>only takes COMMON SENSE
So then, you are unable to prove it incorrect?
Very lazy.
Let me help you.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
This is Kleck.
It does not say "there ARE 2.5 million defensive gun uses"
It is says
"there is a flaw in the current methodology of recording defensive gun uses and based on my limited survey it could be out by a factor of 3 or 4"
That's the point of this academic article. The need to change reporting methodologies to get better data.
Anyone who says
a) Kleck found 2.5 million DGU
or
b) Klecks finding of 2.5 million DGU is wrong
are both missing the point and, again, lazy for not reading the actual article.
Further from Kleck
https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf
@thecurious1
Regarding the GVA, I don't think that Kleck has ever said "there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses".
People look at the table and misinterpret what it means, because they're too damn lazy to read the article.
So, yeah, the GVA is accurate to question the number.
Just like Kleck is accurate to question the actual reported numbers.
Here is an article BY Kleck
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082/
Note how he holds onto his actual position which is not "there are 2.5 million dgus" but "the current survey method is flawed and therefore you can't make any claims about the data"?
The response is also funny too. They didn't even read the actual article. Fun times.
