Defensive Gun Use: 2.5 Million or 2.5 per year?

Great Debates
1

I did a search and didn’t see this particular question raised, at least not directly. Apologies if it’s a repeat debate and happy to have it deleted if someone could point me to a thread.

While I do not mean to start another gun debate thread, I am curious about one particular (albeit complicated) issue: defensive gun use (DGU).

How often are guns used to deter crimes (in the home, outside the home, on Wall Street, etc)?

In the 1995, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz argued it’s about 2.5 million times based on a survey and some math (http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm).

David Hemenway called shenanigans (http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm; and later Hemenway et al: warning pdf alert: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0276-8739(199722)16%3A3<463%3ATGDNMN>2.0.CO%3B2-3)

Kleck and Gertz responded with nuh-uh, we were right all along (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm)

Now, these numbers are old and contested. So, what have you? What do you think are the real numbers? Frankly, 2.5 million DGUs a year (almost 7,000 a day!) seems crazy to me, but then again so does quantum mechanics so what do I know. Any better, more current numbers out there? Anyone qualified to answer?

Full disclosure: I own a few guns, am generally pro gun rights, and am also pro gun control. I’m all for hefty, ongoing training requirements, detailed background checks, etc., and I still think banning assault weapons will do little to stop what an assault weapons ban is meant to stop. I don’t mean this to be a debate about gun grabbers or gun nuts, just about DGUs.

2

It can be a difficult question to answer. Do you count as defensive uses only those cases where a shot was fired? Or do you count the cases where display of the weapon was enough to discourage the perpetrator? If the latter, how many of those cases are reported? Can you estimate actual usage from those cases that are reported with any accuracy?

3

FWIW, I hear that another study concluded that the number was more like 100,000/year. I don’t have that study in front of me. The Atlantic article that quoted it also said that the rate of hot burglaries (where the victim is home) is about 45% in the U.K. vs. about 15% in the U.S. and that surveys of criminals say that the reason for this is that they don’t want to get shot. I don’t know if or how that would be factored into the number of defensive uses, if true.

Rob

4

According to the Brady campaign, it’s 28%.

5

I agree. But it seems like worthwhile information to try to come to some consensus about.

I believe this data comes from a NCVS survey, at least one version of which is mentioned in the Kleck paper.

Not surprisingly, the Brady Center site (in another data point: http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/117/) only cites the Hemenway piece and not the others. It would be nice if a site like the Brady Center could provide both sides and then present their argument. It’s not like pro-gun rights sites do any better but the inability of either side to present all the evidence (or lack thereof) and then deal intelligently with what we know is one of the reasons we have the absurd fringe views we have. :smack:

6

Here’s a interesting article from Snopes. A off duty copy managed to stop what *looks like *was going to be another ‘shooting spree’ massacre”.

7

An off-duty cop operating in an official capacity as security at the theater. Not some random schmuck (schmuckette?) who happened to be there with a gun.

8

True, and like I said, a random schmuck doesn’t have combat reflexes. The first time I was shot at, I stood there like a idiot, with my thumb up my butt. :eek: Then the second shot, and I dived for cover, cowering in the gutter, then what seemed like a long time after the third shot but was likely more like a minute, I remembered I had a .357 revolver and I was a crack shot with it. By that time, the shooting had stopped, it was some old crank on a roof with a single shot .22 rifle. I am glad I didn’t shoot him, actually.

But if that random guy was a combat vet, he’d likely do OK also.

9

In a country of 300 million plus people, 2.5 million DGUs amount to less than 1% of the population using a gun for a defensive purpose last year. So say 1 out of every 125 people used a gun for a defensive purpose last year. Depending on how one might define a DGU, that doesn’t seem completely unreasonable to me.

A DGU doesn’t necessarily mean than an intruder had to have been shot and killed to qualify, or that in the absence of a gun, the homeowner would have been killed.

10

There just really isn’t any way to know. I’ve used a gun in self defense a couple time. no shots were fired, and it didn’t appear in any police reports. I know several other people who have had similar experiences. Unless someone shoots someone, there just aren’t any statistics kept on it.

11

Liar!

:confused:

So if a guy is sucking another guys ***k while a woman sodomizes him with a strap-on can he still claim to not be gay? And if others call him a coward for not admitting what he really is while he doesn’t, in fact, admit to what he really is, are they horrible people or is he a hypocrite?

:confused: I’m confused.
Explain and defend this. Are you Saying violent crimes are because the criminals (who, if they’re felons, cannot legally own any firearms in the first place) are not properly trained, or are you saying that law abiding folks should be trained so they can better defend against criminals who attempt violent crimes?

If it’s the former, please show a cite that crimes are being caused by people who are in lawful possession of arms, yet under trained. You are like the Nth person to babble about training like violent crime has anything to do with that! Now please explain and justify this ridiculous statement!!! And show cites, please, that “training” has anything to do with violent crime one way or another!!!

12

You know, until this post, I hadn’t realized how much calm and reasonable exposition can be livened up by some raw porn.

13

The problem is it’s really difficult to get objective factual information about things that didn’t happen. How do you accurately count crimes that didn’t happen? You need to develop some kind of statistical model and that leaves an opening for people to develop a model that suits their pre-existing opinions.

14

As I see it, a defensive gun usage is when somebody gets shot. In some anecdotes shared recently, a replica of a firearm or simply claiming to have a firearm would have been sufficient to ward off the intruder or supposed threat of violence. I could see reasons why incidents of deterrence might be over or under reported; the survey respondent might count brandishing a holstered pistol at someone asking directions as having successfully deterred a robbery, or the respondent might answer in the negative as the gun he used was illegal.

IIRC, there are about 400 justified homicides a year, per the CDC. However, justified homicides by civilians appear to be on the rise as gun laws become more lax. Rise in justifiable homicides linked to weak gun control laws | US gun control | The Guardian

15

So if I find an intruder in my house, point a gun at him and he takes off running, that doesn’t count? If I fire at him and miss, and he runs away, it doesn’t count?

In both cases, having a gun was a positive thing for the citizen. There’s no reason to define a defensive gun use so narrowly.

16

Unless the police are called, it doesn’t show up in crime stats and there’s no way of knowing how often it happens.

17

Yes, exactly, I want violent criminals to be better trained and fully certified to be violent criminals. Brilliant of you to catch my not-so-hidden intentions. I mean it’s really unconscionable to imagine violent criminals carrying out their violent criminal acts without the proper training. These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to call himself a violent criminal even if he’s never had the proper classes and correct number of credit hours. It completely dilutes the value of the title. Pretty soon, no one is going to want to be a violent criminal anymore, and then where will we be? Seriously, it should really be against the law to claim to be a violent criminal without the proper training and certification. Goon, maybe? Punk, sure. But, violent criminal, no. Maybe if we all band together and call our congress folks, we can create some new laws that will get all those violent criminal wannabes off the streets before they try to commit violent acts without the proper training and certification. I know, I know. It’s a complex issue and more laws may not be the answer, but we have to try. And, of course, once they’re properly trained, by all means, they should free to commit whatever violent acts they originally intended, and even better if they can manage said violent acts while both committing sodomy and being sodomized. :rolleyes:

18

Defensive Gun Use: 2.5 Million or 2.5 per year?

The correct answer is: not enough.

19

Not enough to justify gun ownership? Or not enough given all the crime we have?

20

I do so love good sarcasm.:cool:

But you haven’t answer the question. Why is training continually being brought up in these threads? Please show significant data that indicates violent crime would be decreased if those that were armed were required to go through more firearms training. Keep in mind that many criminals obtain their guns illegally.