View Full Version : Vid Interview with Dr Gary Kleck
You all see this? It's an excellent vid of Dr Kleck explaining in basic terms why he's come to be against gun control after his research:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptCtNW5yI7c
A good one to pass around to those who don't realize most of what they think they know via the media is wrong, and one of the most respected criminologists in the nation spells it out in easy to understand language vs "dry" reading materials we may cite.
You know how the emotional driven anti gun types eyes gloss over when you attempt to take them out of their fact free zone. :rolleyes:
An Undocumented Worker
02-04-13, 18:42
Thats good stuff, Thak You.
Canonshooter
02-04-13, 19:02
Great vid, thanks for the link - I've posted it on my FB page.
montanadave
02-04-13, 19:31
My thanks also, Will. After watching the video, I did a little reading about Gary Kleck and ended up ordering his book Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control from Amazon.
If nothing else, ya sold one of the guy's books. :laugh:
My thanks also, Will. After watching the video, I did a little reading about Gary Kleck and ended up ordering his book Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control from Amazon.
If nothing else, ya sold one of the guy's books. :laugh:
Did you not know Dr Kleck before? He's one of the top criminologists in the field and a true thorn in the side of the anti gun types.
montanadave
02-04-13, 19:58
Did you not know Dr Kleck before? He's one of the top criminologists in the field and a true thorn in the side of the anti gun types.
Negative. I look forward to reading his book.
Negative. I look forward to reading his book.
I expected a book report! :p
Dr. Kleck hits the nail on the head. Dr. John Lott conducted a study roughly 15 years ago and came to the same conclusion. The University of Chicago gave him the cold shoulder after he completed his study and pointed out the anti-2nd Amendment people were wrong.
Dr. John Lott conducted a study several years ago and came to the same conclusion. The University of Chicago gave him the cold shoulder after he completed his study and pointed out the anti-2nd Amendment people were wrong.
Conclusions by Lott and Kleck are not identical per se and they come at the topic from slightly different angles, one being a criminologist the other an economist. Both tend to converge on essentially the same findings, as expected.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 15:49
You all see this? It's an excellent vid of Dr Kleck explaining in basic terms why he's come to be against gun control after his research:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptCtNW5yI7c
A good one to pass around to those who don't realize most of what they think they know via the media is wrong, and one of the most respected criminologists in the nation spells it out in easy to understand language vs "dry" reading materials we may cite.
You know how the emotional driven anti gun types eyes gloss over when you attempt to take them out of their fact free zone. :rolleyes:
I had a very anti gun professor in one of my criminal justice courses back in college who challenged me to back up some of my pro gun statements. I used Dr. Kleck's work to do so and that shut her down at least at that time. She was so anti gun that she wanted cops to leave their guns at the station at the end of their shift. She asked the class what they thought of that. I told her it was a stupid idea because you make enemies during the job. I also told her I would rather more good people be armed cops and citizens. To this she responded " I hope you never become a cop". She ended up in the Deans office over that comment and I even got an apology from her. The way anti gun people think defies logic. Anyway Kleck has a lot of good work out there that can be used to bolster the pro gun sides arguments.
Pat
I had a very anti gun professor in one of my criminal justice courses back in college who challenged me to back up some of my pro gun statements. I used Dr. Kleck's work to do so and that shut her down at least at that time. She was so anti gun that she wanted cops to leave their guns at the station at the end of their shift. She asked the class what they thought of that. I told her it was a stupid idea because you make enemies during the job. I also told her I would rather more good people be armed cops and citizens. To this she responded " I hope you never become a cop". She ended up in the Deans office over that comment and I even got an apology from her. The way anti gun people think defies logic. Anyway Kleck has a lot of good work out there that can be used to bolster the pro gun sides arguments.
Pat
Bwa ha ha ha ha. :sarcastic:
Conclusions by Lott and Kleck are not identical per se and they come at the topic from slightly different angles, one being a criminologist the other an economist. Both tend to converge on essentially the same findings, as expected.
