armed resistance to crime
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
1/31
|GunCite Home|
Reprinted by special permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol !", issue #, #$$%
&rmed Resistance to Crime'
(he )revalence and Nature of Self*+efense with a Gun
I. INTRODUCTION
Crime victims used to be i-nored by criminolo-ists (hen, be-innin- slowly in the
#$./s and more rapidly in the #$0/s, interest in the victim1s role in crime -rew 2et a
tendency to treat the victim as either a passive tar-et of another person1s wron-doin-
or as a virtual accomplice of the criminal limited this interest (he concept of the
victim*precipitated homicide3#4 hi-hli-hted the possibility that victims were not
always blameless and passive tar-ets, but that they sometimes initiated or contributed
to the escalation of a violent interaction throu-h their own actions, which they often
claimed were defensive
)erhaps due to an unduly narrow focus on lower*class male*on*male violence,
scholars have shown little openness to the possibility that a -ood deal of 5defensive5
violence by persons claimin- the moral status of a victim may be 6ust that (hus, many
scholars routinely assumed that a lar-e share of violent inter*actions are 5mutual
combat5 involvin- two blameworthy parties who each may be re-arded as both
offender and victim (he notion that much violence is one*sided and that many
victims of violence are lar-ely blameless is dismissed as naive
& few criminolo-ists have re6ected the simplistic mutual combat model of violence,
thou-h they sometimes limit its re6ection to a few special subtypes of violence,
especially family violence, rape, and, more -enerally, violence of men a-ainst women
and of adults a-ainst children374 However, the more one loo8s, the more e9ceptions
become evident, such as felony 8illin-s lin8ed with robberies, bur-laries, or se9ual
assaults, contract 8illin-s, mass 8illin-s, serial murders, and homicides where the
violence is one*sided :ndeed, it may be more accurate to see the mutual combat
common amon- lower*class males to be the e9ception rather than the rule :f this is so,
then forceful actions ta8en by victims are easier to see as -enuinely and lar-ely
defensive
http://www.guncite.com/index.htmlhttp://www.guncite.com/index.htmlhttp://www.guncite.com/index.html
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
2/31
;nce one turns to defensive actions ta8en by the victims of property crimes, it is even
easier to ta8e this view (here are few robberies, bur-laries, larcenies, or auto thefts
where it is hard to distin-uish offender from victim or to identify one of the parties as
the clear initiator of a criminal action and another party as a relatively le-itimate
responder to those initiatives (he traditional conceptualiuential form of forceful resistance is armed resistance,
especially resistance with a -un (his form of resistance is worthy of special attention
for many reasons, both policy*related and scientific (he policy*related reasons are
obvious' if self*protection with a -un is commonplace, it means that any form of -un
control that disarms lar-e numbers of prospective victims, either alto-ether, or only in
certain times and places where victimiuences of victim self*protection'
the defensive actions of crime victims have si-nificant effects on the outcomes of
crimes, and the effects of armed resistance differ from those of unarmed resistance
)revious research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a -un or
other weapon are less li8ely than other victims to lose their property in robberies3?4
and in bur-laries3.4 Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist
by usin- -uns or other weapons are less li8ely to be in6ured compared to victims who
do not resist or to those who resist without weapons (his is true whether the research
relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted
of simple cross*tabulations or more comple9 multivariate analyses (hese findin-s
have been obtained with respect to robberies3%4 and to assaults3"4 Coo8304 offers his
unsupported personal opinion concernin- robbery victims that resistin- with a -un is
only prudent if the robber does not have a -un (he primary data source on which
Coo8 relies flatly contradicts this opinion National Crime =ictimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
3/31
8ind of weapon were less li8ely to have the rape attempt completed a-ainst them
Findin-s concernin- the impact of armed resistance on whether rape victims suffer
additional in6uries beyond the rape itself are less clear, due to a lac8 of information on
whether acts of resistance preceded or followed the rapist1s attac8 (he only two rape
studies with the necessary se>uence information found that forceful resistance by rape
victims usually follows, rather than precedes, rapist attac8s inflictin- additional in6ury,undercuttin- the proposition that victim resistance increases the li8elihood that the
victim will be hurt3#?4 (his is consistent with findin-s on robbery and assault3#.4
II. THE PREVALENCE OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE (DGU) IN PREVIOUS SURVEYS
A. THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS)
However consistent the evidence may be concernin- the effectiveness of armed victim
resistance, there are some who minimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
4/31
e>ual to that of all of the alternative estimates3774 :n effect, even the National
&cademy of Sciences -ives no more wei-ht to estimates from numerous independent
sources than to an estimate derived from a sin-le source which is, as e9plained below,
sin-ularly ill*suited to the tas8 of estimatin- +GU fre>uency
(his sort of bland and spurious even*handedness is misleadin- For e9ample, Reissand Roth withheld from their readers that there were at least nine other estimates
contradictin- the NC=S*based estimate instead they va-uely alluded only to 5a
number of surveys,537?4 as did Coo8,37.4 and they down played the estimates from
the other surveys on the basis of flaws which they only speculated those
surveys might have Kven as speculations, these scholars1 con6ectures were
conspicuously one*sided, focusin- solely on possible flaws whose correction would
brin- the estimate down, while i-norin- obvious flaws, such as respondents @RsA
for-ettin- or intentionally concealin- +GUs, whose correction would push the
estimate up Further, die speculations, even if true, would be wholly inade>uate to
account for more than a small share of the enormous nine*to*one or more discrepancy
between the NC=S*based estimates and all other estimates For e9ample, the effects
of telescopin- can be completely cancelled out by the effects of memory loss and
other recall failure, and even if they are not, they cannot account for more than a tiny
share of a discrepancy of nine*to*one or more
K>ually important, those who ta8e the NC=S*based estimates seriously have
consistently i-nored the most pronounced limitations of the NC=S for estimatin-
+GU fre>uency (he NC=S is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a
branch of the federal -overnment, the US Iureau of the Census :nterviewers
identify themselves to Rs as federal -overnment employees, even displayin-, in face*
to*face contacts, an identification card with a bad-e Rs are told that the interviews are
bein- conducted on behalf of the US +epartment of 6ustice, the law enforcement
branch of the federal -overnment &s a preliminary to as8in- >uestions about crime
victimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
5/31
the weapon, either in -eneral or at the time of the +GU, mi-ht itself be unlawful,
either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one ore li8ely, lay persons
with a limited 8nowled-e of the e9tremely complicated law of either self*defense or
firearms re-ulation are unli8ely to 8now for sure whether their defensive actions or
their -un possession was lawful
:t is not hard for -un*usin- victims interviewed in the NC=S to withhold information
about their use of a -un, especially since they are never directly asked whether they
used a gun for self-protection (hey are as8ed only -eneral >uestions about whether
