Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 04:12:19 -0500
From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
To: firearms-alert@shell.portal.com
Subject: INFO: Dr. Paul Blackman responds to HCI's Criticism of Kleck's Surcey


February 8, 1995

MEMORANDUM

FROM:  DR. PAUL BLACKMAN

SUBJECT:  HCI'S CRITICISM OF KLECK'S SURVEY

USA Today has published a letter from the research director of
HCI's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence criticizing Kleck's survey
indicating over two million protective uses of firearms annually.

He makes three basic points:  First, in going from the number of
protective uses to the number of protective uses involving
injuries, the projection becomes too high -- nearly 200,000, which
is close to the total number of firearm-related injuries annually. 
Therefore, the overall figure must also be incorrect.

     Kleck would be the first to note that statistical significance
     declines rapidly when you go from the numbers reporting use of
     guns for protection to the number claiming to have injured the
     criminal.  The fact that the 190,000 estimate is unreliable
     because of sample size says nothing about the statistical
     significance of the 2.5 million figure.

     The same would be true of any survey.  The fact that a survey
     found half of households had guns wouldn't mean the survey
     could report significantly on the number of young, black males
     owning semi-automatic pistols.  The statistical unreliability
     of the estimate of young blacks owning semi-automatic pistols
     doesn't undermine the reliability on the figure of gun
     ownership.  And the fact that some data are statistically
     unreliable does not mean the key datum isn't.

Second, Kleck's assertions are based on "only five or six positive
responses out of approximately 5,000 interviews."

     It us unclear how the figure "5 or 6" was invented.  It is a
     fraction of the number who reported wounding, and certainly
     does not represent the number surveyed who reported on the
     protective use of firearms.

Third, his research was dismissed by a "Connecticut Superior Court
judge" as "biased."

     The judge, making a decision in order to win promotion to a
     higher court, noted that Kleck was testifying in favor of the
     plaintiff, making him biased, and dismissed his research as
     irrelevant to the legal issue.  His testimony dealt primarily
     with the criminal misuse of different types of guns; he could
     say nothing regarding "assault weapons" used for protection.