An experiment I am going to perform regarding Defensive Gun Uses.

[GreenStormCloud]

First, I make no pretense that the experiment will be scientific, but I do think it will be interesting, and may shed some light on how common DGUs are.

I am going to start asking people whom I know if they have ever in their lives used a gun, even if it was just showing it, to defend their life, their families lives, health, or property. Combat uses in military service will be excluded. Police or former police will be asked if the incident occured while they were acting as a private citizen. Mostly I will ask older folks because they are the ones who have had enough years that they may have had a DGU.

I will not ask anyone whom I know to frequent bars and trouble spots. I will ask only those whom I know to be honest and whose answer I can trust.

While not scientific, the results should shed some light on the subject. If DGUs are so extremely rare as some here believe then I should find almost none. If I find a bunch of them then that would indicate that they are fairly common over a person's lifetime. By that I mean that an armed person could expect to have it happen about once or twice in their lifetimes.

I am open to suggestions that may help me improve the survey, but I will insist that I be able to make it informal.

It will take a few weeks for me to do the survey. I will post the results here.

[MineralMan]

1. You can also get some answers here.

I'm 66 years old, and have owned firearms all my adult life and have a CCW permit in MN. Never once have I used one in the way you describe. The situation has never arisen. I do not expect to ever have to do so.

[DonP]

2. How long has Minnesota had CCW permits?

I've actually lost track of the flood of states that just allowed it in the past decade or more recently.

[MineralMan]

4. It's fairly recent that they've been "shall issue," but I don't remember

the exact year. It was before I moved here.

[Scuba]

3. Same here, except it'll be a couple months before Wisconsin starts issuing CCW's. And you're...

...correct that your experiment is not scientific.


Remember, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

[GreenStormCloud]

10. However, if someone tells you that deer in Pennsylvania are rare,

and in a drive across the state you see several deer as road kill, what conclusion would you reach regarding the scarcity of deer?

You seem to have already judged my effort before I start.

[RC]

5. I am 67 years old and currently live in Kansas City MO.

Last week there was a triple murder approximately 3 blocks from where I live. I drive by there several times a week, sometimes at night. Kansas City has a high gun murder rate, 3 to five or more times a week. Even drive-by's on the interstates.
I have never been in a situation where I felt I needed a gun and I still don't feel the need to have one handy.
It's those that think the world is a scary place that makes the world dangerous.

I used to live in a government project in Fargo ND for 15 years. Even some of the "Lost Boys" lived there for a while. Lots of different skin colors, styles of dress and languages. There was a knifing in the parking lot once (neither stabbee nor stabber lived there). The victim made it to the near by hospital parking lot before he bled out and died. Still felt no need for a gun. My kids (two teen age daughters) would sometimes walk to the grocery store after dark. One daughter worked there for a while. No one thought that was not safe.

And yes I have fired weapons, in the military, target shooting, cans and booze bottles on posts. Even shot corks out of whiskey bottles at 50 feet with a army surplus .45.

Still I feel no need to acquire any kind of gun for fun or defense or any other reason.

[PavePusher]

6. I would suggest, living in circumstances like that, and yet "No one thought that was not safe."...

Your perception of "safe" vs. "unsafe" may be.... somewhat different... from that of many other people.

Perspective.

For the record, I am glad you seem to have beaten the odds so far, and I hope you continue to do so.

[spin]

7. That's your decision and I have absolutely no problem with it ...

I carefully considered my circumstances and reached a conclusion that while it was unlikely that I would ever have a true need for a concealed weapon, I was willing to spend the time, effort and money necessary to obtain a concealed weapons permit.

I didn't obtain the permit because I felt the world is a scary place. I just personally like to be prepared in case I ever happen to have a legitimate reason to use lethal force in self defense.

While I don't live in fear of being attacked there is always the possibility that I might find myself a victim.

Crime and Victim Stats

***snip***

Violent Crime — General

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

More than one in three (35 percent) of adults are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

In 2005, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 23 million violent and property crimes. (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2006)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm#violentcrime

I am in no way suggesting that you change your opinion.