they did anythin- to protect themselves37"4 :n short, Rs are merely -iven the
opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a -un defensively &ll it
ta8es for an R to conceal a +GU is to simply refrain from mentionin- it, ie, to leave
it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime
incident
Further, Rs in the NC=S are not even as8ed the -eneral self*protection >uestionunless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime
(his means that any +GUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to tal8 about
would remain hidden :t has been estimated that the NC=S may catch less than one*
twelfth of spousal assaults and one*thirty*third of rapes,3704 thereby missin- nearly all
+GUs associated with such crimes
:n the conte9t of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal -overnment, an R
who reports a +GU may believe that he is placin- himself in serious le-al 6eopardy
For e9ample, consider the issue of the location of crimes For all but a handful of -un
owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places @under . of the adult population even in states li8e Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to -etA
37!4, the mere possession of a -un in a place other than their home, place of business,
or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony :n at least ten states, it is
punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence37$4 2et, !! of the
violent crimes which Rs reported to NC=S interviewers in #$$7 were committed
away from the victim1s home,3?/4 ie, in a location where it would ordinarily be a
crime for the victim to even possess a -un, never mind use it defensively Iecause the
>uestion about location is as8ed before the self*protection >uestions,3?#4 the typical
violent crime victim R has already committed himself to havin- been victimiuirements
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
6/31
concernin- re-istration of the -un1s ac>uisition or possession, permits for purchase,
licensin- of home possession, stora-e re>uirements, and so on :n li-ht of all these
considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who
have used a -un defensively would be willin- to report it to NC=S interviewers
(he NC=S was not desi-ned to estimate how often people resist crime usin- a -un :twas desi-ned primarily to estimate national victimiuestions which include response cate-ories
coverin- resistance with a -un :ts survey instrument has been carefully refined and
evaluated over the years to do as -ood a 6ob as possible in -ettin- people to report
ille-al thin-s which other people have doneto them (his is the e9act opposite of the
tas8 which faces anyone tryin- to -et -ood +GU estimates**to -et people to admit
controversial and possibly ille-al thin-s which the Rs themselves have done
(herefore, it is neither surprisin-, nor a reflection on the survey1s desi-ners, to note
that the NC=S is sin-ularly ill*suited for estimatin- the prevalence or incidence of
+GU :t is not credible to re-ard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishin-, in
even the rou-hest way, how often &mericans use -uns for self*protection
B. THE GUN SURVEYS
&t least thirteen previous surveys have -iven a radically different picture of the
fre>uency of +GUs (he surveys, summariuestions pertainin-
to -uns (hey are an e9tremely hetero-eneous collection, some conducted byacademic researchers for scholarly purposes, others by commercial pollin- firms
oreover, their sponsors differed some were sponsored by pro*-un control
or-aniuency, even thou-h they
otherwise seem to have been conducted >uite professionally Some of the surveyswere flawed by as8in- >uestions that used a lifetime recall period @5Have you
ever 5A, ma8in- it impossible to estimate uses within any specified time span3?74
Some surveys limited covera-e to re-istered voters, while others failed to e9clude
defensive uses a-ainst animals, or occupational uses by police officers, military
personnel, or private security -uards3??4 Some as8ed the 8ey >uestions with
reference only to the R, while others as8ed Rs to report on the e9periences of all of the
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
7/31
members of their households, relyin- on second*hand reports3?.4 ethodolo-ical
research on the NC=S indicates that substantially fewer crime incidents are reported
when one household member reports for all household members than when each
person is interviewed separately about their own e9periences3?%4 (he same should
also be true of those crime incidents that involve victims usin- -uns
(he least useful of the surveys did not even as8 the defensive use >uestion of all Rs,
instead it as8ed it only of -un owners, or, even more narrowly, of 6ust hand-un owners
or 6ust those who owned hand-uns for protection purposes3?"4 (his procedure was
apparently based on the dubious assumption that people who used a -un defensively
no lon-er owned the -un by the time of the survey, or that the -un belon-ed to
someone else, or that the R owned the -un for a reason other than protection or 8ept it
outside the home
ost importantly, the surveys did not as8 enou-h >uestions to establish e9actly what
was done with the -uns in reported defensive use incidents &t best, some of thesurveys only established whether the -un was fired (he lac8 of such detail raises the
possibility that the -uns were not actually 5used5 in any meanin-ful way :nstead, Rs
mi-ht be rememberin- occasions on which they merely carried a -un for protection
56ust in case5 or investi-ated a suspicious noise in their bac8yard, only to find nothin-
Nevertheless, amon- these imperfect surveys, two were relatively -ood for present
purposes Ioth the Hart survey in #$!# and the auser survey in #$$/ were national
surveys which as8ed carefully worded >uestions directed at all Rs in their samples
Ioth surveys e9cluded uses a-ainst animals and occupational uses (he two also
nicely complemented each other in that the Hart survey as8ed only about uses ofhand-uns, while the auser survey as8ed about uses of all -un types (he Hart survey
results implied a minimum of about "./,/// annual +GUs involvin- hand-uns, while
the auser results implied about 0//,/// involvin- any type of -un3?04 :t should be
stressed, contrary to the claims of Reiss and Roth,3?!4 that neither of these estimates
entailed the use of 5dubious ad6ustment procedures5 (he percent of sample
households reportin- a +GU was simply multiplied by the total number of US
households, resultin- in an estimate of +GU*involved households (his fi-ure,
compiled for a five year period, was then divided by five to yield a per*year fi-ure
:n effect, each of the surveys summari
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
8/31
usin- the same >uestion auser used (he >uestion was addressed to all Rs it
concerned the e9periences of all household members it pertained to the use of any
type of -un and it e9cluded uses a-ainst animals (he full set of ad6ustments is
e9plained in detail elsewhere3?$4
Kleven of the surveys permitted the computation of a reasonable ad6usted estimate of+GU fre>uency (wo surveys for which estimates could not be produced were the
Cambrid-e Reports and the (imeMCNN Neither as8ed the +GU >uestion of all Rs
thus, it would be sheer speculation what the responses would have been amon- those
Rs not as8ed the +GU >uestion &ll of the eleven surveys yielded results that implied
over 0//,/// uses per year None of the surveys implied estimates even remotely li8e
the "%,/// to !7,/// fi-ures derived from the NC=S (o date, there has been no
confirmation of even the most appro9imate sort of the NC=S estimates :ndeed, no
survey has ever yielded an estimate which is of the same ma-nitude as those derived
from the NC=S
However, even the best of the -un surveys had serious problems First, none of them
established how many times Rs used a -un defensively within the recall period :t was
necessary to conservatively assume that each +GU*involved person or household
e9perienced only one +GU in the period, a fi-ure which is li8ely to be an
underestimation Second, althou-h the auser and Hart surveys were the best
