How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?

progunner1957

Moderator
No matter which source you ask, there's a WHOLE lotta crimes being stopped in America by the average Joe and Jane with their firearms. In 2003, there were 12,548 deaths due to "gun violence," while 2.5 million people saved themselves and/or others from violent crime.

Lawful defensive use of firearms outnumbered unlawful gun violence deaths by a margin of 199 to 1. Given that fact, "banning guns" is actually counterproductive to the gun banner's holy grail, "public safety."

As someone once said, "Gun control is not about guns - it's about control."

How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?

Written by Larry Elder

September 1, 2005

Forty-six-year-old Joyce Cordoba stood behind the deli counter while working at a Wal-Mart in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Suddenly, her ex-husband -- against whom Ms. Cordoba had a restraining order -- showed up, jumped over the deli counter, and began stabbing Ms. Cordoba. Due Moore, a 72-year-old Wal-Mart customer, witnessed the violent attack. Moore, legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, pulled out his gun, and shot and killed the ex-husband. Ms. Cordoba survived the brutal attack and is recovering from her wounds.

This raises a question. How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes? We know that in 2003, 12,548 people died through non-suicide gun violence, including homicides, accidents and cases of undetermined intent.

UCLA professor emeritus James Q. Wilson, a respected expert on crime, police practices and guns, says, "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond a hundred thousand uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. He further found that of those who had used guns defensively, one in six believed someone would have been dead if they had not resorted to their defensive use of firearms. That corresponds to approximately 400,000 of Kleck's estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people were right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be at least 40,000.

The Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study titled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," estimated that 1.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes every year. Although the government's figure estimated a million fewer people defensively using guns, the NIJ called their figure "directly comparable" to Kleck's, noting that "it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error." Furthermore, the NIJ reported that half of their respondents who said they used a gun defensively also admitted having done so multiple times a year -- making the number of estimated uses of self-defense with a gun 4.7 million times annually.

Former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes, ". . . [W]hen a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

What do "gun control activists" say?

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's website displays this oft-quoted "fact": "The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns." Their web site fails to mention that Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the "expert" who came up with that figure, later backpedaled after others discredited his studies for failing to follow standard scientific procedures. According to The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Kellermann now concedes, "A gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired," admitting that he failed to include such events in his original study. "Simply keeping a gun in the home," Kellermann says, "may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed homeowner." He adds, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat."

"More Guns, Less Crime" author John Lott points out that, in general, our mainstream media fails to inform the public about defensive uses of guns. "Hardly a day seems to go by," writes Lott, "without national news coverage of yet another shooting. Yet when was the last time you heard a story on the national evening news about a citizen saving a life with a gun? . . . An innocent person's murder is more newsworthy than when a victim brandishes a gun and an attacker runs away with no crime committed. . . . ad events provide emotionally gripping pictures. Yet covering only the bad events creates the impression that guns only cost lives."

Americans, in part due to mainstream media's anti-gun bias, dramatically underestimate the defensive uses of guns. Some, after using a gun for self-defense, fear that the police may charge them for violating some law or ordinance about firearm possession and use. So many Americans simply do not tell the authorities.

A gunned-down bleeding guy creates news. A man who spared his family by brandishing a handgun, well, that's just water-cooler chat.
 
Using a gun for personal defense relies on willingness, eyesight, speed, a good sight picture, and a double tap, as well as a weapon that is big bored enough to do the job.
 
Hard question to answer, especially by me. I'm still wondering if I used the presence of my gun as being in defense (not of me, but of another) or if I used it inappropriately. If used correctly, then I used my gun in a defensive stance, if inappropriately then I did wrong.

Right now, I don't know. Honestly, I don't know. I think that this is the reason that many stories of defensive gun use is not reported, the people that had to pull or brandish, just don't know if they did right or wrong.

Wayne
 
A gunned-down bleeding guy creates news. A man who spared his family by brandishing a handgun, well, that's just water-cooler chat.

And we should never confuse the fact that our own pro gun people bend, hype, and otherwise misrepresent the data to suit pro gun needs as much much as the anti-gun people. Larry Elder provided a great example in his last sentence. What he doesn't say is that a gunned-down bleeding guy creates news whether it is an illegal act or a defensive use of a gun. Blood does sell and bloody self defense news sells just fine.

A man who spared his family by branishing a handgun isn't very exciting. That is true. And such events are not likely to make the news unless there is some other exciting aspect to the story...and so they are unreported or unnoticed and hence underrepresented. I have news for you Mr. Elder, there is a tremendous amount of crime that is equally unreported.
 
How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?
Who cares? Carry a gun to defend yourself, not because of statistics.

Any sort of statistical argument for carrying a firearm implies that below a certain crime threshold, you have no right to carry.
 
The "2.5 million DGU/year" is usually cited incorrectly.

That figure refers to Kleck's *lowest* estimate. ie -- "a minimum of 2.5 million DGUs/year."

The actual mean number upon which the 95% confidence interval is applied is 3.5 million IIRC (it's been a while), with a still-higher number at the upper limit. This higher number is possible, just not as likely as the lower, 3.5 million figure.

Perhaps more important is the other data from that same study. That resisting crime with your own gun makes you not only less likely to suffer completion of that crime against you, but to suffer less injury than if you (as the liberals suggest) "just give 'em what they want." As I recall, 25% of non-resisters were injured while only 17% were injured if they resisted with a gun (and many of those were injured *before* the gun was put into play), then the gun stops completion of the planned act, minus a bump or a bruise from the initial "Whap, give me all your money or I'll mess you up some more, chump!"

Got it? ;)

Rick
 
Back
Top