The Verdict is in: Alan Korwin Told a Lie on C-Span (and refuses to admit it)

Alan Korwin - LiarDespite claims to the contrary, Alan Korwin did make a public statement that is untrue (a lie), and given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement, has chosen to defend this untruth.

On April 9th 2008, Alan Korwin appeared on C-Span. In that speech, in reference to gun ownership in America, Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of thousands of lives are saved each year” [by the defensive use of guns]. His defense is a 1995 poll by Kleck.

But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” concludes, NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms) based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number.

So Alan’s claim is not only laughable and absurd but also, demonstrably false and therefore irresponsible.

Just in the last 3 pages of this analysis (pg 9-12) finds the following phrases to describe the Kleck and Gertz poll:

“…surprising figure, estimates are far too high.”
“It does not make sense”

“…results are almost as absurd”

“If those percentages were close to accurate”

“That number also appears completely out of line”

“Evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger…”

“…many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified..”

“…greatly exaggerates the true number…”

“…the DGU estimates are not informative…”

Please find below, the full excerpts from which the above phrases are taken for your convenience.

It is quite clear that integrity and honesty are not qualities that reside in the same personage as many gun-advocates, and most certainly, not ones possessed by Alan Korwin.

Alan Korwin certainly has the ability to verify the accuracy of his claims, as do his interlocutors, many of whom have come to his defense on this blog.

I repeat. THIS is the beauty of the Internet.

“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” – Excerpts”

Page 11 Conclusion:

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money’s worth. The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.

Page 9
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU). Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.13 The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.

Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!

…our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases. The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar to the most recent case and provide evidence for additional millions of violent crimes foiled and perpetrators shot.

Page 10
Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz’s criteria).

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents’ answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents’ reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded “no” to a subsequent question: “Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?”

Share Utah:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis

, , , ,

  1. #1 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 1:01 pm

    Utah Mom,

    the Original purpose of handguns was to defend oneself.
    Let’s move the goal posts again, eh? The original comment was “Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only; to kill people.” Now it’s what is the original purpose.

    Question is does it matter what the original or current purpose is? No, an knife was used to gut and clean game, dig plants, should we never use itto cut rope?

    Let me ask you what you would rather have in your hand IF (please note scenario) there was someone at your door trying to break it down, yelling he will rape every man woman and child in the house, a phone to call the police or a firearm?
    Most firearms are not used for crimes, doesn’t it make sense to punish the criminal than to ban the tool used?

  2. #2 by Blink Da! on April 25, 2008 - 1:14 pm

    Bob S., by now the appeal to sense is clearly pointless, you are dealing with a pathology.

    “You would like me to prove hand guns are inherently dangerous? Under one condition. Disclose yourself and you credentials. I do not have time to play games with an amateur”.

    You are a Schlemiel Cliff. Amateur? You define it. What purpose does it serve to know who defends their points better than you can attack? Uh, what are your credentials?

    We don’t care anyway, it is OK that you are not a particularly credentialed person.

    A handgun is like a camp stove, as a hatchet is to an axe, a tent is to a house, it will do, and is a minimumized version of the real thing.

    My friend uses his 8 3/8ths inch long barreled .357 magnum to hunt deer, and has killed them with it. Great for backup in bear country, and fun, takes another measure of skill to stalk and and kill with a pistol. All the while it is concealable, and more than enough to dispose of criminals with.

    Guns are made to kill things, the uses for hunting and personal defense evolved simultaneously. It is what they are for and that right to keep them is in the Bill of Rights. A pistol is just a less powerful gun.

    Yes, they are dangerous, they are meant to be, what is the point? We understand you don’t like them. I can’t stand SUVs, but they are everywhere and often in their own error the owners kill those in smaller vehicles. In far greater numbers than pistols.

  3. #3 by Blink Da! on April 25, 2008 - 1:23 pm

    Think about this Cliff, you live in a State that was made on the ideas of a man that had no credentials at all.

    Must drive you crazy to be living in what his untrained mind made.

  4. #4 by Ban the Tool. on April 25, 2008 - 1:43 pm

    How do we feel when we are around a policeman? Do you feel more secure, or are you fearful and have some measure of revulsion? If the latter, it is due to the fact that as a person having someone around that can consequence any of your actions does not appeal.

  5. #5 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 1:43 pm

    Cliff,

    Recognize these words

    This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.”