available surveys in other respects, they as8ed Rs to report for their entire households,
rather than spea8in- only for themselves (hird, while these two surveys did use a
specific recall period, it was five years, which encoura-ed a -reater amount of both
memory loss and telescopin- (he lon-er the recall period, the more memory loss
predominates over telescopin- as a source of response error,3./4 supportin- the
conclusion that a five year recall period probably produces a net under reportin- of
+GUs Fourth, while the surveys all had acceptably lar-e samples by the standards of
ordinary national surveys, mostly in the "// to #%// ran-e, they were still smaller
than one would prefer for estimatin- a phenomenon which is fairly rare Bhile on
avera-e the sample siuency, it will
affect the amount of samplin- error Finally, none of the surveys established e9actly
what Rs did with their -uns in reported +GUs, ma8in- it impossible to be certain that
they were actually used in any meanin-ful way :n sum, while the -un surveys are
clearly far superior to the NC=S for estimatin- +GU fre>uency, they have si-nificantshortcomin-s (hese are discussed in -reater detail elsewhere3.#4
:t was the -oal of the research reported here to remedy those flaws, to develop a
credible estimate of +GU fre>uency, and to learn somethin- about the nature of +GU
incidents and the people who defend themselves with -uns
C. THE NATIONAL SELF-DEFENSE SURVEY
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
9/31
1. Methods
(he present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the sub6ect of armed self*
defense :t was carefully desi-ned to correct all of the 8nown correctable or avoidable
flaws of previous surveys which critics have identified Be use the most anonymous
possible national survey format, the anonymous random di-it dialed telephone surveyBe did not 8now the identities of those who were interviewed, and made this fact
clear to the Rs Be interviewed a lar-e nationally representative sample coverin- all
adults, a-e ei-hteen and over, in the lower forty*ei-ht states and livin- in households
with telephones3.74 Be as8ed +GU >uestions of all Rs in our sample, as8in- them
separately about both their own +GU e9periences and those of other members of their
households Be used both a five year recall period and a one year recall period Be
in>uired about uses of both hand-uns and other types of -uns, and e9cluded
occupational uses of -uns and uses a-ainst animals Finally, we as8ed a lon- series of
detailed >uestions desi-ned to establish e9actly what Rs did with their -uns for
e9ample, if they had confronted other humans, and how had each +GU connected to a
specific crime or crimes
Be consulted with North &merica1s most e9perienced e9perts on -un*related surveys,
+avid Iordua, James Bri-ht, and Gary auser, alon- with survey e9pert Seymour
Sudman, in order to craft a state*of*the*art survey instrument desi-ned specifically to
establish the fre>uency and nature of +GUs3.?4 & professional telephone pollin-
firm, Research Networ8 of (allahassee, Florida, carried out the samplin- and
interviewin- ;nly the firm1s most e9perienced interviewers, who are listed in the
ac8nowled-ements, were used on the pro6ect :nterviews were monitored at random
by survey supervisors &ll interviews in which an alle-ed +GU was reported by the R
were validated by supervisors with call*bac8s, alon- with a 7/ random sample of all
other interviews ;f all eli-ible residential telephone numbers called where a person
rather than an answerin- machine answered, "# resulted in a completed interview
:nterviewin- was carried out from February throu-h &pril of #$$?
(he >uality of samplin- procedures was well above the level common in national
surveys ;ur sample was not only lar-e and nationally representative, but it was also
stratified by state (hat is, forty*ei-ht independent samples of residential telephone
numbers were drawn, one from each of the lower forty*ei-ht states, providin- forty*
ei-ht independent, albeit often small, state samples Given the nature of randomly
-enerated samples of telephone numbers, there was no clusterin- of cases or
multista-e samplin- as there is in the NC=S3..4 conse>uently, there was no inflation
of samplin- error due to such procedures (o -ain a lar-er raw number of sample
+GU cases, we over sampled in the south and west re-ions, where previous surveys
have indicated -un ownership is hi-her3.%4 Be also over sampled within contacted
households for males, who are more li8ely to own -uns and to be victims of crimes in
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
10/31
which victims mi-ht use -uns defensively3."4 +ata were later wei-hted to ad6ust for
over samplin-
Kach interview be-an with a few -eneral 5throat*clearin-5 >uestions about problems
facin- the R1s community and crime (he interviewers then as8ed the followin-
>uestion' 5Bithin the past five years, have you yourself or another member of yourhousehold used a -un, even if it was not fired, for self*protection or for the protection
of property at home, wor8, or elsewhere )lease do not include military service,
police wor8, or wor8 as a security -uard5 Rs who answered 5yes5 were then as8ed'
5Bas this to protect a-ainst an animal or a person5 Rs who reported a +GU a-ainst a
person were as8ed' 5How many incidents involvin- defensive uses of -uns a-ainst
persons happened to members of your household in the past five years5 and 5+id this
incident 3any of these incidents4 happen in the past twelve months5 &t this point, Rs
were as8ed 5Bas it you who used a -un defensively, or did someone else in your
household do this5
&ll Rs reportin- a +GU were as8ed a lon-, detailed series of >uestions establishin-
e9actly what happened in the +GU incident Rs who reported havin- e9perienced
more than one +GU in the previous five years were as8ed about their most recent
e9perience Bhen the ori-inal R was the one who had used a -un defensively, as was
usually the case, interviewers obtained his or her firsthand account of the event Bhen
the ori-inal R indicated that some other member of the household was the one who
had the, e9perience, interviewers made every effort to spea8 directly to the involved
person, either spea8in- to that person immediately or obtainin- times and dates to call
bac8 Up to three call*bac8s were made to contact the +GU*involved person Be
anticipated that it would sometimes prove impossible to ma8e contact with these
persons, so interviewers were instructed to always obtain a pro9y account of the +GU
from the ori-inal R, on the assumption that a pro9y account would be better than none
at all :t was rarely necessary to rely on these pro9y accounts**only si9 sample cases
of +GUs were reported throu-h pro9ies, out of a total of 777 sample cases
Bhile all Rs reportin- a +GU were -iven the full interview, only a one*third random
sample of Rs not reportin- a +GU were interviewed (he rest were simply than8ed for
their help (his procedure helped 8eep interviewin- costs down :n the end, there were
777 completed interviews with Rs reportin- +GUs, another #,"#/ Rs not reportin- a
+GU but -oin- throu-h the full interview by answerin- >uestions other than those
pertainin- to details of the +GUs (here were a total of #,!?7 cases with the full
interview &n additional ?,#.% Rs answered only enou-h >uestions to establish that no
one in their household had e9perienced a +GU a-ainst a human in the previous five
years @unwei-hted totalsA (hese procedures effectively under*sampled for non*+GU
Rs or, e>uivalently, over sampled for +GU*involved Rs +ata were also wei-hted to
account for this over samplin-
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
11/31
Duestions about the details of +GU incidents permitted us to establish whether a
-iven +GU met all of the followin- >ualifications for an incident to be treated as a
-enuine +GU' @#A the incident involved defensive action a-ainst a human rather than
an animal, but not in connection with police, military, or security -uard duties @7A the
incident involved actual contact with a person, rather than merely investi-atin-
suspicious circumstances, etc @?A the defender could state a specific crime which hethou-ht was bein- committed at the time of the incident @.A the -un was actually used
