From: "Clayton E. Cramer" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: "Re: Second Amendment"
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 14:38:58 -0700
Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> RAY <Kira@Interaccess.com> wrote:
> >RR: What you were 'thinking of' was Kersh's uninformed
> >bullshit. At least you are man enough to admit you were
> >wrong (although I note your apology only came after a fellow
> >gunner showed your error). Kersh will never admit his
> Your wrong again or just lying... I vote on lying since you posted the
> same info I did from NCJ-165476. Cook and Ludwig wrote:
> "The key explanation for the difference between the
> 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
> and the several million from the surveys discussed
> earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
> problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
> first reported that they were crime victims. Most
> NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
> DGU question, falsely or otherwise."
> That's correct; no report, no DGU.
Sam, I think you misread this. In this context, "persons who
first reported that they were crime victims" means not official
police reports, but "reported" that they had been a victim of a
crime to the NCVS survey. Only if they "reported" a crime
in one part of the survey would they be asked about DGUs.
It's an easy mistake to make if you don't understand how NCVS
works. It also means that there are going to be people who
engaged in a DGU but don't report that they were victims of
a crime because the crime wasn't completed. Why? Because
of the DGU. That's what makes the NCVS survey results
on DGUs probably too low.