User talk:Gkleck
|
Hello, Gkleck, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Aremith Talk, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
{{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! |
Gun control[edit]
Saw your recent edits to the gun control article, and noticed your user name. Are you the "Kleck" from the studies? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Based on your edit history, Im going to go ahead and assume the answer is yes. So welcome back to Wikipedia. As you may be aware, we are actively trying to recruit experts in every area, so you are very welcome. I will however caution you to be careful in your edits. Everything must be sourced to something verifiable. If you are changing content based on your research, that research must be published, and say/be interpreted the way it is presented here. Unfortunately you cannot "correct" analysis of your (or others) research by others if it was published in a reliable source, unless that correction is itself published in a reliable source. Im not sure any of your edits are in violation of that, but just wanted to warn you. Also be wary of any WP:POV you may be instituing. I noticed you changed the description of Arthur Kellermann to "anti-gun researcher", which is probably an inappropriate POV label (even if true). Should your research be qualified as "Pro-gun researcher Kleck" ? Also, I have created a new article you may be interested in List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents which while obviously not as statistically significant as your research, can be used by people to see some of the frequency and details of defensive gun uses. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Kleck also points to the logical errors in the critics' claims that his survey's estimates of defensive gun uses linked with specific crime types, or that involved a wounding of the offender, are implausibly large compared to estimates of the total numbers of such crimes based on the NCVS or on estimates of the total number of gunshot wounds. First, it is false that the NCVS yields estimates of total number of sexual assaults, robberies, or any other crime type. It is widely acknowledged among scholars that the true counts are larger.[citation needed] Since no one knows what the true crime counts are, no one can know if estimates of defensive gun uses are implausibly large relative to such numbers.[original research?] Likewise, we do not know the total number of nonfatal gunshot woundings, whether medically treated or not. (2) Second, no meaningful estimates can be derived from the Kleck survey regarding the prevalence of defensive gun uses linked with specific crime types, or that involved wounding the offender, because the relevant sample sizes are far too small to serve this purpose. The fact that some crime-specific estimates derived from the Kleck survey are implausibly large is at least partly a reflection of the small samples on which they are based - no more than 196 cases. In contrast, Kleck's estimate of total defensive gun uses was based on nearly 5,000 cases. Thus, the implausible character of some crime-specific estimates tells us nothing about whether the estimate of the total number of defensive gun uses is implausible or too high.[original research?]