Talk:Defensive gun use

Some reminders

• This article (and the entire topic of of Gun Control) is subject to discretionary sanctions.
• WP:NPOV says that ALL reliably sourced viewpoints must be represented. Taking one viewpoint and declaring it to be WP:The Truth is a violation of this.
• WP:OR WP:SYNTH making claims which are not explicitly made by sources is not permitted.
• Redefining "Defensive gun use" to mean "justifiable homicide" is about as clear a case of this as you could get, since the reliable sources to not define it thus.
• etc.

As these changes have been made without consensus, I will be reverting to the status quo version. ResultingConstant (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished/lost/secret CDC DGU

Why nobody ever heard about this until now is up for grabs but apparently the CDC had three years of telephone surveys they never published or admitted they did where they asked about DGU https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326 TMLutas (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it was unpublished? Also if it was unpublished my question would be why, was it rejected? Who (by the way) are SSnn, their mission statement reads like it is (in effect) a self publishing site, you upload you paper they publish it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a Wikipediia article on SSRN. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

According to reason magazine, he pulled his paper to correct some errors. link, we can perhaps revisit this once he republishes his paper. Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

When it is published in an RS yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Social Science Research Network SSRN is commonly used by academics to post working papers for discussion and review for comment and revision prior to submission to an academic symposium or publication. Gary Kleck, "What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? ", 14 Feb 2018. Kleck & Gertz 1994 NSDS was published in 1995; CDC did three DGU surveys 1996, 1997, 1998 with results similar to the contested NSDS survey as part of their Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) yet not a mention, unlike the NSPOF survey. --Naaman Brown (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Although we should wait for Kleck to update the paper with revised results, per WP:SPS we do not need to wait for 3rd parties. Kleck himself IS the 3rd party reporting on CDC research, and as a repeatedly published expert in the field (albeit a controversial one) his statements are inherently notable and reliable (as his statements). We would obviously need to follow attribution of his analysis/interpretation of the CDC research. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename

This should be Defensive gun use in the USA, as this seems to be the focus of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconded Chloehoey (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hemenway research

In the 2 Hemenway research articles he only polled 122 persons in 1996 and 131 persons in 1999 making this a grossly insufficient sample size from which to draw any meaningful conclusion.

• And yet these studies were published after peer review, no? Drmies (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Also in 2000, Hemenway and his colleagues conducted a small survey that found that guns in the home were used more often to intimidate family members (13 respondents) than in self-defense (2 respondents). "

Again, this is no better than anecdotal. When you poll fewer people than those in a Starbucks at any given time, it is not worthy of inclusion in the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.21.203 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed." - - - Wonder why..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.21.203 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

DRMIES: "This user supports really strict concealed carry laws that will make concealed carry for civilians illegal." - NO KIDDING

Marvin Wolfgang

This paragraph seems out of place, poorly written, and overall problematic. I do not know the history of this article, nor a lot on this topic. But I know if I were grading a high school research paper, marks would be taken off. The paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb, and I sense a bit of POV creep going into it. There is clearly an appeal to authority, either someone thought adding the quote praising his background would give weight to his view, or someone challenged why bother quoting Wolfgang at all, and someone dug up that quote. While perhaps a little contextualization, generally speaking, is a good thing, this kind of fluff is unencyclopedic, and we don't have similar quotes for Lott or Hemenway or Kleck and Gertz. It appears that this quote is quite popular in popular discourse because this scholar, in the same commentary piece, says he is extremely anti-gun, while also saying those sound bites that support the methodology of K&G. So these quotes have often been repeated by gun-rights organizations in support of K&G. However, Wolfgang nuanced his stance in remarks given to the Gun and Violence Symposium a year later, and that bit is often quoted by control advocates to dispute/clarify the other quotes. Furthermore, the quotes in the article (and used by gun-rights advocates) are taken out of context, and would be considered quote mining. So what is Wolfgang trying to say in this piece? That resisting the use of a gun a robbery can lead to serious injury, and goes through an old study he worked on, and explains a few scenarios of resistance/non-resistance and type of threat in robbery, and concludes he did not have data on success rate of gun resistance, but G&K seem to close that loop. He seems more concerned with any conclusions brought to homicide attempts. He does praise the methodology in a few places, but then clarified in published/spoken remarks that the nature of that type of research has it's own problems that most scholars would already know, but the lay audience may not assume.

So where do we stand? What does adding Wolfgang's remarks add to this article? His article is cited 39 times, according to Google Scholar. K&G are cited 464. C&L 167, 93, and 66 respectively. While digging through the citations to Wolfgang, I came across this:

"Notably, Marvin E. Wolfgang, one of the most eminent criminologists of the twentieth century, and a strong supporter of gun control, reviewed Kleck's findings. Announcing that he found Kleck's implications disturbing, Wolfgang wrote that he could find no methodological flaw, nor any other reason to doubt the correctness of Kleck's figure." Kopel, David B. and Little, Christopher C. "Communitarians, Neorepublicans, and Guns: Assessing the Case for Firearms Prohibition" 56 Md. L. Rev. 438 (1997)

and:

"Particularly impressive support for this conclusion has been supplied through its endorsement by an eminent criminologist who is deeply opposed to gun ownership," Barnett, Randy E. and Kates, Don B. "UNDER FIRE: THE NEW CONSENSUS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT" Emory Law Journal, Fall 1996.

That seems to be the sort of thing that would be supported by sources that aren't from advocacy groups. I'd argue we don't need to add this bit from Wolfgang at all, doesn't seem to add anything of substance outside of the appeal to authority. However, I'd be willing to compromise if we can reduce the fluff, compact it into a single sentence (or maybe even a clause) and mix it into the context of another paragraph. Alternatively, we could to the POV creep and add the context from his follow up where he generally states the problems of small numbers and extrapolation from small samples... -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Andrew c IMO, the quote works in the article, because in p1 we discuss the k&g findings, and in p2-4 we discuss criticisms and defenses of the research. Is Hemmenway's commentary out of place too? Is that not an appeal to authority to discredit K&G? How often are those sources cited? Regarding cherry picking, Wolfgang cherry picked those exact same quotes in the second article, so it seems those indeed are the important ones. 2 out of 39 cites have issues. Are you claiming that the other 37 are also biased? In that second article he reiterates his point that they did their work correctly, but that the work suffers from the same flaws that all survey research does. I have no objection to extending the relevant paragraph to include additional context. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking through the history, you are the one who added this to the article. BRD seems to apply here. You boldly inserted something, and I reverted it. Just because this is a low priority article that doesn't have a lot of eyes on it, doesn't mean your disputed edits get to stand in the article. I'd argue that we remove the disputed section until we can build consensus for a new version. I already proposed a path forward. My preference would be to be much more concise and integrate. You proposed expanding which seems to get into undo weight and POV creep and back and forth, which does not read well. I'd propose: "In a 1995 commentary, eminent criminologist Marvin Wolfgang wrote that while he was personally troubled by the findings that refute his theory regarding "the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator", he praised their methodological diligence." Hmm... ok this is a little harder than I first thought, that needs some polishing. BUt something along those lines and insert it in the first paragraph of that section before the By 1997... -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)