    You should….Now let’s see you support your public statements.

  6. #6 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 1:50 pm

    I dunno, Bob…

    I sure hope that you’re credentialed as a librarian or an archivist – otherwise your post is pretty suspect….

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 1:52 pm

    Real hunters have a respect for life. Anybody who hunts deer with a handgun is an asshole. I’d have a fake name too if I ever admitted that.

  8. #8 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm

    Larry,

    Could be really petty here and say “let’s see your credentials” but I won’t. There are a wide variety of handguns, some considerably more power than some rifle loads. Doing the research before making statements like that might help.

    I do my research and fact finding with nothing more than an internet search engine. How is it someone like me can find citations, legal standings and supporting evidence for the pro-gun side, but very few of the anti-gun side seem to be able to provide the same?
    And as far as a fake name, sorry Larry wrong again.

  9. #9 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:11 pm

    Your last name is S?

    You’d have to be pretty darned close to the deer to get a good kill wouldn’t you, or would you care if you just wounded the entity.

    As for my credentials. I have no real credentials other then the fact my brother in law used to write for “Field and Stream” and wouldn’t have ever hunted deer with a handgun.

  10. #10 by Albert O. on April 25, 2008 - 2:19 pm

    Bob:

    Your statement that the “anti-gun” side is unable to provide citations, legal standings and supporting evidence is, to say it politely, quite laughable. Indeed, a cursory review of the amici briefs filed on behalf of the “anti-gun” position in the case now pending before the Supreme Court provides all that and more.

  11. #11 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 2:26 pm

    Albert,

    I am sorry if I didn’t make it clear, but I was referring to this blog and thread

    Tell me who on the anti-gun side on this blog has provide anything close to the documentation or support for their side that the pro-gun side has.

    Larry, I was attempting a joke; like most of mine it was feeble. The point is, I don’t ask for credentials because they don’t matter. Statements like anyone hunting deer with a handgun is an asshole is derogatory, inflammatory and unsupported.

  12. #12 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:30 pm

    caveat said:

    Not all liberals are ‘gunshy’, nor are all conservatives ‘guncrazy’. too much of a generalization.

    That may be true, but it IS against the rules to criticize a fellow Republican and the “gunshy” Republican is best to keep it a secret.

    Oh, and speaking of Republicans not EVER criticizing other republicans or even lying scum like Ted Nugent, lets see if Bob S. will criticize the Homeland Securtiy Chief, Micheal Chertoff for this recent gem:

    a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.

    After all, on this very thread Bob S. said this:

    Since 1934 with the NFA, the right to keep and bear arms has been whittled away. Can you imagine someone applying the same restrictions to other fundamental rights? Needing a permit to write a newspaper article, giving fingerprints prior to joining a new church, etc.

    Now be careful Bob, this is a pretty powerful guy who doesn’t even need to know your real name to determine who you are.

    Bob?
    Anybody?

  13. #13 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 2:38 pm

    Larry,

    I will say it very clear, it’s bullsh*t. Unless I am suspected in a crime, my body and what I leave behind is my property, invading that privacy should require a warrant.

    Care to answer some of the questions posed, what other rights would it be acceptable to have the same restrictions firearms have?

    By the way Larry, supporting a person is not the same as never criticizing them for one, I’ve never claimed to be a republican for two – there is a difference between republican and conservative, much like the difference between democrat and liberal.
    Repeatedly, I’ve tried to address the issues, not the people.

  14. #14 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:42 pm

    Bush determines every right you have. What difference does it make?

    Stop being so civil. Just say it. It’s bullshit and so is this entire administration, (the ones who haven’t bailed.)

  15. #15 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 2:43 pm

    You’d have to be pretty darned close to the deer to get a good kill wouldn’t you, or would you care if you just wounded the entity.

    Yes, Larry. You have to get pretty close.

    You may now return to your jenkum.

  16. #16 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:45 pm

    Go get high on Nugent’s smelly shorts, jd whoever.

  17. #17 by Ban the Tool. on April 25, 2008 - 3:37 pm

    With the long barreled magnum, the shot was at 15o feet, and the animal was down and dead within seconds.

    People I know in Vermont hunted deer with a .22 rifle successfully, often shooting the animal dead without a break. It isn’t for people who are bad shots though.