[Logical]

37. I think pro-gun people will claim some DGU to help their cause.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. So you are calling them liars in advance.

Any other accusations that you want to make about people who have guns?

[Logical]

41. No, I just think some people are biased. I CC and would not lie but some will....

it is just human nature.

[saras]

8. That's not an experiment, that's confirmation bias.

You're asking only people who basically agree with you to participate.

You HAVE to have some RELIABLE way of comparing that number to the total number of gun uses to get anywhere meaningful.

And you can't trust people to tell the truth about situations like this - are they going to admit it if they were wrong, and killed someone needlessly? Or if they had the gun taken away from them?

I don't really see any value in the way you're approaching it except to build up a body of gun supporters who are emotionally convinced their actual life was saved by their gun. Hardly a group you'd expect to be insightful into their own failures.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Bullshit!

You're asking only people who basically agree with you to participate.
I know lots of people that I have never talked about politics with and whose stance on guns I don't know in advance. So your previous sentence is pure projection on your part.

You HAVE to have some RELIABLE way of comparing that number to the total number of gun uses to get anywhere meaningful.
I am not trying to be scientific, just try to get a feel for how common it is.

And you can't trust people to tell the truth about situations like this - are they going to admit it if they were wrong, and killed someone needlessly?
DGUs that involve a fatality are quite rare. We can look at the FBI reports to get that number. Most DGUs end the way my wife's did, or the way DUer "spin"'s daughter did - with the bad guy running away, no shots fired.

Or if they had the gun taken away from them?
If the police took their gun away then they likely have a felony record and can't own a gun now. They will be excluded. I don't want criminals mucking it up. Further, I don't hang out with criminals.

I don't really see any value in the way you're approaching it except to build up a body of gun supporters who are emotionally convinced their actual life was saved by their gun. Hardly a group you'd expect to be insightful into their own failures.
I have already stated what I expect to find out. Your allegations are false.

[petronius]

35. It's not confirmation bias as described, unless the OP is going to drop answers that he doesn't

want to hear (and there's no hint of that).

What it is is convenience sampling, which as the OP apparently realizes is unlikely to produce a statistically useful sampling, but is a decent way to produce a descriptive and exploratory data set (suitable for a qualitative conversation)...

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Exactly.

I do notice that it seems to have already upset the antis.

[DWC]

11. Possibly add the questions

1. Do they feel the fact they had a gun, even if it was never referred to or displayed, affected how they either approached or avoided a potential violent situation?

2. Do they feel the fact they had a gun, even if it was never referred to or displayed, affected their body language communicated to a potential assailant?

You have stated this is not a scientific survey and the opinion of those who have been there carries a great deal of weight.

It is established that more than 80% of all communications are non-verbal and, just as you "read" the body language of a potential bad guy, they "read" your body language as a potentially easy victim. I hold that having the confidence to successfully defend yourself shows in your body language and can cause bad guys to not consider you a potentially easy victim thus averting a violent situation.

Peace Through Strength,

[iverglas]

12. eh?

I will not ask anyone whom I know to frequent bars and trouble spots. I will ask only those whom I know to be honest and whose answer I can trust.

Er ... why not?

I know I'd like to know how many of these alleged "DGU"s occur in circumstances like those.

Since no previous study seems to have excluded any respondents based on such factors, how would your little survey provide any basis for comparison?

Hell, what if people who "frequent bars and trouble spots" have a relatively very low rate of "DGU"?

Not scientific indeed.

[Kennah]

25. "Trouble spot" is a somewhat vague term ...

... but bars are not. In most states, one isn't allowed to carry there, so there would not be the chance for a DGU.

[Hoyt]

13. Make sure to ask if they could have handled -- or did handle -- situation without a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. No. That is an argumentative question that asks them to second guess themselves.

