of a group of people who is by their very nature more scared and prone to overestimate risks than normal people.