Article: Nearly one in three gun owners have used their firearm in a self defense situations

Button Pusher

Button Pusher

Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Life Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
29,446
Location
Raleigh
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Cowboy said:
I guess it depends on how they are using the term used. Have you ever heard something outside and taken your gun to see what it was?
Click to expand...
Yes and No. If it was during normal business hours the gun came with me in the normal rig. I would not consider that a self defense use.

If it was at night I make it a rule to not chase trouble. Trouble is better dealt with was it attempts to enter. YMMV
 
Last edited:
IMHO The headline is Clickbait. If you don’t have access to the raw data from the individual at Georgetown University you do not know if it is significant or meaningful. As @Cowboy alluded to depending on how they define “use” the numbers may or may not be valid but without the data we are left to draw our own conclusions. #ClickBait
 
Last edited:
Button Pusher said:
.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A whopping 31.1 percent of gun owners—estimated to be about 25.3 million American adults—have used a gun in self-defense, according to the 2021 National Firearms Survey, by Prof. William English, PhD., at Georgetown University.

www.ammoland.com

Guns are Used Responsibly in the United States

The media lies to us about gun owners in the United States. Here are the facts about how responsible gun owners really are.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com
Click to expand...

First, Rob Morse needs to understand how to actually conduct research and write a paper with proper citations and sources.

Second, the data references 1995 surveys that were conducted by Criminologist Gary Kleck with flawed data of his own admission. (https://reason.com/2018/09/04/what-the-cdcs-mid-90s-surveys-on-defensi/)
The data was compiled by phone interviews and the respondents were asked if over the past five years they had used a gun—even if not fired—for self-protection or protection of property at work, home, or elsewhere.

It's pretty ambiguous question open to interpretation. Based on the question, if I heard a knock in the night, got a gun and investigated. That counted. So did simply implying or stating one was armed.

The 2021 study by English used similar language:
"First, all gun owners were asked, “Have you ever defended yourself or your property with a firearm, even if it was not fired or displayed?"

Again, ambiguous but probably factual based on account of many of these interactions not resulting in a police report or 911 call.
 
wvsig said:
IMHO The headline is Clickbait. If you don’t have access to the raw data from the individual at Georgetown University you do not know if it is significant or meaningful. As @Cowboy alluded to depending on how they define “use” the numbers may or may not be valid but without the data we are left to draw our own conclusions. #ClickBait
Click to expand...

I have access to the whole PDF if anyone is interested.
 
After reading the actual study the Ammoland article is still clickbait IMHO. They are counting very subjective interpretations of I had an firearm with me = I used a firearm in self defense.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s pretty safe to ignore posts on ammoland.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
BS! They must be counting “I answered the door with a gun in my hand because I was scared” and “I grabbed my gun to see what that noise was” as self defense situations.

We hate when the other side does this so why would we do it??
Click to expand...

That's basically what they are doing.... it's a very broad catch all category
 
wvsig said:
20 years of concealed carry and longer and a gun owner times I have had to use one to defend myself 0.

#stillcarryeveryday
Click to expand...
20 years and 4 times i've needed the show of force.
I'm hoping we're done with all that now that we're out of Detroit.
 
oh dang, if we're counting every time i answered the door with a gun in hand and not just times where we've been actively drawing/aiming/threatening in order to get back inside behind locked doors...
 
Jerzsubbie said:
BS! They must be counting “I answered the door with a gun in my hand because I was scared” and “I grabbed my gun to see what that noise was” as self defense situations.

We hate when the other side does this so why would we do it??
Click to expand...

I guess in retrospect, the question is why doesn't that count? Not saying it should or shouldn't, but if I go outside and "brandish" or imply I am armed to a "upto no good'er" and they leave, the presence or implication of a firearm potentially prevented a crime or other criminal act.
 
NCMedic said:
I guess in retrospect, the question is why doesn't that count? Not saying it should or shouldn't, but if I go outside and "brandish" or imply I am armed to a "upto no good'er" and they leave, the presence or implication of a firearm potentially prevented a crime or other criminal act.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a matter context. Actually having a gun versus implying that you have a gun versus actually displaying or actively using a gun in self-defense are very separate categories of use in my mind. This data set makes no distinction. I think that the questions were left intentionally vague in order to illicit a particular response. IMHO poor methodology equals poor outcome.
 