If their judgement at the time was they needed it self-defense that is what I will accept for the survey. I will ask if they would like to share details, then I can screen out ones that I may think are false. I will also report here how many I suspected of being false, if any.

[DanTex]

16. Along those lines, another survey to do...

...is to ask people who don't own or carry guns how often they've been victimized by crimes that would have been prevented if they were carrying a gun.

Because that is the ultimate measure: whether keeping or carrying a gun actually reduces the amount of loss, injury, or death from crime victimization, not how many DGUs people can (claim to) rack up. I'm sure that if you go ask a bunch of gun militants, they'll all talk proudly about how many thugs they've scared away with their gun. In fact, Kleck proved this, and it's been repeated several times. But if gunners were really preventing as many crimes as they claim, then the non-gun owners would have just as many stories about how they were victimized by the same thugs that the gun owners were able to stop with their DGUs.

But that's not what happens. When you survey gun owners, you get piles of DGU stories, tales of lives saved, injuries prevented, property protected. When you survey non-gun-owners, you find that they don't have DGUs, but they don't suffer any additional crime victimization. In fact, the opposite is true: even without the DGUs, they manage to avoid violent crime victimization even more successfully than gunners. This holds statistically, even after controlling for criminal record, drug use, and many other such factors.

So, apparently, either the DGU accounts are being exaggerated, or the gunners are putting themselves at greater risk, due to the false sense of security that carrying a gun gives. Or both.

[iverglas]

17. sssshh

[gejohnston]

19. Actually

That is the best illustration of your side yet.

[gejohnston]

18. You base this on what?

Actually, Kleck claimed no such thing. Hemenway speculated that in order to inflate false positives but offered nothing for evidence, just like accusing Gertz's employees rigging the poll.
Edit to add, a baseless claim since their results were the opposite of their hypothesis.

When you survey non-gun-owners, you find that they don't have DGUs, but they don't suffer any additional crime victimization.

non-car owners don't get parking tickets either. How do you have a DGU without a gun? Can you back that up with anything not funded by the Joyce Foundation?

[DanTex]

21. I base it on data, of course.

We all know that Joyce is your go-to talking point when you want to deny science. In this particular case, though, it turns out that many of the studies linking gun ownership/possession to victimization are not funded by Joyce: e.g. Kellermann, Cummings, more recently the NIH-funded study by Branas et al that was discussed here a few weeks ago.

Sorry, hate to disappoint...

[gejohnston]

24. not talking point

not denying science, simply looking at variations of the term "biostitute". Yes I remember the discussion. As I recall, all the study showed was that people in certain high risk behaviors/occupations tend to carry guns. The gun does not attract the victimization. Think about it, who is going to think, "hey let's find a guy with a gun to rip off."

But then, you deny science if it is not to your liking or if the scientist does not work at the right school.
On another subject, did Fox buy McClatchy and the Latin American Hearld?

[DanTex]

26. Do you really think it helps your case to keep making false statements?

That's not what the study found at all, you are completely mistaken. In fact, the possibility that high-risk behaviors or occupations could make people more likely to carry a gun was controlled for, and the study found an increased risk of getting shot above and beyond any confounding effect of these and other factors.

But what's interesting is that so many people persist with these plainly false statements. Yes, I know that you find this stuff all over the gun blogs, so maybe you're just repeating talking points. But to me it actually demonstrates that you have hit a wall, so to speak, and have nothing coherent to say. After all, I assume you wouldn't choose to say obviously incorrect things if you could instead make some factual or logical point. Or would you?

More important, do you actually object to my original point? That self-reported DGUs are not what ultimately matters. What matters is whether a gun actually makes people safer, which is measured not by how many DGUs people claim, but by whether people who own or carry guns actually experience a reduction in the harm due to crime victimization.

[gejohnston]

27. what false statement is that?

What gun blogs are those? I do find reprints of law review articles and peer reviewed articles on gun blogs, complete with name and date of original publication. They are printed word for word. Just like the claim that only Fox and gun blogs report that the cartels are getting most of their weapons from the southern border and abroad on the black market. That is why I asked if Fox bought McClatchy and Latin American Herald. Does such disingenuous/dishonest nonsense help your cause?