That is a good thing in my opinion. If they approached the issue from two different angles and came to the same conclusion, that strengthens the conclusions drawn from their research.
thopkins22
02-05-13, 17:17
I first heard Dr. Kleck in an Intelligence Squared debate. Really great at presenting the data.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/598-guns-reduce-crime You have to select Audio/Video to watch the debate.
Side note: All the IQ2 debates are smart, thought provoking, and worth watching. Of course the attention span of the American people(people in general?) is too short for such a thing to be useful educating the masses, but really worth while if you consider yourself to be amongst the thinkers.
Conclusions by Lott and Kleck are not identical per se and they come at the topic from slightly different angles, one being a criminologist the other an economist. Both tend to converge on essentially the same findings, as expected.
Yeah, I used both of them as sources in my thesis, but it's unfortunate that Lott let his ego get the best of him as he got caught up in a bunch childish professor crap, completely undermining a lot of his research's legitimacy.
Yeah, I used both of them as sources in my thesis, but it's unfortunate that Lott let his ego get the best of him as he got caught up in a bunch childish professor crap, completely undermining a lot of his research's legitimacy.
Kleck, both due to funding sources and personality, is considered the go to source for hard data that is respected by other criminologists, etc.
Me, I like Lott and I enjoy the fact he's in their face, but he's exposed himself to easy criticisms.One little problem, he's a damn good researcher and runs circles around the public health monkeys who published bogus data.
brushy bill
02-06-13, 22:07
Kleck, both due to funding sources and personality, is considered the go to source for hard data that is respected by other criminologists, etc.
Me, I like Lott and I enjoy the fact he's in their face, but he's exposed himself to easy criticisms.One little problem, he's a damn good researcher and runs circles around the public health monkeys who published bogus data.
If I'm not mistaken, Kleck had to deal with a lot of "sagecraft" masquerading as science. The likes of Dr. Arthur Kellermann for example, who presented a lot of junk science articles. He presented "findings" that guns were 43X more likely to contribute to the death of their owner than protect the home. Problem was Kellermann included instances where someone came into the home with another gun and the instance had nothing to do with the legitimate ownership of a gun. So, if you own a gun and are murdered by someone else who brings their own gun, you help prove that guns are dangerous to own. He also didn't count guns as protecting the owner unless there was a dead body, etc. If your gun scared off an intruder or there was no "body count", it didn't go into the count. Basically, a predetermined conclusion in most of his "research". Very typical of the medical community "research" we will see renewed under Obama's "scientific research" initiative. Almost guaranteed to be one sided and biased to foregone conclusion based on the way the study is framed.
If I'm not mistaken, Kleck had to deal with a lot of "sagecraft" masquerading as science. The likes of Dr. Arthur Kellermann for example, who presented a lot of junk science articles. He presented "findings" that guns were 43X more likely to contribute to the death of their owner than protect the home. Problem was Kellermann included instances where someone came into the home with another gun and the instance had nothing to do with the legitimate ownership of a gun. So, if you own a gun and are murdered by someone else who brings their own gun, you help prove that guns are dangerous to own. He also didn't count guns as protecting the owner unless there was a dead body, etc. If your gun scared off an intruder or there was no "body count", it didn't go into the count. Basically, a predetermined conclusion in most of his "research". Very typical of the medical community "research" we will see renewed under Obama's "scientific research" initiative. Almost guaranteed to be one sided and biased to foregone conclusion based on the way the study is framed.
I believe any researcher who was serious about obtaining objective data on guns had to go through a huge amount of junk science to get any "clean" data for use/inclusion in any paper they'd be attempting to publish.
Intellectual honesty is not a strong point for anti gun types, researchers or not. They start off with the premise guns = bad, and set off to prove it, and the end justifies the means to get the conclusion wanted.
Later researchers like Lott, Kleck, etc, did what legit researchers do, and attempt to look at the +/- of guns, and find the net effect on crime or other end point measured.
Both Lott and Kleck were "converted" to a pro gun stance after their research showed what it showed (or so they claim), vs. having a biased agenda from the git go.
brushy bill
02-07-13, 20:22
I believe any researcher who was serious about obtaining objective data on guns had to go through a huge amount of junk science to get any "clean" data for use/inclusion in any paper they'd be attempting to publish.
Intellectual honesty is not a strong point for anti gun types, researchers or not. They start off with the premise guns = bad, and set off to prove it, and the end justifies the means to get the conclusion wanted.
Later researchers like Lott, Kleck, etc, did what legit researchers do, and attempt to look at the +/- of guns, and find the net effect on crime or other end point measured.
Both Lott and Kleck were "converted" to a pro gun stance after their research showed what it showed (or so they claim), vs. having a biased agenda from the git go.
But sad part is we will now waste tax dollars on this "research". I resent paying for biased political dogma of those who stand for virtually everything I oppose.
I tried using Dr Kleck's findings on an anti gun Facebook page and this was their response:
Utah Parents Against Gun Violence Hi Jason: Many people over the years have pointed out the flaws in Dr. Kleck's research, but it doesn't sound like you are aware of them. So, it may interest you to know that his research was based on only a survey of 2,000 households across the nation, then he extrapolated the data to reach his findings. His results were based on only 222 respondents to his telephone survey. His “statistics” are not really a statistics at all, only a projection, an estimate, with wildly distorted responses. No one has ever been able to replicate or externally validate Kleck's "data" which makes it highly suspect. At best, his work is now considered by experts to be a wildly overestimation.
A self reported survey inherently has many recognized statistical problems which have been examined ad nausea in other arenas. Try examining sources other than those provided by the NRA.
I tried using Dr Kleck's findings on an anti gun Facebook page and this was their response:
Utah Parents Against Gun Violence Hi Jason: Many people over the years have pointed out the flaws in Dr. Kleck's research, but it doesn't sound like you are aware of them. So, it may interest you to know that his research was based on only a survey of 2,000 households across the nation, then he extrapolated the data to reach his findings. His results were based on only 222 respondents to his telephone survey. His “statistics” are not really a statistics at all, only a projection, an estimate, with wildly distorted responses. No one has ever been able to replicate or externally validate Kleck's "data" which makes it highly suspect. At best, his work is now considered by experts to be a wildly overestimation.
A self reported survey inherently has many recognized statistical problems which have been examined ad nausea in other arenas. Try examining sources other than those provided by the NRA.
And that's the money shot. The NRA didn't provide it, has no connection to Dr. Kleck what so ever, has funded nothing he's done, and they tipped their hand to their total lack of objectivity. Any data published by Dr Kleck that has legit concerns regarding his findings and methodology (some of which are legit, some of which are not...) is made to look grade A legit data, when compared to what the anti gun groups use as data to bolster their position.
Hence, they're quick to look for any flaws in a study, and make clearly faulty comments easy to disprove (like attempting to dismiss Dr Kleck by connecting him to the NRA) yet rely on data debunked decades ago (like you're "50 times more likely to be killed if you own a gun" or some some BS) to support their position.
All studies have their (potential) flaws and drawbacks BTW.
However, of the two "sides" the anti gun groups and researchers are FAR and away the more intellectual dishonest of the two.
Some good reading here:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
Read Dr Kleck's paper and you'll see they are either intentional intellectually dishonest, or are just typical "don't confuse me with the facts" anti gun types:
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
I just copy and pasted that right on to their webpage.
I just copy and pasted that right on to their webpage.
They're gonna love you! I bet they remove it. :rolleyes:
They're gonna love you! I bet they remove it. :rolleyes:
I'm sure of it. I also added about 10 links to studies which come to a similar conclusion of Dr. Klecks. Even if they block it hopefully one person may read what i wrote and maybe have a little bit of doubt put in their mind about their cause.
Magic_Salad0892
03-11-13, 05:09
I believe the doubt is the best tool you can ever use to change somebodies mind.
Ask them why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world, and why Austrailia has one of the worst of any westernized country.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.