Talk:Gary Kleck

US or world-wide?
Would that be gun control just in the US or world-wide?

The article makes clear now that he is an expert on gun control in the USA. NDM (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous link
The linked citation disputing the efficacy of gun self defence [1] needs to be identified in some way. soverman April 23/07: 02:40 UTC

Removal of sourced info
Someone removed this, which is sourced, can someone explain?
 * By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowell studies.

Arthur (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don's see any reason to delete that statement. Assuming for the sake of discussion that this factual statement is true, it would be a major rebuttal of the cited contrary studies. Failure to include episodes in which the display of a firearm (without firing) was sufficient to terminate a criminal attack would be a fatal logical deficiency of any study which purported to analyze use of firearms for defensive purposes, especially as the evidence suggests that the vast majority of defensive gun use episodes do NOT involve the weapon being fired. I feel that the original statement from the LaPierre book should be reinstated. NDM (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should definitely be re-instated, assuming no one else has already done so (in which case I will probably do so).KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't re-instate it...that would make the article accurate, not biased, and thus inconsistent with typical Wikipedia style. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Often Kleck's critics point to the FBI UCR table of justifiable homicides, ~170 per year shooting death of a felon during commission of a felony by a citizen as listed by police report (ignoring eventual adjudication by the courts). Prof. Marvin "I hate guns" Wolfgang pointed out that when and where shooting homicides were tracked through the the judicial system, 20% to 30% were found to be in self-defense. Kleck estimated the FBI UCR table under-reports justifible homicide by 4 times to 7 times the actual number, simply by not tracking homicide or manslaughter through the judicial system (which of course is not a function of Uniform Crime Reports which focuses on reportes by police, not by judicial systems). Kleck points out that for every dead felon there are over a thousand successful defensive gun uses without a dead felon (woundings, misses, warning shots, brandishment, or verbal "Back off I have a gun" warning).Naaman Brown (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

neutrality is disputed
As of 3 Feb 2009: One sentence on bio. One sentence on career in field. Six sentences on criticism. Two references: one a critical article and one a book by the author (who has written much more than that). 76.7.179.74 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK two of the lines under "Criticism" actual fit under "impact" header following model of Paul Samuelson article. One sentence on bio. One sentence on career in field. Four sentences on criticism. Two sentences on impact of his work. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The FSU defense survey was debunked, but it's presented here as reliable
The FSU defense survey was a phone survey of 5,000 people. Further study showed that the people that responded to the study overstated their use of firearms in self defense, basically destroying the foundation of the study. Yet here it's presented as reliable? Why? (posted by -- 108.28.169.102 22:31, 12 October 2011‎)


