How often do we use guns in self defense?

[regulator 0]

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

If you had to sum up the National Rifle Association’s response to the Newtown (Conn.) school massacre, and to any proposal for tougher gun-control laws, that one sentence from the NRA’s Dec. 21 press conference pretty much does the trick.

The gun owners’ lobby opposes restrictions on civilian acquisition and possession of firearms because, it contends, law-abiding people need guns to defend themselves. Millions of people also use guns for hunting and target-shooting. But at the core of the NRA’s argument is self-defense: the ultimate right to protect one’s ability to remain upright and breathing.

So how often do Americans use guns to defend themselves? If it almost never happens, then the NRA argument is based on a fallacy and deserves little respect in the fashioning of public policy. If, on the other hand, defensive gun use (DGU) is relatively common, then even a diehard gun-control advocate with any principles and common sense would admit that this fact must be given some weight.

Criminologists concur that the unusual prevalence of guns in America—some 300 million in private hands—makes our violent crime more lethal than that of other countries. (See, for example, the excellent When Brute Force Fails, by UCLA’s Mark Kleiman.) That’s the cost of allowing widespread civilian gun ownership: In this country, when someone is inclined to commit a mugging, shoot up a movie theater, or kill their spouse (or themselves), firearms are readily available.

One reason the gun debate seems so radioactive is that gun-control proponents refer almost exclusively to the cost of widespread gun ownership, while the NRA and its allies focus on guns as instruments and symbols of self-reliance. Very few, if any, participants in the conflict acknowledge that guns are both bad and good, depending on how they’re used. Robbers use them to stick up convenience stores, and convenience store owners use them to stop armed robbers.

If guns have a countervailing benefit—that lawful firearm owners frequently or even occasionally use guns to defend themselves and their loved ones—then determining how aggressively to curb private possession becomes a more complicated proposition.

As with everything else concerning guns in this country, the DGU question prompts divergent answers. At one end of the spectrum, the NRA cites research by Gary Kleck, an accomplished criminologist at Florida State University. Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.

At the other end of the spectrum, gun skeptics prefer to cite the work of David Hemenway, an eminent public-health scholar at Harvard University. Hemenway, who analogizes gun violence to an epidemic and guns to the contagion, argues that Kleck’s research significantly overestimates the frequency of DGU.

The carping back and forth gets pretty technical, but the brief version is that Hemenway believes Kleck includes too many “false positives”: respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU. Hemenway finds more reliable an annual federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.

What’s the upshot?

1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.

2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy.

3. Many gun owners (I am not one, but I know plenty) focus not on statistical probabilities, but on a worst-case scenario: They’re in trouble, and they want a fighting chance.

4. DGU does not answer any questions in this debate, but it’s a factor that deserves attention.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense#r=rss

[regulator 0]

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Burglary-suspect-critical-after-Harris-County-homeowner-opens-fire-184934511.html

+1 more

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Burglary-suspect-critical-after-Harris-County-homeowner-opens-fire-184934511.html

+1 more

Sounds like maybe the arson was the same guy that tried to burgle.
Speculation at the very least, but makes you go , Hmmmm.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[grimmie 186]

In over 100 shootings I have been on, i saw one guy defend himself with a handgun. Both he and the bad guys were riddled with bullet holes. One bad guy accidently shot the other bad guy in the battle.

[kallend 2,182]

You are aware that using Kleck's exact methods, it can be shown that 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets.

The NRA likes to cite Kleck, but his method is seriously flawed.

The FBI's data is actually likely to be correct.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,182]

Gun owners also provide criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the National Crime Victimization Survey asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[texascrw 1]

So that was why you thought it was a good idea to publish the names and addresses of firearms owners? So criminals would know where to steal firearms? Smart.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Gun owners also provide criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the National Crime Victimization Survey asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

People with cars, money bicycles, yard furniture, sporting equipment also provide criminals with items to steal

They must all be banned too

And tell us sir
What laws exist that tell us we need to report all the above stolen too?

Nice straw man

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Gun owners also provide criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the National Crime Victimization Survey asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

People with cars, money bicycles, yard furniture, sporting equipment also provide criminals with items to steal

They must all be banned too

And tell us sir
What laws exist that tell us we need to report all the above stolen too?

Nice straw man

What happens if it is just lost.

I lost a swing line stapler, it was red.

Should I be required to report it?

ya know . . . cuz like, staplers and junk can be used as weapons and stuff.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[masterrig 1]

...and applause to the guy who was on that list and published the address of the guy who produced that information as well as others at the newspaper!


Chuck

[texascrw 1]

Chuck, I'm sure the little media darlings thought that was just horrible. He probably should be glad he wasn't publishing that down here. There is a good chance someone would have kicked his ass. Which he would have richly deserved. Glad I live south of the Red River.

Fred

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

So that was why you thought it was a good idea to publish the names and addresses of firearms owners? So criminals would know where to steal firearms? Smart.

STRAWMAN.

Please provide a link to the post in which I claimed it was a good idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[masterrig 1]

You got right! He's just another hot-shot newspaper guy trying to get his name 'out there'!


Chuck

[rhaig 0]

Quote

You are aware that using Kleck's exact methods, it can be shown that 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets.

The NRA likes to cite Kleck, but his method is seriously flawed.

