ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Real gun numbers

| Thursday, May 31, 2018, 8:35 p.m.

The letter “Progressivism ‘bull in the china shop'” repeating long-discredited inferences about guns and self-defense should not go unchallenged.

The writer claims the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is suppressing evidence that legal defensive gun uses (DGUs) outnumber criminal uses by almost four times, that to beat a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun. But what data exist show no such thing. One Harvard study suggests that DGUs occurred in only 0.9 percent of crimes between 2007 and 2011. Another researcher at Duke estimates a maximum of 100,000 DGUs per year. Even if the latter figure is correct, that's only 8 percent of the 1.2 million violent crimes reported to the FBI in 2016, not four times more.

The inflated DGU number depends on careless research methods and statistical fallacies — using non-random telephone surveys, accepting self-reports in the absence of a reliable definition of a deterred crime and overestimating the impact of false negatives while discounting false positives (i.e., cherry-picking the data).

Far from CDC withholding data, it has been barred by Congress from gathering more systematic evidence on gun violence.

Eugene V. Torisky Jr.

Latrobe

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me