in some way**at a minimum it had to be used as part of a threat a-ainst a person,
either by verbally referrin- to the -un @e-, 5-et away**:1ve -ot a -un5A or by pointin-
it at an adversary Be made no effort to assess either the lawfulness or morality of the
Rs1 defensive actions
&n additional step was ta8en to minimiuency bein-
overstated (he senior author went throu-h interview sheets on every one of the
interviews in which a +GU was reported, loo8in- for any indication that the incident
mi-ht not be -enuine & case would be coded as >uestionable if even 6ust one of four
problems appeared' @#A it was not clear whether the R actually confronted any
adversary he saw @7A the R was a police officer, member of the military or a security
-uard, and thus mi-ht have been reportin-, despite instructions, an incident which
occurred as part of his occupational duties @?A the interviewer did not properly record
e9actly what the R had done with the -un, so it was possible that he had not used it in
any meanin-ful way or @.A the R did not state or the interviewer did not record a
specific crime that the R thou-ht was bein- committed a-ainst him at the time of the
incident (here were a total of twenty*si9 cases where at least one of these
problematic indications was present :t should be emphasi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
12/31
anyone in their household @household*based estimatesA (he person*based estimates
should be better because of its first*hand character Finally, some of the fi-ures pertain
only to +GUS involvin- use of hand-uns, while others pertain to +GUS involvin-
any type of -un
(he methods used to compute the (able 7 estimates are very simple and strai-ht*forward )revalence @5 Used5A fi-ures were computed by dividin- the wei-hted
sample fre>uencies in the top two rows of numbers by the total wei-hted sample si
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
13/31
on how many household +GUs had been e9perienced in the recall period by those Rs
reportin- any such e9periences Usin- a shorter recall period undoubtedly reduced the
effects of memory loss by reducin- the artificial shrin8a-e to which earlier estimates
were sub6ect <hou-h telescopin- was also undoubtedly reduced, and this would, by
itself, tend to reduce estimates, the impact of reducin- telescopin- was apparently
smaller than the impact of reducin- case loss due to for-ettin- Kvidence internal tothis survey directly indicates that a one year recall period yields lar-er estimates than
a five year recall period compare fi-ures in the ri-ht half of (able 7 with their
counterparts in the left half (his phenomenon, where less behavior is reported for a
lon-er recall period than would be e9pected based on results obtained when usin- a
shorter period, also has been observed in surveys of self*reported use of illicit dru-s
3%#4
Furthermore, basin- estimates on Rs reports about +GUs in which they were
personally involved also increases the estimates ;ne of the surprises of this survey
was how few Rs were willin- to report a +GU which involved some other member of
their household Ki-hty*five percent of the reports of +GUs we obtained involved the
ori-inal R, the person with whom the interviewer first spo8e Given that most
households contain more than one adult eli-ible to be interviewed, it was surprisin-
that in a +GU*involved household the person who answered the phone would
consistently turn out to be the individual who had been involved in the +GU ;ur
stron- suspicion is that many Rs feel that it is not their place to tell total stran-ers that
some other member of their household has used a -un for self*protection Some of
them are willin- to tell stran-ers about an incident in which they were themselves
involved, but apparently few are willin- to 5inform5 on others in their household Still
others may not have been aware of +GUs involvin- other household members
Kvidence internal to the present survey supports this speculation, since person*based
estimates are "" to 00 hi-her than household*based estimates a fi-ure that su--ests
that there was more complete reportin- of +GUs involvin- the ori-inal respondent
than those involvin- other household members3%74 For this reason, previous surveys
includin- those which yielded only household*based estimates, four of the si9 -un
surveys which yielded usable annual estimates, and all of those which were national in
scope, probably substantially underestimated +GUs
Be also had information on the number of times that +GU*involved households hade9perienced +GUs durin- the five year recall period Bhile it was necessary in
computin- previous estimates to conservatively assume that each +GU*involved
person or household had e9perienced only one +GU, our evidence indicates that
repeat e9periences were not uncommon, with 7$% of +GU*involved households
reportin- more than one +GU within the previous five years (he avera-e number of
+GUs in this time span was #% per +GU*involved household (his information alone
http://www.guncite.com/kleck2.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck2.gif
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
14/31
could account for a rou-hly %/ increase in +GU incidence estimates based on the
five year recall period
Finally, our survey was superior to the NC=S in two additional ways' it was free of
the taint of bein- conducted by, and on behalf of, employees of the federal
-overnment, and it was completely anonymous
:t would be incorrect to say that the present estimates are inconsistent with those
derived from the earlier -un surveys &voidin- apples*and*oran-es comparisons,
compare fi-ures from (able 7 with earlier results summariuestion most similar to the one used in the present survey, indicate that in
#$$/, ?! of households reported a +GU involvin- a -un of any 8ind in the previous
five years3%?4 and in #$!#, . reported a +GU involvin- a hand-un in the previous
five years3%.4 (he past*five*years, household*based 5 Used5 fi-ures in (able
7 indicate ?$ for all -uns, and ?/ for hand-uns Bhere directly comparable, the present results are within samplin- error of the results of the best two previous
surveys :ndeed, the consistency is remar8able -iven the substantial differences
amon- the surveys and the twelve year difference between the Hart survey and the
current one Further, the only prior survey with person*based estimates and a one year
recall period, the #$0" Field poll in California, yielded a #. prevalence fi-ure for
hand-uns,3%%4 compared to #/ in the present survey3%"4
Bith a sample si
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
15/31
? @7% millionM$? millionA of the people with immediate access to a -un could have
used one defensively in a -iven year
Hu-e numbers of &mericans not only have access to -uns, but the overwhelmin-
ma6ority of -un owners, if one can believe their statements, are willin- to use a -un
defensively :n a +ecember #$!$ national survey, 0! of &merican -un owners statedthat they would not only be willin- to use a -un defensively in some way, but would
be willin- to shoot a bur-lar3%$4 (he percenta-e willin- to use a -un defensively
in some way, thou-h not necessarily by shootin- someone, would presumably be even
hi-her than this
Nevertheless, havin- access to a -un and bein- willin- to use it a-ainst criminals is
not the same as actually doin- so (he latter re>uires e9periencin- a crime under
circumstances in which the victim can -et to, or already possesses, a -un Be do not
8now how many such opportunities for crime victims to use -uns defensively occur
each year :t would be useful to 8now how lar-e a fraction of crimes with directoffender*victim contact result in a +GU Unfortunately, a lar-e share of the incidents
covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are
li8ely to be reported to either the NC=S or police :f the +GU incidents reported in
the present survey are not entirely a subset within the pool of cases covered by the
NC=S, one cannot meanin-fully use NC=S data to estimate the share of crime
incidents which result in a +GU Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated
felons interviewed in #$!7, ?. reported havin- been 5scared off, shot at, wounded
or captured by an armed victim53"/4 From the criminals1 standpoint, this e9perience
was not rare
How could such a serious thin- happen so often without becomin- common
8nowled-e (his phenomenon, re-ardless of how widespread it really is, is lar-ely an
invisible one as far as -overnmental statistics are concerned Neither the
defenderMvictim nor the criminal ordinarily has much incentive to report this sort of
event to the police, and either or both often have stron- reasons not to do so
Conse>uently many of these incidents never come to the attention of the police, while
others may be reported but without victims mentionin- their use of a -un &nd even
when a +GU is reported, it will not necessarily be recorded by the police, who
ordinarily do not 8eep statistics on matters other than +GUs resultin- in a death, since
police record*8eepin- is lar-ely confined to information helpful in apprehendin-
perpetrators and ma8in- a le-al case for convictin- them Iecause such statistics are
not 8ept, we cannot even be certain that a lar-e number of +GUs are not reported to
the police
(he health system cannot shed much li-ht on this phenomenon either, since very few
of these incidents involve in6uries3"#4 :n the rare case where someone is hurt, it is
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
16/31
usually the criminal, who is unli8ely to see8 medical attention for any but the most
life*threatenin- -unshot wounds, as this would ordinarily result in a police
interro-ation )hysicians in many states are re>uired by law to report treatment of
-unshot wounds to the police, ma8in- it necessary for medically treated criminals to
e9plain to police how they received their wounds
Finally, it is now clear that virtually none of the victims who use -uns defensively tell
interviewers about it in the NC=S ;ur estimates imply that only about ? of +GUs
amon- NC=S Rs are reported to interviewers3"74 Iased on other comparisons of
alternative survey estimates of violent events with NC=S estimates, this hi-h level of
under*reportin- is eminently plausible Loftin and ac8enuent as NC=S estimates indicate, while spousal
violence could easily be twelve times as hi-h3"?4 (here is no inherent value to
8nowin- the e9act number of +GUs any more than there is any value to 8nowin- the
e9act number of crimes which are committed each year (he estimates in (able 7 are
at best only rou-h appro9imations, which are probably too low :t is sufficient to
conclude from these numbers that +GU is very common, far more common than has
been reco-niuency with which -uns are
used for criminal purposes (he hi-hest annual estimate of criminal -un use for the
pea8 year of -un crime is the NC=S estimate for #$$7, when there were an estimated
!.0,"%7 violent crime incidents in which, accordin- to the victim, at least one
offender possessed a -un3".4 (his NC=S fi-ure is not directly comparable with our
+GU estimates because our +GU estimates are restricted only to incidents in which
the -un was actually used by the defender, as opposed to incidents in which a victim
merely possessed a -un any of the 5-un crimes5 in the NC=S, on the other hand, do
not involve the -un actually bein- used by the criminal (hus, the NC=S estimate of
5-un crimes5 overstates the number of crimes in which the offender actually used the
-un (he only 5-un crimes5 reported in NC=S interviews that one can be confident
involved offenders actually usin- -uns are those in which they shot at a victim but
these were only #"" of 5hand-un crimes5 reported in the NC=S from #$!0 to #$$7
3"%4
¬her ."! of the 5hand-un crimes5 are labelled 5weapon present5 cases by the
Iureau of 6ustice @IJSA3""4 and an un8nown fraction of these could involve actual use
of a -un in a threat but NC=S data do not permit us to 8now 6ust how lar-e a fraction
For these cases, the relevant NC=S interview items are ambi-uous as to whether the
-un was used to threaten a victim Response cate-ory four of >uestion fourteen @5How
were you threatened5A of the NC=S Crime :ncident Report reads' 5Beapon present
http://www.guncite.com/kleck2.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck2.gif
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
17/31
or threatened with weapon53"04 Bhen this cate-ory is recorded by the interviewer, it
is impossible to determine whether the victim was actually threatened with a -un or
merely reported that the offender possessed a -un :n the remainin- ?"" of the
5hand-un crimes,53"!4 there is no indication at all that the -un alle-edly possessed by
the offender was actually used
Kven the presence of a weapon is debatable, since victims are not as8ed why they
thou-ht the offender possessed a -un or if they saw a -un (his raises the possibility
that some victims assumed that the offender had a -un, or inferred it from a bul-e in
the offender1s clothin-, or accepted the word of an offender who was bluffin- about
havin- a -un
(hus, somewhere between #"" and "?.3"$4 of NC=S*defined 5hand-un crime5
victimiuently victimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
18/31
Ioth parameters also are sub6ect to underestimation due to intentional respondent
under reportin- :t is also probable that typical survey Rs are more reluctant to tell
interviewers about >uestionable acts that they themselves have committed, such as
threatenin- another person with a -un for purportedly defensive reasons, than they are
to report criminal acts that other people have committed against them &ssumin- this
is correct, it would imply that +GUs, even in the best surveys, are under reportedmore than -un crime victimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
19/31
& total of 777 sample cases of +GUs a-ainst humans were obtained For nine of
these, the R bro8e off discussion of the incident before any si-nificant amount of
detail could be obtained, other than that the use was a-ainst a human (his left 7#?
cases with fairly complete information <hou-h this dataset constitutes the most
detailed body of information available on +GU, the sample siuency are reliable because they are based on avery lar-e sample of .,$00 cases, results pertainin- to the details of +GU incidents are
based on 7#? or fewer sample cases, and readers should treat these results with
appropriate caution
&part from the sample siualify as relevant to our in>uiries
(hus, in addition to the mostly le-itimate and serious cases covered in our sample,
there are still other, less le-itimate or serious +GU incidents that this or any other
survey are li8ely to miss (his supposition would imply two 8inds of bias in our
descriptive results' @#A our +GUs would loo8 more consistently 5le-itimate5 than the
entire set of all +GUs actually are and @7A our +GUs would loo8 more serious, on
avera-e, than the entire set of +GUs really are (hese possibilities should be 8ept in
mind when considerin- the followin- descriptive information
(able ? summari
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
20/31
the -un crimes reported in the NC=S involve the offender shootin- at the victim, and
only ? involve the victim sufferin- a -unshot wound3004
Low as it is, even an ! woundin- rate is probably too hi-h, both because of the
censorin- of less serious cases, which in this conte9t would be cases without a
woundin-, and because the survey did not establish how Rs 8new they had woundedsomeone Be suspect that in incidents where the offender left without bein- captured,
some Rs remembered with favor5 their mar8smanship and assumed they had hit their
adversaries :f !? really hit their adversaries, and a total of #%" fired at their
adversaries, this would imply a %? @!?M#%"A 5incident hit rate,5 a level of combat
mar8smanship far e9ceedin- that typically observed even amon- police officers :n a
review of fifteen reports, police officers inflicted at least one -unshot wound on at
least one adversary in ?0 of the incidents in which they intentionally fired at
someone30!4 & %? hit rate would also be triple the #! hit rate of criminals
shootin- at crime victims30$4 (herefore, we believe that even the rather modest !?