Last edited:
NCMedic said:
I guess in retrospect, the question is why doesn't that count? Not saying it should or shouldn't, but if I go outside and "brandish" or imply I am armed to a "upto no good'er" and they leave, the presence or implication of a firearm potentially prevented a crime or other criminal act.
Click to expand...
In my two super broad examples, it’s likely there was never an actual threat, therefore nothing from which to defend.
If we’re talking about specific situations in which a gun made you feel safer, sure I’ll buy the 31% figure.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
In my two super broad examples, it’s likely there was never an actual threat, therefore nothing from which to defend.
If we’re talking about specific situations in which a gun made you feel safer, sure I’ll buy the 31% figure.
Click to expand...

Had they just added "perceived threat" it would have gone a long way in strengthening their results.
 
Why are we self-limiting? The left doesn't. The data set may be flawed based on the symantics of question, but should we consider how many situations made owners feel like they needed to have a gun? Did it make them feel safer? Did they behave or act different than if they did not have a gun? I think maybe this interpretation is valid as a first pass. Especially, if it precipitates further study.
 
georgel said:
Why are we self-limiting? The left doesn't. The data set may be flawed based on the symantics of question, but should we consider how many situations made owners feel like they needed to have a gun? Did it make them feel safer? Did they behave or act different than if they did not have a gun? I think maybe this interpretation is valid as a first pass. Especially, if it precipitates further study.
Click to expand...
as in, somebody is trying to kick in the door.
(A) Hide in a closet and try to dial 911
(B) Yell "keep kicking $#$%@%$#, i got a gun in here and i'm shooting if you bust open my door" and scare the dude away
 
georgel said:
Why are we self-limiting? The left doesn't. The data set may be flawed based on the symantics of question, but should we consider how many situations made owners feel like they needed to have a gun? Did it make them feel safer? Did they behave or act different than if they did not have a gun? I think maybe this interpretation is valid as a first pass. Especially, if it precipitates further study.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a matter of being self limiting. The interesting thing from the data is that 82% of DGUs are resolved without a shot being fired which disputes the argument that gun owners are out there firing their double barrel off the balcony at every noise in the night.

I suspect the actual number is a lot higher for many reasons. But I agree it's semantics, hopefully further research takes a deeper dive.
 
georgel said:
Why are we self-limiting? The left doesn't. The data set may be flawed based on the symantics of question, but should we consider how many situations made owners feel like they needed to have a gun? Did it make them feel safer? Did they behave or act different than if they did not have a gun? I think maybe this interpretation is valid as a first pass. Especially, if it precipitates further study.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of qualitative/subjective research. Like the definition of art, it's hard to pin meaningful definitions and metrics. But I am all for more research if it gets us what we are looking for, especially with quantitative research.

My hunch is that 31% is grossly overstated.
 
NCMedic said:
First, Rob Morse needs to understand how to actually conduct research and write a paper with proper citations and sources.

Second, the data references 1995 surveys that were conducted by Criminologist Gary Kleck with flawed data of his own admission. (https://reason.com/2018/09/04/what-the-cdcs-mid-90s-surveys-on-defensi/)
The data was compiled by phone interviews and the respondents were asked if over the past five years they had used a gun—even if not fired—for self-protection or protection of property at work, home, or elsewhere.

It's pretty ambiguous question open to interpretation. Based on the question, if I heard a knock in the night, got a gun and investigated. That counted. So did simply implying or stating one was armed.

The 2021 study by English used similar language:
"First, all gun owners were asked, “Have you ever defended yourself or your property with a firearm, even if it was not fired or displayed?"

Again, ambiguous but probably factual based on account of many of these interactions not resulting in a police report or 911 call.
Click to expand...


Then we read that article very differently. Kleck is regarding the new study as less reliable than his older studies. The "new" study was not done by Kleck, only reviewed after the fact. And had a smaller number or respondents. The older survey was administered under Kleck's supervision and had a larger base. I don't see him admitting his data was flawed in his initial study in the article.

IN short, the article is dismissive of the BRFSS 1996-1998 study because of it's smaller data set. It says little about the 1993 NSDS study from Kleck/Gertz.

When you are talking about bias also keep in mind that Kleck is a democrat. No necessarily anti gun, but not someone out there looking for an answer either. He took the initial study on because the information at the time felt biased in an anti gun direction too much for his liking. So he was trying to clear that up, and basically reversed the results in a pretty pro gun direction.
 
chiefjason said:
Then we read that article very differently. Kleck is regarding the new study as less reliable than his older studies. The "new" study was not done by Kleck, only reviewed after the fact. And had a smaller number or respondents. The older survey was administered under Kleck's supervision and had a larger base. I don't see him admitting his data was flawed in his initial study in the article.