The FBI's data is actually likely to be correct.

yet it has also been attacked.

Even using the NCVU's numbers of 100K DGU's per year, you would rather see those 100K people become victims of violent crime?

Based on FBI crime stats about 1.214% of the violent crimes in 2011 were murders. So would you rather see 1214 people dead, and 98,785 people raped robbed and assaulted?

--
Rob

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So how often do Americans use guns to defend themselves? If it almost never happens, then the NRA argument is based on a fallacy and deserves little respect in the fashioning of public policy.

Read the 2nd amendment. Does it say anything about how often citizens should need to protect themselves?

Quote

If, on the other hand, defensive gun use (DGU) is relatively common, then even a diehard gun-control advocate with any principles and common sense would admit that this fact must be given some weight.

It's apparent to me that principles and common sense play no role at all in the gun-o-phobes rantings.

Quote

That’s the cost of allowing widespread civilian gun ownership:

Have you thought of what the costs might be of having NO civilian ownership?
You're off on this whole personal defensive and hunting thing.....the 2nd has nothing to do with all that.

Quote

One reason the gun debate seems so radioactive is that gun-control proponents refer almost exclusively to the cost of widespread gun ownership, while the NRA and its allies focus on guns as instruments and symbols of self-reliance.

You are waaaaay off base with respect to 2nd amendment proponents. You are not understanding the real issue here.

Quote

...then determining how aggressively to curb private possession becomes a more complicated proposition.

What? Complicated? It's a no-brainer. Read the 2nd..again. Those who would "curb private possession" are stepping on the Bill of Rights. Not good any way you cut it.

Quote

What’s the upshot?

1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.
Irrelevant

2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy.

No guesswork on which side of the issue YOU are on is there?


3. Many gun owners (I am not one, but I know plenty) focus not on statistical probabilities, but on a worst-case scenario: They’re in trouble, and they want a fighting chance.
And amazingly, some people have a problem with that.

4. DGU does not answer any questions in this debate, but it’s a factor that deserves attention.
No. Again, it's irrelevant. The 2nd does not have a "use it or lose it" clause in it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Even using the NCVU's numbers of 100K DGU's per year, you would rather see those 100K people become victims of violent crime?

Based on FBI crime stats about 1.214% of the violent crimes in 2011 were murders. So would you rather see 1214 people dead, and 98,785 people raped robbed and assaulted?

Now, THIS is what is so confusing about the gun-o-phobes. Apparently, they want everyone to be victimized with no effective means of protection. It's confusing because apparently, they haven't thought of the fact that THEY might victimized....with no protection.

I guess they are going to slap the perps with a print-out of the murder/rape/burglary laws and statutes.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

From the "petitions site" thread..

On of the petitions wants to revoke NRA tax-exempt status...

"Rather than engage in discussions related to sensible and responsible ownership, they have taken advantage of tragic mass shootings and highly publicized gun deaths to make and sell more guns."


Can you tell why this statement is so cockeyed, bat-shit crazy?


There's 2,871 other idiots who signed it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jgoose71 0]

How often have I used a gun ins self defense? About as often as I have used a seat belt to save my life (well, maybe the gun a little more because I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan...)

I guess since they are not used that often (comparing people that use them to people who need them) we should get rid of them too.....

After all, I have heard of children who have worn seatbelts and died....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[regulator 0]

I would think that if 100,000....hell even as low as 50,000 incidents a year where someones life was saved by defending themselves and their family with a firearm that this should definately be brought up into the discussion of gun control. And what popsjumper said was spot on...There is no use it or lose it clause in the 2nd amendment.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

How often have I used a gun ins self defense? About as often as I have used a seat belt to save my life (well, maybe the gun a little more because I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan...)

I guess since they are not used that often (comparing people that use them to people who need them) we should get rid of them too.....

After all, I have heard of children who have worn seatbelts and died....

Seat belts and air bags can kill, but they save far more than they kill.

AADs and RSLs can kill, but they save far more than they kill.

A gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend, or be stolen and get into criminal hands, than to be used to stop an intruder.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but that is the way the smart money bets.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[regulator 0]

A gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend, or be stolen and get into criminal hands, than to be used to stop an intruder.

just because you think this is 'more likely' to happen doesnt mean that its the end all be all answer to everything related to guns.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

A gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend, or be stolen and get into criminal hands, than to be used to stop an intruder.

just because you think this is 'more likely' to happen doesnt mean that its the end all be all answer to everything related to guns.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but that is the way the smart money bets.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

A gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend, or be stolen and get into criminal hands, than to be used to stop an intruder.

just because you think this is 'more likely' to happen doesnt mean that its the end all be all answer to everything related to guns.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but that is the way the smart money bets.

I see.

So the death penalty punishes correctly far more than it unjustly punishes. Does your statement hold true for that as well?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A gun in the home is more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend, or be stolen and get into criminal hands, than to be used to stop an intruder.

just because you think this is 'more likely' to happen doesnt mean that its the end all be all answer to everything related to guns.

The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but that is the way the smart money bets.

I see.

So the death penalty punishes correctly far more than it unjustly punishes. Does your statement hold true for that as well?

Unproven assumption.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[regulator 0]

perhaps instead of playing ring around the rosie you could answer his question in the matter that he asked you...without subterfuge.