What matters is whether a gun actually makes people safer, which is measured not by how many DGUs people claim, but by whether people who own or carry guns actually experience a reduction in the harm due to crime victimization

No one here claims that a gun is a magic talisman to ward off thugs. That is basically what you are saying. We are saying that one has a better chance of resisting an attack with a gun than with nothing.

[DanTex]

29. This one.

As I recall, all the study showed was that people in certain high risk behaviors/occupations tend to carry guns.

I guess it's possible that it's just that your recollection is bad, but I doubt it. In any case, the part beginning with "all the study showed..." is clearly false.

[gejohnston]

30. that is all it showed

When I read the study, that is the conclusion I came to. I missed him explaining how he adjusted for those variables.
Just like your claim below, which simply repeats Hemenway's speculation to inflate false positives with out providing evidence.
Yes Hemenway teaches injury prevention at Harvard and Kleck teaches Criminology at Florida State. Before you start on that appeal to authority, just remember George Bush (who drove how many companies in the ground?) has an MBA from Harvard.
Have you heard the expression "still waters run deep"? Shallow streams make more noise. When someone makes a point of projecting an image, it is just that. Just like Bush's "I'm a regular guy" (or Rick Perry being a gun person).

The important question is: after any of these studies were published, did anyone duplicate the them and get the same results?

[GreenStormCloud]

22. I didn't even know if the guy I asked was a gun owner.

He was an employee of a store that I shop at. We have never talked about guns before. Usually he likes to talk about computers.

According to the FBI stats there were well over 1 million reported violent crimes last year. Many violent crimes don't get reported so the total number would be well higher than the FBI stats. But it appears that in your fantasy world non gun owners are never victimized by crime.

[DanTex]

28. "non gun owners are never victimized by crime"

Yet another example of attacking straw due the the fact that you have no cogent answer to my argument. I obviously didn't claim that non-gun owners are "never victimized", and I'm not sure why you think it helps your case to so transparently mischaracterize what I am saying.

Yes, there are many violent crimes reported by FBI stats and NCVS. The stats also show that only a very small fraction of them are prevented by a gun, and that other protective actions are just as effective. And, studies have found that gun owners do not suffer any less from crime victimization, in fact, they have often found that the opposite is true, even after controlling for various behavioral and situational risk factors.

So I'll repeat my original point. Self-reported DGUs are not the ultimate measure of the defensive benefit that a gun provides. What is more important is whether owning or carrying a gun actually reduces the risk or harm from crime victimization by any noticeable amount. And you can't measure that just by listening to gunners' tales of DGU glory. Because, not only can you not determine whether the DGUs are real or accurate (since people tend to portray themselves in a positive light), but even if they are, you can't tell whether the situation might not have been better resolved without a gun, or whether the person might not have even gotten themselves into the situation requiring DGU if not for the sense of security provided by the gun, etc.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. Can we count every incident where innocent people were killed?

I mean, they were victimized and certainly might have wished they had a better option for defense. Just because they're not around to answer "yes" doesn't mean they needed better protection.

Of course non-gun owners are not going to have many DGUs or say they needed them. The ones still around to answer your questino obviously they didn't need a gun (they survived, so in huindsight they needed no gun) and the ones that needed it most are not around to answer.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. Unfortunately, I can't interview them. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

14. I aked the first person today.

I was surprised when he said "Yes". It was a home invasion. Two thugs kicked in the front door of his apartment, he grabbed a pistol and fired a warning shot over their heads, they ran away, he called the cops and reported it.

[Hoyt]

20. Glad I wasn't in upstairs apartment or across the way when your buddy fired away. Was he holding?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. "Was he holding?" Sorry, don't understand the question.

In any case I didn't ask for lots of details, just the basics. It appears that you think that he should not have used a gun to defend himself against a home invasion.