woundin- rate we found is probably too hi-h, and that typical +GUs are less serious
or dramatic in their conse>uences than our data su--est :n any case, the !? fi-ure
was produced by 6ust seventeen sample cases in which Rs reported that they wounded
an offender
&bout ?0 of these incidents occurred in the defender1s home, with another ?" near
the defender1s home3!/4 (his implies that the remainin- 70 occurred in locations
where the defender must have carried a -un throu-h public spaces &ddin- in the ?"
which occurred near the defender1s home and which may or may not have entailed
public carryin-, ?" to "? of the +GUs entailed -un carryin-
Guns were most commonly used for defense a-ainst bur-lary, assault, and robbery
3!#4 Cases of 5mutual combat,5 where it would be hard to tell who is the a--ressor or
where both parties are a--ressors, would be a subset of the ?/ of cases where
assault was the crime involved However, only #$ of all +GU cases
involved only assault and no other crime where victim and offender could be more
easily distin-uished Further, only ## of all +GU cases involved only assault and a
male defender**we had no information on -ender of offenders**some subset of these
could have been male*on*male fi-hts (hus, very few of these cases fit the classic
mutual combat model of a fi-ht between two males (his is not to say that such crimes
where a -un*usin- combatant mi-ht claim that his use was defensive are rare, but
rather that few of them are in this sample :nstead, cases where it is hard to say who is
victim and who is a--ressor apparently constitute an additional set of >uestionable
+GUs lyin- lar-ely outside of the universe of more one*sided events that our survey
methods could effectively reach
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
21/31
(his survey did not attempt to compare the effectiveness of armed resistance with
other forms of victim self*protection, since this sort of wor8 has already been done
and reviewed earlier in this paper )anels + and K nevertheless confirm previous
research on the effectiveness of self*defense with a -un**crime victims who use this
form of self*protection rarely lose property and rarely provo8e the offender into
hurtin- them :n property crime incidents where bur-lary, robbery, or other thefts wereattempted, victims lost property in 6ust ## of the cases Gun defenders were in6ured
in 6ust %% of all +GU incidents Further, in !. of the incidents where the defender
was threatened or attac8ed, it was the offender who first threatened or used force
:n none of the eleven sample cases where -un defenders were in6ured was the
defender the first to use or to threaten force (he victim used a -un to threaten or
attac8 the offender only after the offender had already attac8ed or threatened them and
usually after the offender had inflicted the in6ury (here is no support in this sample
for the hypothesis that armed resistance provo8es criminals into attac8in- victims this
confirms the findin-s of prior research3!74
Bhile only #. of all violent crime victims face offenders armed with -uns,3!?4 #!
of the -un*usin- victims in our sample faced adversaries with -uns3!.4 <hou-h the
-un defenders usually faced unarmed offenders or offenders with lesser weapons, they
were more li8ely than other victims to face -un*armed criminals (his is consistent
with the perception that more desperate circumstances call forth more desperate
defensive measures (he findin-s undercut the view that victims are prone to use -uns
in 5easy5 circumstances which are li8ely to produce favorable outcomes for the victim
re-ardless of their -un use3!%4 :nstead, -un defenders appear to face more difficult
circumstances than other crime victims, not easier ones
Nevertheless, one reason crime victims are willin- to ta8e the ris8s of forcefully
resistin- the offender is that most offenders faced by victims choosin- such an action
are unarmed, or armed only with less lethal weapons Relatively few victims try to use
a -un a-ainst adversaries who are themselves armed with -uns &ccordin- to this
survey, offenders were armed with some 8ind of weapon in .! of +GU incidents but
had -uns in only #! of them3!"4
(he distribution of -uns by type in +GUs is similar to that of -uns used by criminals
NC=S and police*based data indicate that about !/ of -uns used in crime are
hand-uns,3!04 and the present study indicates that !/ of the -uns used by victims
are hand-uns3!!4
:ncidents where victims use a -un defensively are almost never -unfi-hts where both
parties shoot at one another ;nly 7. of the incidents involved the defender firin-
their -un, and only #" involved the defender shootin- at their adversary3!$4 :n only
.% of the cases did the offender shoot at the defender3$/4 Conse>uently, it is not
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
22/31
surprisin- that only ? of all the incidents involved both parties shootin- at each
other
&mon- our sample cases, the offenders were stran-ers to the defender in nearly three
>uarters of the incidents3$#4 Be suspect that this a-ain reflects the effects of sample
censorin- Just as the NC=S appears to detect less than a tenth of domestic violenceincidents,3$74 our survey is probably missin- many cases of +GU a-ainst family
members and other intimates
Bhile victims face multiple offenders in only about 7. of all violent crimes,3$?4 the
victims in our sample who used -uns faced multiple offenders in %? of the incidents
3$.4 (his mirrors the observation that criminals who use -uns are also more li8ely
than unarmed criminals to face multiple victims3$%4 & -un allows either criminals or
victims to handle a lar-er number of adversaries any victims facin- multiple
offenders probably would not resist at all if they were without a -un or some other
weapon ¬her possible interpretation is that some victims will resort to a defensivemeasure as serious as wieldin- a -un only if they face the most desperate
circumstances &-ain, this findin- contradicts a view that -un defenders face easier
circumstances than other crime victims
¬her way of assessin- how serious these incidents appeared to the victims is to as8
them how potentially fatal the encounter was Be as8ed Rs' 5:f you had not used a
-un for protection in this incident, how li8ely do you thin8 it is that you or someone
else would have been killed Bould you say almost certainly not , probably not, mi-ht
have, probably would have, or almost certainly would have been 8illed5 )anel E
indicates that #%0 of the Rs stated that they or someone else 5almost certainlywould have5 been 8illed, with another #.7 respondin- 5probably would have5 and
#"7 respondin- 5mi-ht have53$"4 (hus, nearly half claimed that they perceived
some si-nificant chance of someone bein- 8illed in the incident if they had not used a
-un defensively
:t should be emphasiualify as relevant to our in>uiries
:f we consider only the #%0 who believed someone almost certainly would have
been 8illed had they not used a -un, and apply this fi-ure to estimates in the first two
columns of (able 7, it yields national annual estimates of ?./,/// to .//,/// +GUs
http://www.guncite.com/kleck2.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck2.gif
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
23/31
of any 8ind, and 7./,/// to ?//,/// uses of hand-uns, where defenders stated, if
as8ed, that they believed they almost certainly had saved a life by usin- the -un Just
how many of these were truly life*savin- -un uses is impossible to 8now &s a point
of comparison, the lar-est number of deaths involvin- -uns, includin- homicides,
suicides, and accidental deaths in any one year in US history was ?!,?7? in #$$#
3$04
Finally, we as8ed if Rs had reported these incidents to the police, or if the police
otherwise found out about them ". of the -un*usin- victims claimed that the
incidents had become 8nown to the police (his fi-ure should be interpreted with
caution, since victims presumably want to present their use of -uns as le-itimate and a
willin-ness to report the incident to the police would help support an impression of
le-itimacy Rs who had in fact not reported the incident to the police mi-ht have
wondered whether a 5no55 reply mi-ht not lead to discomfortin- follow*up >uestions
li8e 5why not5 @as indeed it does in the NC=SA Further, it is li8ely that some Rs
reported these incidents but did not mention their use of a -un
IV. WHO IS INVOLVED IN DEFENSIVE GUN USE?
Finally, this &rticle will consider what sorts of people use -uns defensively, and how
they mi-ht differ from other people (able . presents comparisons of five -roups' @#A
5defenders,5 ie, people who reported usin- a -un for defense @7A people who
personally own -uns but did not report a +GU @?A people who do not personally own
a -un @.A people who did not report a +GU, re-ardless of whether they own -uns
and @%A all people who completed the full interview
Some of the earlier -un surveys as8ed the +GU >uestion only of Rs who reported
ownin- a -un (he cost of this limitation is evident from the first two rows of (able .