IN short, the article is dismissive of the BRFSS 1996-1998 study because of it's smaller data set. It says little about the 1993 NSDS study from Kleck/Gertz.

When you are talking about bias also keep in mind that Kleck is a democrat. No necessarily anti gun, but not someone out there looking for an answer either. He took the initial study on because the information at the time felt biased in an anti gun direction too much for his liking. So he was trying to clear that up, and basically reversed the results in a pretty pro gun direction.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that Kleck would have come to his conclusions had his statistics issues not been pointed out to him, but when they were, it looked like to me he saw the statistics errors and called a 'my bad.'

The new study seemed to be better, even if it had smaller sample size, because the sample size was more statistically sound.

Anyhoo, that's how I read it.
 
Just think of the number of firearms owners who haven't even looked at their firearm for a decade - I know my father in law only saw his when I visited and took them down to re-oil them. I agree with what was said above - stories like this make our side look like idiots. There are enough good facts to support firearms ownership without ginning up bogus statistics.
 
41YJXJMOjcL.jpg
 
georgel said:
41YJXJMOjcL.jpg
Click to expand...
Agreed... interpretative and contextual questions that cannot be hashed, dashed and slice is typically used to support a hypothesis rather than reject a null hypothesis.

My $.02. "Using" to me means I have conveyed the message of "Don't" either through subtle or direct actions that lets a potential boogeyman know that if they do what I am thinking; it will not end well.

Example:
Walking out of a Hardware Store at night, walking to my truck. There was a lowered Honda with the engine running parked in the first non-handicap space that I had to walk by. This store is known to have people just walk out with goods and jump in a car and go.

As I walk by, 3 guys get out of the car and walk in my direction.... not the store.

I calmly pulled up my shirt to just readjust my 3 o'clock IWB rig and put my shirt down. I could see in a car's rear passenger window that the 3 guys immediately did a 180 and walked back to the car.

I did not fire the weapon or pulled it out. I didn't turn and face the outliers..... but I was actively watching them.

I just simply conveyed that this is not the droid you are looking for.

How do you account for that? Then, what are the number of event's that WOULD have occurred in such a scenario if I didn't have that firearm.

If you can answer those questions; then you have figured out how to measure the observations. (which is impractical and almost impossible)

Agreed 33% seems high... depending on the context.
 
I know dozens of people with guns. I can only think of one or two that ever used one in self defense. The one I definitely know of was my dad and all he did was pull a derringer on a crackhead trying to steal his car.
No way those numbers are legit.
 
Last edited:
My point is, are the inflated numbers so bad if it stirs controversy? Let the left disagree and let's debate it and bring out the fact that gun ARE used successfully to deter crime.
We want to play nice and the left is abusive with lies they pass off as truth. But, they influence the public belief with their lies.
I don't mind if the numbers are somewhat inflated as long as they're not blatant lies.
 
Ok... let me give you the situation and you all tell me if this qualifies as a defensive gun use.

A few months after I got my carry permit the wife and I ran to Walmart. We left the store with our stuff; as we went toward the car we noticed two youth mid 20s leaning on the wall 30 feet away from the door. They just watched as we went to the car at the 2nd slot in.

Wife got in the passenger seat as I opened the hatchback to put our stuff in. A camaro turned in, music blasting. I checked out the car and went back to loading. The 2 youth started walking briskly toward us. Suddenly there was a blast of noise just behind me. The camaro had stopped just a few feet past me, and the driver revved the engine several times. At that my wife saw the youth pick up their pace and she reached into her purse; at the sound I spun and reached under my shirt and acquired a grip on my pistol. The driver was looking over his shoulder at me; as I started my grip his eyes got really large and he dumped the clutch and hauled a$$. I checked the youts and they boogied back to the building and became quite interested in the construction of the wall. Wife said that when I spun and reached they hauled butt away. The camaro was still cranking when he got out of sight.

Ok... there it is. Experts... DGU or not?
 
Last edited:
An aside - one of the personal defense guru articles I remember reading a long time ago was about when finding yourself in a situation headed from yellow to orange/red to take your gun hand, place it on your hip (like a draw) whether you happen to be carrying or not. About avoiding the fight when possible.
 
rdinatal said:
What, wait?!? Someone threw a camera at you?

Seriously, sounds like you were going to get rolled.
Click to expand...
Lmao. Edited to fix autocorrect help...

But.. does this count as a defensive gun use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom