Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
A TRIBUTE TO A VIEW I HAVE OPPOSED MARVIN E. WOLFGANG
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New
World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
My reading of the articles in this Symposium has been enlighten- ing even though I have been reading research on guns and violence for over a quarter of a century, ever since the Eisenhower Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, when I enlisted Franklin Zimring to be a Task Force director of Volume Seven, "Firearms and Violence in American Life."
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear- cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something
I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies.
All of the eleven surveys yielded re- sults that implied over 700,000 uses per year. None of the surveys im- plied estimates even remotely like the 65,000 to 82,000 figures derived from the NCVS. To date, there has been no confirmation of even the most approximate sort of the NCVS estimates. Indeed, no survey has ever yielded an estimate which is of the same magnitude as those de- rived from the NCVS.
We consulted with North America's most experienced experts on gun-related surveys, David Bordua, James Wright, and Gary Mauser, along with survey expert Seymour Sudman, in order to craft a state-of- the-art survey instrument designed specifically to establish the fre- quency and nature of DGUs. 43 A professional telephone polling firm,
Finally, our survey was superior to the NCVS in two additional ways: it was free of the taint of being conducted by, and on behalf of, employees of the federal government, and it was completely
anonymous. It would be incorrect to say that the present estimates are incon-
sistent with those derived from the earlier gun surveys.
Are these estimates plausible? Could it really be true that Ameri- cans use guns for self-protection as often as 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year? The estimate may seem remarkable in comparison to expecta-
tions based on conventional wisdom, but it is not implausibly large in comparison to various gun-related phenomena. There are probably over 220 million guns in private hands in the U.S.,57 implying that only about 1% of them are used for defensive purposes in any one year-not an impossibly high fraction.
| Total firearms: | 9,528 | 9,199 | 8,874 | 8,653 | 8,855 |
|---|
| Total firearms: | 10,225 | 10,129 | 9,528 | 9,199 | 8,775 |
|---|
Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Here is an anti gun researcher who reviewed the study that showed there were an average of 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year...
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6854&context=jclc
A TRIBUTE TO A VIEW I HAVE OPPOSED MARVIN E. WOLFGANG
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New
World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
My reading of the articles in this Symposium has been enlighten- ing even though I have been reading research on guns and violence for over a quarter of a century, ever since the Eisenhower Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, when I enlisted Franklin Zimring to be a Task Force director of Volume Seven, "Firearms and Violence in American Life."
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear- cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something
I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies.
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually.
Dr. Kleck's Answer
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.
So...tell me Dr. Kleck's numbers are wrong...
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually.
Yes, and Dr. Kleck dismantles that survey in his paper...
Dr. Kleck's Answer
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun.
Soooo...of the 2 surveys the least likely to get an accurate number on how many times a gun is used to save lives and stop crimes is the National Crime Victmization Survey...it is embraced by the anti gunners because the actual numbers are so bad for their cause...
2.5 million times a year guns were used to save lives and stop crimes and that was back in the 1990s when gun ownership was at 210 million guns...today, in 2014 the number of privately held guns is over 310 million...
And yet...with more people owning guns, and carrying guns, gun violence has declined, as have gun accidents...
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns.
Given the variation in the statistics as well as the information from the FBI, many different conclusions can be drawn. Gun control advocates suggest that most of these new guns are being bought by existing gun owners who are simply adding to their collections. Gun rights proponents disagree. Unfortunately, there is no good way to get a solid answer on this topic, so we have to use some of that common sense the gun control people are always blathering on about. Consider the following:
- Given the current environment and concern about Government oversight, NSA spying, etc, I would suggest that if people are going to lie during a poll, they are more likely to say that they don’t own a gun when they do as opposed to saying that they do own a gun when they don’t. I would argue that the number of people who don’t fess up to owning a gun may very well result in a few percentage points of error in the poll.
- The results of the GSS and Gallup polls differ by nine points, which could be related to their respective polling methods. The GSS conducts all polls in face to face interviews while Gallup uses phone based ones. People who might already be reluctant to admit to owning a gun at all are likely to be even more reluctant to do it in a face-to-face situation.
- Gun sales are up and have been for a number of years. Certainly a good percentage of this increase is attributable to existing gun owners adding to their collections and the proposed anti-gun legislation in early 2013 certainly stoked the fires. On the other hand, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do.
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
Again, of the two gun surveys, Dr. Klecks is more accurate and falls in line with 13 other surveys that examined the number of times guns were used in a defensive purpose...the NCVS isn't even close to those other 13 surveys...
A look at those numbers from a gun guy...
Mythbusting Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S. - The Truth About Guns
Given the variation in the statistics as well as the information from the FBI, many different conclusions can be drawn. Gun control advocates suggest that most of these new guns are being bought by existing gun owners who are simply adding to their collections. Gun rights proponents disagree. Unfortunately, there is no good way to get a solid answer on this topic, so we have to use some of that common sense the gun control people are always blathering on about. Consider the following:
- Given the current environment and concern about Government oversight, NSA spying, etc, I would suggest that if people are going to lie during a poll, they are more likely to say that they don’t own a gun when they do as opposed to saying that they do own a gun when they don’t. I would argue that the number of people who don’t fess up to owning a gun may very well result in a few percentage points of error in the poll.
- The results of the GSS and Gallup polls differ by nine points, which could be related to their respective polling methods. The GSS conducts all polls in face to face interviews while Gallup uses phone based ones. People who might already be reluctant to admit to owning a gun at all are likely to be even more reluctant to do it in a face-to-face situation.
- Gun sales are up and have been for a number of years. Certainly a good percentage of this increase is attributable to existing gun owners adding to their collections and the proposed anti-gun legislation in early 2013 certainly stoked the fires. On the other hand, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do.
What other surveys are close to 2.5 million? You realize he arrived at that number by surveying 5,000 people right? And I bet most people didn't even take the survey unless they had some interest in guns. And then anyone who had ever defensed with a gun I'm sure told their story whether it was in the last year or 20 years. Sorry but we have surveys from 68k to 2.5 million. They just aren't accurate. We would hear about many every day if there was really 2.5 million. But we don't.
C. THE NATIONAL SELF-DEFENSE SURVEY 1. Methods
The present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the subject of armed self-defense. It was carefully designed to correct all -ofthe known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys which critics have identified. We use the most anonymous possible national survey format, the anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey. We did not know the identities of those who were interviewed, and made this fact clear to the Rs. We interviewed a large nationally representative sample covering all adults, age eighteen and over, in the lower forty- eight states and living in households with telephones.42 We asked DGU questions of all Rs in our sample, asking them separately about both their own DGU experiences and those of other members of their households. We used both a five year recall period and a one year recall period. We inquired about uses of both handguns and other types of guns, and excluded occupational uses of guns and uses against animals. Finally, we asked a long series of detailed questions designed to establish exactly what Rs did with their guns; for example, if they had confronted other humans, and how had each DGU con- nected to a specific crime or crimes.
We consulted with North America's most experienced experts on gun-related surveys, David Bordua, James Wright, and Gary Mauser, along with survey expert Seymour Sudman, in order to craft a state-of- the-art survey instrument designed specifically to establish the fre- quency and nature of DGUs. 43
All Rs reporting a DGU were asked a long, detailed series of ques- tions establishing exactly what happened in the DGU incident. Rs who reported having experienced more than one DGU in the previ-
ous five years were asked about their most recent experience. When the original R was the one who had used a gun defensively, as was usually the case, interviewers obtained his or her firsthand account of the event. When the original R indicated that some other member of the household was the one who had the -experience, interviewers
made every effort to speak directly to the involved person, either speaking to that person immediately or obtaining times and dates to call back. Up to three call-backs were made to contact the DGU-in- volved person. We anticipated that it would sometimes prove impossi- ble to make contact with these persons, so interviewers were instructed to always obtain a proxy account of the DGU from the orig- inal R, on the assumption that a proxy account would be better than none at all. It was rarely necessary to rely on these proxy accounts- only six sample cases of DGUs were reported through proxies, out of a total of 222 sample cases.
Vernick refers to "a relatively small sample size" used in
my research, noting that "about 5,000 respondents" were
interviewed. This was substantially correct (it was 4,977), but
this is in fact an unusually large sample for survey research.
Most national surveys have samples in the 600-1600 range. The
number of persons who reported a DGU is not "the sample size."
Rather, the sample size is the number of persons who were asked
the DGU question, i.e. 4,977. It is this number which influences
the precision of the estimates, not the number who answer "Yes"
to the DGU question. In any case, Vernick's guess that only 50
people reported a DGU is incorrect. A total of 194 persons
(weighted; 213 unweighted cases) reported a DGU involving either
themselves or someone else in their household, 165 reported a DGU
in which they had personally participated in the previous five
years, and 66 reported a personal DGU in the past one year
preceding the survey (see Table 2, p. 54 of the report).