    Larry there are people I know that have killed brown bears at close range in self defense with a .357, but that is about as small as a gun as is likely advised.

    People hunt with bow and arrow, which often does not kill instantly, the animal is bled to death by the razor arrow wound, and tracked as it flees. Do you think that is hunting? Real boar hunters in sport use spears, and the range is very close for that. Pistol hunting is a much more even match for the beast, than a hunter with a HP rifle.

    Larry, what gives, no one here would support chertoffs’ crazy tactics. He won’t attempt guns yet as that would bring their whole anti- constitutional agenda to a crashing halt. I knew you supported gun rights deep down. Thanks for the chertoff reference, it helps the cause in convincing people the gov’t has no place opposing the Bill of Rights.

  18. #18 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 25, 2008 - 4:02 pm

    “Bush determines every right you have”!

    Larry, I respectfully differ. Bush is, at the very least a scum-sucking-lame-duck-liar and war criminal whose real impact on anyone with a brain is nil (except for the dead, injured, poisoned, and of course the RICH). He should never have been appoiinted, should have been impeached, and hopefully will face some accountability in the near future.

    In the mean time larry, take a deep breath…Let it out slowly through your nose…Repeat.

    I don’t recall any thread on 1Ut having this many comments. Have we broken a record here? Does anyone keep score?

  19. #19 by Ban Tools, vote out Congress on April 25, 2008 - 7:35 pm

    Gives you just a little idea where the mainstream attitudes lie. That it is a bit of a drubbing is excused by the question;

    Who started it?

  20. #20 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 8:06 pm

    Cliff,

    See you have a new post up but can’t bother to address the issues here. Is that a little elitism showing in your demand for my qualifications? Or is it simply avoidance?

    Unless you ban me, I will continue to post and to call you to task for your unsupported statements.

    Isn’t the internet great?

  21. #21 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 8:09 pm

    Utah Mom and Dad,

    Since you seem to be unaware of the uses of handguns, please consider taking me up on an offer. I’ll find someone in your area to take you both out to the range for some target shooting. Most gunnies would be overjoyed to take you to the range and teach basic gun safety and marksmanship.

    I don’t know what area you are in, but I’m confident we can find someone. Or if you are in the Dallas Fort Worth area, I’ll be happy to spring for a no cost trip to the range.

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on April 26, 2008 - 12:12 am

    I don’t know caveat. Have you read about presidential directive 51?
    Here’s an article from Slate which has a couple of interesting paragraphs, but read the whole thing, (if you dare):

    Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a “terrorist attack,” or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of “national security,” and take the control of the government via the “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51″ and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20,” released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn’t THAT be an interesting nightmare?

    And.

    I wish I did, but I see nothing in the document to prevent even a “localized” forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window, institute a number of unspecified continuity policies, and run the country with the guidance of the “National Continuity Coordinator” and with the “Continuity Policy Coordination Committee” for as long as the president sees fit.

    Bush has been known to ignore laws he didn’t find convenient and then later admit he broke them, not seeming to be worried. This one, he won’t even really need to break.

    George W. Bush
    President Of The United States 2001-

  23. #23 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 26, 2008 - 5:42 am

    Ah yes, the stroke of His Master’s Mighty Pen! Gw sucks, the law is what it is, (the higher and the lower), he is only protoplasm and will be readily reabsorbed. This will likely cause some gagging – that’s just a natural reflex. He’s only a dick-tater in his own small mind.

    As for possible triggers, Limbaugh would also include the rioting in Denver by the Obama folks when Hil finally becomes the nominee (He finds this ‘Dreamy’). I say, they’ve been living in thier own little paranoid delusion far too long, but…they have the media to help thier story line along. I guess anything can happen.

    I’m presuming we’ll be raptured up, up, and away.

  24. #24 by Larry Bergan on April 26, 2008 - 2:08 pm

    Limbaugh incites riots at the Democratic National Convention and Cheney becomes the permanent “National Continuity Coordinator.”

    Delicious!

  25. #25 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 26, 2008 - 3:25 pm

    Permanent til somebody stomps his mechanical ‘heart’ (and they’re taking bids on e-bay for that very gleeful act as I write).

  26. #26 by jdberger on June 4, 2008 - 9:57 am

    Geez – Cliff? Trying to boost your Google rankings?

    Do you have any evidence that we “trolls” are being paid by the gun lobby?

(will not be published)