Nearly ./ of the people reportin- a +GU did not report personally ownin- a -un at
the time of the interview (hey either used someone else1s -un, -ot rid of the -un since
the +GU incident, or inaccurately denied personally ownin- a -un &bout a >uarter of
the defenders reported that they did not even have a -un in their household at the time
of the interview ¬her possibility is that many -un owners were falsely denyin-
their ownership of the 5incriminatin- evidence5 of their +GU
any of the findin-s in (able . are unsurprisin- Gun defenders are more li8ely tocarry a -un for self*protection, consistent with the lar-e share of +GUs which
occurred away from the defender1s home ;bviously, they were more li8ely to have
been a victim of a bur-lary or robbery in the past year, a findin- which is a tautolo-y
for those Rs whose +GU was in connection with a robbery or bur-lary committed
a-ainst them in the precedin- year (hey were also more li8ely to have been a victim
of an assault since becomin- an adult
http://www.guncite.com/kleck4.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck4.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck4.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck4.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck4.gifhttp://www.guncite.com/kleck4.gif
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
24/31
+efenders are more li8ely to believe that a person must be prepared to defend their
homes a-ainst crime and violence rather than lettin- the police ta8e care of it
compared to either -un owners without a +GU and nonowners Bhether this is cause
or conse>uence of defenders1 defensive actions is impossible to say with these data
Some mi-ht suspect that +GUs were actually the a--ressive acts of ven-efulvi-ilantes intent on punishin- criminals :f this were true of -un defenders as a -roup,
one mi-ht e9pect them to be more supportive of punitive measures li8e the death
penalty :n fact, those who reported a +GU were no more li8ely to support the death
penalty than those without such an e9perience, and were somewhat less li8ely to do so
compared with -un owners as a -roup Similarly, -un defenders were no more li8ely
than other people to endorse the view that the courts do not deal harshly enou-h with
criminals
)erhaps the most surprisin- findin- of the survey was the lar-e share of reported
+GUs that involved women Iecause of their lower victimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
25/31
occupational +GUs Gun defenders were in fact somewhat less li8ely to have a -un*
related occupation than other -un owners
V. CONCLUSION
:f one were committed to re6ectin- the seemin-ly overwhelmin- survey evidence onthe fre>uency of +GU, one could speculate, albeit without any empirical foundation
whatsoever, that nearly all of the people reportin- such e9periences are simply ma8in-
them up Be feel this is implausible &n R who had actually e9perienced a +GU
would have no difficulty respondin- with a 5no5 answer to our +GU >uestion because
a 5no5 response was not followed up by further >uestionin- ;n the other hand, lyin-
with a false 5yes5 answer re>uired a -ood deal more ima-ination and ener-y Since we
as8ed as many as nineteen >uestions on the topic, this would entail spontaneously
inventin- as many as nineteen plausible and internally consistent bits of false
information and doin- so in a way that -ave no hint to e9perienced interviewers that
they were bein- deceived
Suppose someone persisted in believin- in the anomalous NC=S estimates of +GU
fre>uency and wanted to use a 5dishonest respondent5 hypothesis to account for
estimates from the present survey that are as much as thirty times hi-her :n order to
do this, one would have to suppose that twenty*nine out of every thirty people
reportin- a +GU in the present survey were lyin- (here is no precedent in
criminolo-ical survey research for such an enormous level of intentional and
sustained falsification
(he banal and undramatic nature of the reported incidents also undercuts the dishonestrespondent speculation Bhile all the incidents involved a crime, and usually a fairly
serious one, only ! of the alle-ed -un defenders claimed to have shot their
adversaries, and only 7. claim to have fired their -un :f lar-e numbers of Rs were
inventin- their accounts, one would thin8 they would have created more e9citin-
scenarios
Iy this time there seems little le-itimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive -un
use is very common in the US, and that it probably is substantially more common
than criminal -un use (his should not come as a surprise, -iven that there are far
more -un*ownin- crime victims than there are -un*ownin- criminals and thatvictimiuency as even appro9imately valid (he -ross inconsistencies between the NC=S
and all other sources of information ma8e it reasonable to suppose that all but a
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
26/31
handful of NC=S victims who had used a -un for protection in the reported incidents
refrained from mentionin- this -un use :n li-ht of evidence on the in6ury*preventin-
effectiveness of victim -un use, in some cases where the absence of victim in6ury is
credited to either nonresistance or some unarmed form of resistance, the absence of
in6ury may have actually been due to resistance with a -un, which the victim failed to
mention to the interviewer
(he policy implications of these results are strai-htforward (hese findin-s
do not imply anythin- about whether moderate re-ulatory measures such as
bac8-round chec8s or purchase permits would be desirable Re-ulatory measures
which do not disarm lar-e shares of the -eneral population would not si-nificantly
reduce beneficial defensive uses of firearms by noncriminals ;n the other hand,
prohibitionist measures, whether aimed at all -uns or 6ust at hand-uns, are aimed at
disarmin- criminals and noncriminals ali8e (hey would therefore discoura-e and
presumably decrease the fre>uency of +GU amon- noncriminal crime victims
because even minimally effective -un bans would disarm at least some noncriminals
(he same would be true of laws which ban -un carryin- :n sum, measures that
effectively reduce -un availability amon- the noncriminal ma6ority also would reduce
+GUs that otherwise would have saved lives, prevented in6uries, thwarted rape
attempts, driven off bur-lars, and helped victims retain their property
Since as many as .//,/// people a year use -uns in situations where the defenders
claim that they 5almost certainly5 saved a life by doin- so, this result cannot be
dismissed as trivial :f even one*tenth of these people are accurate in their stated
perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of -uns would still e9ceed the
total number of lives ta8en with -uns :t is not possible to 8now how many lives are
actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime
incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they
actually did Iut surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically
everyone who says he believes he saved a life by usin- a -un was wron-
(his is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparin- the
number of lives ta8en with -uns with the number of criminals killed by victims3#//4
Eillin- a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a ni-htmare to be suffered
for years afterward Savin- a life throu-h +GU would be a benefit, but this almost
never involves 8illin- the criminal probably fewer than ?,/// criminals are lawfully
8illed by -un*wieldin- victims each year,3#/#4 representin- only about #M#/// of the
number of +GUs, and less than # of the number of purportedly life*savin- +GUs
(herefore, the number of 6ustifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rou-h inde9 of
life*savin- -un uses Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it
can shed no li-ht on the benefits and costs of 8eepin- -uns in the home for protection
3#/74
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
27/31
@A (he authors wish to than8 +avid Iordua, Gary auser, Seymour Sudman, and
James Bri-ht for their help in desi-nin- the survey instrument (he authors also wish
to than8 the hi-hly s8illed staff responsible for the interviewin-' ichael (rapp
@SupervisorA, +avid &ntonacci, James Ielcher, Robert Iuntin-, elissa Cross, SandyHaw8er, +ana R Jones, Harvey Lan-ford, Jr, Susannah R aher, Nia astin*
Bal8er, Irian urray, iranda Ross, +ale Sellers, Ksty
3#4 arvin K Bolf-an-, )atterns in Criminal Homicide 7.% @#$%!A
374 Richard & Ier8 et al, utual Combat and ;ther Family =iolence yths, in (he
+ar8 Side of Families #$0 @+avid Fin8elhor et al eds, #$!?A
3?4 See -enerally ichael J Hindelan-, Criminal =ictimi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
28/31
3#!4 See Elec8, supra note ?, at ? Gary Elec8, )oint Ilan8' Guns and =iolence in
&merica #." @#$$#A
3#$4 Gary & auser, Firearms and Self*defense' (he Canadian Case, )resented at the
&nnual eetin-s of the &merican Society of Criminolo-y @;ct 7!, #$$?A
37/4 Rand, supra note #0
37#4 Coo8, supra note ., at %" c+owall O Biersema, supra note #%3774 Understandin- and )reventin- =iolence, supra note #%, at 7"%*""