 * The WP article only states the results of the survey. Also "debunked" and "basically destroyed" is overstatement. As the Kleck & Gertz 1995 study itself pointed out in Table 1, there were ten national surveys (some conducted by pro-control groups) that gave 764,000 to 3.6 million defensive gun uses (DGUs): Kleck & Gertz got ~2.4 million. All those surveys had questioning protocols that measured different things. Further study? Kleck & Gertz 1995 article admitted there may be a false positive bias in their question protocol (just as there is an alleged false negative bias in the NCVS survey question protocol: "Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise."--Cook & Ludwig 1997 NSPOF survey.) Kleck & Gertz urged caution in evaluating all these surveys, including their own. On the other hand, gun-hater Marvin Wolfgang commenting on the Kleck & Gertz 1995 article expressed "admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research".
 * Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, Vol 86 No 1.
 * Northwestern University, School of Law; Guns and Violence Symposium.
 * Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," p. 150
 * Marvin E. Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," p.188
 * Naaman Brown (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An empirical study of this type of research shows that DGU survey work is an unsettled area of research, that all work in the field has its faults, that Kleck himself identfied short comings and suggested improvements. National Academy of Sciences, "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review", NAS 2004, NAP 2005. Chapter 5 The Use of Firearms to Defend Against Criminals. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading the NSPOF report, due to the recent Obama Administration use of the 40% non-store sales stat from the survey. I was reminded that Cook & Ludwig used the Kleck & Gertz method for adjusting for "false positive" bias to reduce NSPOF reported defensive gun use from 22 million to 4.7 million. Now for that "false negative" bias in the NCVS method.... --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Debate over defensive gun usage study
I just nuked the whole section/subsection thing... let's have one, well-written section covering the academic and public debate over the study rather than one three-graf section arguing against his studies and one three-graf section of him defending his studies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Could you restore the Kelck "responses" you removed? We can then work on organizing, flowing,  and neutral toning the various pieces. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked back at them, and the "responses" I removed consisted of Kleck's unsupported arguments that, no, Hemenway's survey was wrong. I don't think that belongs in a discussion of criticism of Kleck's survey. Maybe it belongs in a discussion of Hemenway's survey, but that's not here.
 * The more I look at this, the more I think this whole thing should be split out into another article focusing on the academic debate over defensive uses of guns and not be in Kleck's biography. It's clearly a bigger issue than this one study and it involves research done by a variety of different researchers. A separate article would avoid issues of undue weight on Kleck, and it would allow an addressing of both sides of the debate on a neutral playing field, rather than it being "everyone mob Kleck's biography." I'm sure there's other researchers besides Kleck who have come to similar conclusions as he has. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is the Defensive gun use article, which is probably a better location for general debate content regarding the various surveys that isn't Kleck specific. But how to deal with it there? A section for each survey and criticism of that survey? A section/paragraph for each debate point and what each survey/opinion says about that point? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, that's probably the best place for it. There's already discussion of one of the other defensive gun use studies there. I think a single section for each study would suffice - presenting its findings, then giving space for criticism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Defensive gun use section
I came here to get some Kleck-related info and got drawn into the DGU section. I haven't settled on an opinion about the material, but I have removed some WP:EDITORIALIZING language and verbosity. It needs more work in these areas, so I'll be back. Also to see if there are any questions. Lightbreather (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have created a Kleck research subsection under the Estimates of frequency section on the Defensive gun use page.

There was already a similar Lott subsection, which contained material that was practically duplicated in a subsection of Lott's bio, so I have also proposed a merge of those. The discussion about it is on the Defensive gun use talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Kleck's 40% DGU by women
40% shows up a lot in gun stats.

Tom Smith questioned Kleck's 40% defensive gun use by women by claiming surveys show that only 20% of women report owning a gun.

The WikiP article included: "Hemenway said that Kleck stated armed women prevented 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage Hemenway said is unlikely because few women report going armed."

WP:OR I know four women who used guns in self defense. Two owned the gun they used. One used a gun that belonged to her employer. Another used a gun that belonged to her significant other. You don't have to own the gun to use it defensively. I am not sure how Hemenway is using "going armed" but under the law in my home state the "going armed" statute covers having a gun on the person outside one's home or place of business for protection. Only one of the women was "going armed" outside her home.

A woman defending herself in her home with a gun that belonged to her spouse (a) would not be a gun owner (Smith objection) and (b) would not be "going armed" (Hemenway objection).

Official stats on rape are notoriously under reported (FBI UCR); so a survey (NCVS) can get a higher number of rapes than appear in the official stats. Self reporting on whether a rape was prevented NSDS? Comparing reported defense in cases of fear of rape against rape stats is hard to quantify.

The question "Have you used a gun in self defense?" is going to get more positive responses than the question "Do you own a gun? (if yes, have you used it in self defense?)" or the question "Do you go armed with a gun? (if yes, have you used it in self defense?)" There is a reason why over a dozen private DGU surveys yield estimates of 764,000 to 3,600,000 DGUs per year, while the government's NCVS gave 108,000 and it's NSPOF survey gave 4,700,000. The questioning protocols measure different things.--Naaman Brown (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, Hemmenway's interpretation of Kleck's research is disputed, with Kleck explicitly saying that his sample sizes are not sufficient to make analysis of sub-criteria, but only for the larger DGU question. Kleck's dispute of the 40% number is already directly covered in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're reading to much into the specific wording of some quotes on a talk page. Perhaps original sources can provide and idea of how the surveys were conducted and worded. Personal anecdotes, I should add, are pretty meaningless. - 101.169.42.152 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Source citations
I find it annoying when I read a WP article (any article, anywhere, really) that gives incomplete source citations. One thing leads to another and I ended up on this page. Hope not to stay too long as I have other things at the top of my list, but I'm going to take an hour or two to improve some of the citations in this article using WP:CS1. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)