# The precentage of people whose lives were save, comparied to those killed by having a Gun. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 18, 2012, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417 "2012-12-18T12:37:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/21 "2012-12-19T01:17:31Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Estimates run between 108,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year (National Crime Victimization Survey) to about 2,000,000 (Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist). The US Department of Justice says 1,500,000. > > The page links to results of thirteen other surveys. It also links to sites which dispute those numbers and criticize the surveys. This is one of those questions where you have to make up your mind who you are going to believe. And this number is disputed by a number of experts. [This article](http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/) was not impressed with Kleck. > [@](#): > > If Lott’s work can be discarded, the other key evidence for the more guns, less crime camp comes from criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, whose work in the 1990s argued that there are between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive uses of guns in America every year. The number has been widely touted by gun-rights activists, but strongly criticized by other scholars. > > Indeed, studies commissioned by the Department of Justice using different sets of more rigorous data put the number at 83,000 or 108,000, alternatively. In his essay, Goldberg quickly abandons the 2.5 million figure and seems to settle on the 108,000 level, which is 23 times lower than the Kleck-Gertz top number. > > Harvard economist David Hemenway has been especially critical of Kleck-Gertz, pointing out “serious methodological deficiencies” in their numbers. The data came from a national telephone survey of 5,000 households, which found that about .6 percent said they had used guns to defend themselves in the past year. Assuming that proportion held true for all Americans households, they extrapolated from their sample to find the 2.5 million figure. > > Beyond the mathematical issues with that approach, and sampling problems in their survey, Hemenway said the researchers were too credulous in believing respondents. For instance, he pointed to a poll that found that 6 percent of Americans said they had had personal contact with aliens. “The ABC News/Washington Post data on aliens are as good as or better,” Hemenway quipped. and it goes on to make the point > [@](#): > > But perhaps the biggest problem with the Kleck-Gertz numbers is that one person’s self-defense is another person’s murder, as the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin demonstrated. Hemenway and a colleague conducted their own survey and then asked five criminal court judges to review their data to determine the legality of the incidents of defensive gun use reported by respondents. “A majority of the reported self-defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges,” they found. > > The conclusion: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense.” ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/22 "2012-12-19T01:55:23Z")
I did mention that Kleck’s number is disputed by some and the page to which I linked does include links to some of that criticism. In his book, Kleck, a professor of Criminology, draws not only on his own survey, but also draws heavily on surveys by sources such as the FBI and US Department of Justice. His book reads like typical scientific research. Hemenway, an Economist, appears to reject all actual studies and surveys, attacking with mathematical obfuscation that few would ever bother to check, calling the researchers too stupid to understand their own data, and resorting to ridicule such as the ‘aliens’ thing. His stuff reads like typical emotional button pushing agenda driven propaganda. As far as I am aware, the Zimmerman case has been decided only by the likes of Nancy Grace and MSNBC – more emotional button pushing. \*\*“A majority of the reported self-defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges,” they found. \*\* Kleck covers situations like this. The vast majority of murders are committed by young males who have criminal records (or at least previous contact with police) against other young males who also have previous criminal activity. In other words, most murders are gang members, thugs, and hoodlums killing other gang members, thugs and hoodlums. Murders of and by middle-aged middle-class citizens who don’t have previous criminal records are very rare. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/23 "2012-12-19T12:31:51Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Completely impossible to provide a factual answer. > > As data points, [in 2011](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf), there were about 32,000 firearm related deaths, the vast majority 20,000 were suicides, about 11,000 homicides and 850+ accidental deaths. > > There is absolutely now way to quantify how many lives were saved, and numbers floating around the net are meaningless. > > Also, while it’s fair to say most of the accidents would not have happened without guns around (“Really, Officer, I was just cleaning my knife and it went off”), I don’t know how many of the suicides would have happened without guns. Would people choose another method or not kill themselves? > > Often the argument on murders is that many of the shootings are in the heat of the moment, and without guns, it could be less fatal. > > Again, difficult to provide a factual answer even for how many of the current firearm related deaths could have been prevented and impossible to compare to the number “saved.” My daugher had a good friend who was a police woman( working under cover in a high school trying to find the sorce of the drugs), This was in the 70’s. she was found sitting on her couch and it was never determined how she had died, her new husband found her dead with her gun beside of her,they had no way of knowing if it was an accident, but her husband said there was no way she could have tried to clean a gun, with out first checking to make sure if it were loaded or not. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/24 "2012-12-19T12:35:06Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > No. He could not buy one from a dealer at that age, but 18 year olds are allowed to _own_ handguns. The guns were bought by his mother, who he killed first then used her guns to kill 25 more and him self! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/25 "2012-12-19T12:39:54Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Why was it illegal for him to have a gun? Steal one, sure, but _have_ one? It was legal for his mother to purchase the guns, and he killed her in her bed, then used the guns to kill others,so weither he had a gun legally or not isn’t the important point to me, it would not have been availible if it were not in his home. My point is that the reason the mother bought the guns were to protect her and her family but in this case( and in some others) it didn’t help her, her family or others. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/26 "2012-12-19T15:06:53Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > In his book, Kleck, a professor of Criminology, draws not only on his own survey, but also draws heavily on surveys by sources such as the FBI and US Department of Justice. I haven’t read his book, but reading sources such as Guns in America: [National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms](http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm), authored by the National Institute of Justice is also pretty critical of studies of defensive gun uses, and includes some of the basic arguments for why studies, including Kleck and Gertz’s have flaws. They also discuss the problem of false positives. They note: > [@](#): > > In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents’ answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents’ reported DGUs. For example, of > the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz > DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was > rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded “no” to a subsequent question: > “Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?” > [@](#): > > Kleck covers situations like this. The vast majority of murders are committed by young males who have criminal records (or at least previous contact with police) against other young males who also have previous criminal activity. In other words, most murders are gang members, thugs, and hoodlums killing other gang members, thugs and hoodlums. Murders of and by middle-aged middle-class citizens who don’t have previous criminal records are very rare. Yup. Pretty much. Which is why any statistic about supposed DGU must be considered in that light. Given that violent crime in general in a problem much more with underclasses, the idea that there are hundred of thousands of righteous DGU annually seems unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/27 "2012-12-19T16:37:08Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Given that violent crime in general in a problem much more with underclasses, the idea that there are hundred of thousands of righteous DGU annually seems unlikely. Why? Plenty of law-abiding people who live in bad neighborhoods own guns (and I can’t blame them). And most DGU involves just showing the weapon to the criminal, at which point he suddenly recalls he has urgent business elsewhere. It’s hard to get an accurate estimate of how often that happens, as most of those incidents are never reported (since no actual crime took place). ---
**Author:** ![Pitchmeister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pitchmeister/32/3459_2.png) [@Pitchmeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pitchmeister)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/28 "2012-12-19T16:53:01Z")
> [@sahirrnee](#): > > Having a gun in the house saved me, so I am one person who can say that. > I didn’t have to use it but once the asshole breaking in saw me aiming it at them they changed their mind about coming in the window. With all due respect, having a gun protected your property, for sure, but did it protect your life? Of course, your case is the best possible reason to own a gun, but to say you would have died without it is stretching it a bit, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/29 "2012-12-19T17:14:16Z")
> [@Pitchmeister](#): > > With all due respect, having a gun protected your property, for sure, but did it protect your life? Of course, your case is the best possible reason to own a gun, but to say you would have died without it is stretching it a bit, IMHO. IMHO, you have no idea whatsoever whether or not he would have died without it. The only person who could possibly have known was the intruder. That is why counting Defensive Gun Uses is so difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/30 "2012-12-19T17:17:41Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > It was legal for his mother to purchase the guns, and he killed her in her bed, then used the guns to kill others,so weither he had a gun legally or not isn’t the important point to me, Whether or not the legality of him having a gun is important to you, or even important to your argument is not at issue. You still made the statement. I am just clarifying the presumptions in your setup. I didn’t ask to be a dick. I wasn’t sure if there was information about his mental health history or prior felony convictions or something else that would have made it illegal for him to have a gun. > [@](#): > > My point is that the reason the mother bought the guns were to protect her and her family but in this case( and in some others) it didn’t help her, her family or others. And my point is simply that your statement is incorrect. You said, “Yes, it was illegal for her son to have a gun…” It was not illegal for him to have a gun. It was illegal for him to steal a gun, to have a gun that he stole, and to use those guns to kill people. But it was not illegal for him “to have a gun”. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/31 "2012-12-20T03:54:03Z")
> [@artemis](#): > > Why? Plenty of law-abiding people who live in bad neighborhoods own guns (and I can’t blame them). And most DGU involves just showing the weapon to the criminal, at which point he suddenly recalls he has urgent business elsewhere. It’s hard to get an accurate estimate of how often that happens, as most of those incidents are never reported (since no actual crime took place). The major problem I see is that self-reporting is notoriously difficult to verify and that the people who are purchasing guns for protection are going to be more likely worried, justifiably or not, than the general public. There was a post here on the Dope where IIRC, a man said he brandished a gun in a parking lot of a store because he felt that the behavior of another person was suspicious for approaching him to ask him about a purchase he had made. He felt the guy was up to no good. I wouldn’t doubt that he would report that as a righteous DGU, where others would disagree. The study I linked to point out that some of the reports of DGU show numbers as great as the numbers of actual crimes. That’s simply laughable. As I’ve said in this tread, I don’t see how to get good numbers. The numbers being shown are from surveys which seem to have serious flaws. I haven’t seen any systematic gathering of statistics on actual events such as DGU during break-ins to help extrapolate into estimations of other situations. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417/32 "2012-12-20T12:09:03Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Whether or not the legality of him having a gun is important to you, or even important to your argument is not at issue. You still made the statement. I am just clarifying the presumptions in your setup. I didn’t ask to be a dick. I wasn’t sure if there was information about his mental health history or prior felony convictions or something else that would have made it illegal for him to have a gun. > And my point is simply that your statement is incorrect. You said, “Yes, it was illegal for her son to have a gun…” It was not illegal for him to have a gun. It was illegal for him to steal a gun, to have a gun that he stole, and to use those guns to kill people. But it was not illegal for him “to have a gun”. I can’t dispute your argument, but it was my understanding that he took his mother’s gun without permission, and didn’t get one legally. At any rate the gun didn’t protect the mother the other innocent victums or even the son who took his own life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-precentage-of-people-whose-lives-were-save-comparied-to-those-killed-by-having-a-gun/644417.md?page=1)