37?4 :d at 7"%
37.4 Coo8, supra note ., at %.
37%4 US Iureau of the Census, National Crime Survey' :nterviewer1s anual, NCS*
%%/, )art + ** How to Knumerate NCS @#$!"A
37"4 US Iureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal =ictimiuestion refers to5
3?%4 US Iureau of Justice Statistics, supra note 7", at #..
3?"4 Cambrid-e Reports, :nc, an &nalysis of )ublic &ttitudes (owards Hand-un
Control @#$0!A (he ;hio Statistical &nalysis Center, ;hio Citi
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
29/31
3.#4 Elec8, supra note ?$
3.74 Completed interviews, n.,$00
3.?4 See, e-, +avid J Iordua et al, :llinios Law Knforcement Commission )atterns
of Firearms ;wnership, Re-ulation and Use in :llinios @#$0$A Seymore Sudman O
Norman Iradburn, Response Kffects in Surveys @#$0.A James Bri-ht O )eter Rossi,
&rmed and Considered +an-erous @#$!"A &lan J Liuency @#$!#A
3%#4 See Jerald Iachman O )atric8 ;1alley, Bhen Four onths K>ual a 2ear
:nconsistencies in Student Reports of +ru- Use, .% )ub ;pinion D %?", %?$, %.?
@#$!#A
3%74 See (able 7
3%?4 auser, supra note #$
3%.4 )eter + Hart Research &ssociates, :nc, Duestionnaire used in ;ctober #$!#
=iolence in &merica Survey, with mar-inal fre>uencies @#$!#A
3%%4 See (able #, note &3%"4 See (able 7, second column
3%04 Elec8, supra note #!, at %/ @e9trapolatin- up to #$$., from #$!0 dataA
3%!4 +avid B oore O Fran8 Newport, )olic Stron-ly Favors Stron-ly Gun Control
Laws, ?./ (he Gallup )oll onthly #! @#$$.A
3%$4 Duinley, supra note ?"
3"/4 Bri-ht O Rossi, supra note .?, at #%%
3"#4 See (able ?, )anels &, K
3"74 (he !%,/// +GUs estimated from the NC=S, divided by the 7% million estimate
derived from the presented survey e>uals /?
3"?4 Loftin O acEen
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
30/31
3"$4 #"" plus the ."! in the ambi-uous 5weapon present5 cate-ory
30/4 Federal Iureau of :nvesti-ation, US +epartment of Justice, Crime in the United
States #$$7**Uniform Crime Reports #!, %! @#$$?A
30#4 )hilip J Coo8, (he Case of the issin- =ictims' Gunshot Boundin-s in the
National Crime Survey, # J Duantitative Criminolo-y $# @#$!%A
3074 US Iureau of Justice Statistics, supra note 7", at ??30?4 Elec8, supra note #!, at %0
30.4 Richard B +od-e, (he Bashin-ton, + C Recall Study, in # (he National Crime
Survey Bor8in- )apaer' Current and Historical )erspectives #. @Robert G Lehnen
Besley G S8o-an eds, #$!#A
30%4 Henry S Boltman et al, Recall Iias and (elescopin- in the National Crime
Survey, in 7 (he National Crime Survey Bor8in- )apers' ethodolo-ical Studies
!#/ @Robert G Lehnen O Besley G S8o-an eds, #$!.A Sudman O
Iradburn, supra note ./
30"4 See (able ?, panel &
3004 Rand, supra note #0
30!4 Billiam & Geller O ichael S Scott, )olice K9ecutive Research Forum, +eadly
Force' Bhat Be Enow #//*#/" @#$$?A
30$4 Rand, supra note #0
3!/4 See (able ?, )anel I
3!#4 :d at )anel C
3!74 Elec8, supra note ?, at 0*$ Elec8 O +elone, supra note ?, at 0%*00
3!?4 US Iureau of Justice Statistics, supra note 7", at !?
3!.4 See (able ?, )anel F
3!%4 For a related speculation, see Understandin- and )reventin- =iolence, supra note#%, at 7""
3!"4 d.
3!04 US Iureau of Justice Statistics, supra note 7", at !? US Federal Iureau of
:nvesti-ation, supra note 0/, at #!
3!!4 See (able ?, )anel H
3!$4 d. at )anel &
3$/4 d. at )anel G
3$#4 d. at )anel :
3$74 Loftin O acEen
-
8/17/2019 Armed Resistance to Crime
31/31
3$$4 Elec8, supra note #!, at %"
3#//4 &rthur L Eellermann O +onald ( Reay, )rotection or )eril, ?#. New Kn- J
ed #%%0 @#$!"A
3#/#4 Elec8, supra note #!, at ## #*##0
3#/74 See id at #70*#7$ for a more detailed criti>ue of these 56un8 science5 statistics
See Understandin- and )reventin- =iolence, supra note #%, at 7"0 for an e9ample of a presti-ious source ta8in- such numbers seriously
|GunCite Home|
http://www.guncite.com/index.htmlhttp://www.guncite.com/index.htmlhttp://www.guncite.com/index.html