Armed Resistance to Crime

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/31

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


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


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-


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


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


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 &lthou-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


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


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


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

&nother ."! 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



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


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


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 &lthou-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


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


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 &lthou-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


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 &nother 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

&nother 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



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 &nother 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Armed Resistance to Crime

Documents

Transcript of Armed Resistance to Crime