[ileus]

34. was he holding his big gun when he shot his special load in the air.

[petronius]

36. I think he means "was your friend a drug dealer or user who therefore brought the

invasion on himself?" In other words, was he holding drugs or drug money that attracted the criminals? Was it his own fault that he was victimized?

I'll leave it to you to ponder Hoyt's reasons for asking...

[ileus]

33. good way to have to fix a hole in the roof....should have fired a warning shot into one of the perps

[GreenStormCloud]

31. I asked six more people this morning.

All six hold responsible positions of employement. Three of them were strangers to me. Here are their answers:

#2. Yes, Burglar, pointed gun at him, he left in a hurry, no shots fired.

#3. No.

#4. Yes, Home invasion, forced front door, pointed gun at him, he ran away, no shots fired, called police.

#5. No.

#6. No.

#7. No.

So far all of the "Yes" answers have happened in the gun owners residence. All are senior citizens are close to it so the incidents are probably not recent. I am not concerned with when it happened, only if it happened at least once in their life.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. I am up to 19 people asked now.

All but one have been age 50 or above, one was in his 80s. All are either retired or employed in responsible positions. Of the 19:

Six answered "Yes", but I had to discard one of those. His DGU was as a federal officer (DEA) and in the line of duty. I then asked him about use as a private citizen and his answer was, "No." so I am counting him as a NO. That leaves five YES. All of the five occured at the residence of the defender. They were either burglaries or home invasions. (A burglar tries to be stealthy and avoid confrontation. The home invader kicks the door in and seeks confrontation.) None of the YES responders carried a gun on them.
Except for the one already noted, no one else fired any shots. The offenders retreated instantly upon seeing that the resident was armed. None of the defenders tried to embelish the story with self-promoting details. All told it matter-of-factly.

I did not inquire as to when in their lives the incidents happened. Since the respondents were all older folks the incident could have happened decades ago.

One of the "YES" people was interesting. He did give a time frame. The incident happened about 30 years ago, two burglars entered his home, he pointed his pistol at them and they fled. Some years later he became a born-again Christian. He has sold all of his weapons and now relies solely upon Jesus to protect his wife and him. I did not discuss theology or the wisdom of his choice with him. I respect his right to make his own decisions.

So far we have 19 questioned, 14 NO, 5 YES.

While this is not a scientific survey, I do find it interesting that in a mere 19 people I found 5 who had used a gun to defend their home. If DGUs almost never happen, as some here claim, then I would think that I should have found none, or at most one, DGU. The fact that I have found five out of nineteen suggests that the typical person will never have one but that enough will have one that having some handy in the home could be a wise precaution.

I will continue to ask more older folks about their experiences, and post the results here from time to time.

[spin]

42. My daughter stopped an intruder breaking into our Tampa home 22 years ago ...

by pointing a revolver at him. He ran. My daughter has a carry permit and carries but has never had another DGU.

My mother used a S&W LadySmith revolver to stop an attacker who rushed her from some bushes as she was walking home from work in the 1920s. She did fire two shots over his head and he ran. She died 71 years later at 89 years old and never had to use a firearm for self defense after that one incident.

[ileus]

43. Interesting story that happened 2 years ago.

My bosses uncle was at home (elderly man 75 or so) he was out in his yard when two men in a car pull into his driveway. They get out and start asking questions, and try and relate that they buy antiques and such for resale. (think american pickers) They ask him a few questions about this and that if he has different items. He responded "I don't have any WWII helmets or bayonets, even if I did they wouldn't be for sale." One of the guys said lets just go inside and take a look around. At that point the old man with his hand in his pocket and on his 38 kinda poked it (rudely I mite add) through his pants and said "I don't think you'll be going in my house anytime today." They got back in their car and left. He called the cops and it turns out the guys had been reported by a few other elderly people/couples in the area. He just happens to be one of these old timers (like my dad) who keeps a pistol in his pocket at all times. You can't be too safe.