The FBI Is Undercounting Firearm Self-Defense Incidents
"A couple million times a year, people use guns defensively," says economist and author John Lott.

Do you carry a gun?
Bad idea, says Hollywood. Civilians with guns are fools. You are more likely to hurt yourself than the bad guy.
"Leave it to a good guy with a gun to really screw things up," says a cop on ABC's The Rookie.
Liberal politicians agree.
"A good guy with a gun will stop bad guys with a gun?! It doesn't hold up," smiles New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.
"An adolescent rescue fantasy," adds an "expert" on CBS.
Now, I'm not a gun person. I was raised among lefty gun haters. I assumed Hollywood and "experts" were right.
When I saw economist John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime, I rolled my eyes. But now I understand that Lott makes a good point.
"A couple million times a year, people use guns defensively," he says in my new video. "When a civilian tries to stop one of these instances, they're overwhelmingly successful."
But FBI reports say self-defense with guns is rare.
"They're simply missing a huge number of cases," says Lott. He's posted a list of cases the FBI ignored, where civilians stopped shooters.
The FBI lists the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Forty-nine people were killed.
"One week afterwards," says Lott, "there was a similar attack at a nightclub in South Carolina."
But there, a civilian shot the attacker.
"Still had 125 rounds of ammunition on him when he was stopped!" says Lott.
Somehow, the FBI missed that case, along with so many others.
When 17 people were killed at Parkland, Florida, that got lots of news coverage.
Few people know that "just a few months later in Titusville, Florida, [at] an elementary school," says Lott, "a man came up, started firing his gun. Fortunately, a hot dog vendor [with a] concealed handgun was able to wound the attacker and stop him before he was able to kill."
"Stepped in and saved a lot of people's lives," said a local police officer.
But the FBI somehow missed that, too.
Lott's list of ignored cases includes the story of Raul Mendez, who was at a party when a guest opened fire.
"Bullet enters right by my ear, goes straight through my face and out my left eye….Blind from one eye and covered in blood, I unloaded four rounds and finished him off."
Mendez probably saved the lives of a dozen people at that party.
I tell him, "The FBI records instances like this, but somehow they have no record of your case."
"They're not recording the true numbers," Mendez replies.
I ask Lott why.
"There's a lot of political views that infect their data," he says. "I had interactions with the people in the FBI.…I had people tell me, 'Well, I'm a Democrat.'"
I push back. "The FBI, who carry guns, are anti-gun? It's not believable."
"They think that it would go against the narrative that they want to push," answered Lott.
Stossel TV asked the FBI why they don't include self-defense cases like Mendez's. They replied that their data is "not intended to explore all facets of active shooter incidents."
Too bad politicians and the media don't realize that.
"It'd be great if we could just make all guns disappear," says Lott. "But when you ban guns, it's basically the most law-abiding good citizens who obey. Every place in the world that's banned all guns or all handguns has seen murder rates go up."
So-called experts like a psychiatrist featured on Detroit's CBS station confidently say, "There haven't been good guys with a gun who stop mass shootings. It's the kind of thing you learn reading comic books!"
Mendez replies: "I was prepared, and it saved lives. There's no comic book story about that. Those are facts. That's what happened. I was there. I'm sure there's many more out there that go unheard."
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
*looks around nervously*
...but it isn't under counting violent crime.
Such an obvious sentiment given the article from CJ barely a day ago. "You can't trust FBI numbers, but also, crimerates are way down."
Lott does a lot of good work. I highly recommend his newsletter.
No I have read from many reliable sources on Reddit (hundreds of upvotes!) that everything he has written has been completely debunked.
As everyone knows, Abe Lincoln once said "everything you read on Reddit is true, unless you don't like what it says, then it's false. "
Oh, well. If Reddit says so it must be true.
Reddit credibility ranks up there with "The Onion," "The Babylon Bee," and "The National Inquirer," so Reddit's research must be top shelf.
OK, so forget Reddit; the FACT that Lott’s conclusions are extremely suspect has been explored in many venues, including, for example, Scientific American.
Here’s a column from Media Matters: https://www.mediamatters.org/john-lott/updated-john-lott-tries-substantiate-his-debunked-assertions-repeating-them
Note how when challenged, Lott’s response is typically: “Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash.”
And then he claims complete amnesia about ANY corroborating facts.
And no, I’m not some liberal with an axe to grind; just the opposite. I’m a fire-breathing 2A activist, who bought A LOT of Lott’s book, so that I could hand them out to my less gun-friendly crew. Imagine my chagrin (and yes, anger) to find out that Lott was just another liar.
If you can’t see it, I envy you–when I’m slogging through knee-high horseshit, I have to smell it.
And how the hell can Stossel be ignorant of this history?
Act Blue and Scientific American? Get fucked.
This "history" is insinuated bullshit itself. Lott's data for one study was of corrupted. But he has repeated the data over the last 20 years in a variety of co-authored studies.
The typical criticism of Lott goes like this:
Lott does a study with a conclusion that troubles the anti-gun folk. The Mom's Against financed academics critique the Lott study, pointing out that Lott's conclusion isn't valid because he omitted included "xyz". Lott replies to the critics and shows that he did in fact include "xyz". The critique author's go away with no response to the challenge.
The media, politicians, and anti-gun fanatics then repeat that the Lott study was "debunked", while in fact it was NOT debunked, and they coyly ignore the Lott reply to the "debunking".
Rinse. Repeat.
The Bee is more accurate than they want to be, most of the time, unfortunately.
Sarc strawman: Everyone here hates Stossel because he once said something negative about trump.
Guess what other statistics they are chronically undercounting?
Crime is down, GDP is up, we're at full employment... if there was ever a reason to strategically and reluctantly vote, I'd say this is it.
Inflation only matters if it causes the price of TVs to go up. Food? Gas? Housing? Those prices aren't inflation.
Only a Trump cultist would not believe the FBI. Obviously, releasing millions of violent criminals from prison would have no bearing on crime.
Wait, when were the millions of violent criminals released from prison?
Does this mean the FBI can't be trusted on other things, like say crime statistics?
What annoys me is that no one is spending any time trying to figure out what the real story is with that data. Ciaramella's last article about crime was basically, "Sure the data isn't complete but its good enough for me!"
This reminds me of the initial days of the pandemic when everyone was like, "OMG WE ARE HITTING THE TOP OF THE CURVE! HOSPITALS ARE DUE TO RUN OUT OF BEDS!"
And no one actually showed up at hospitals to see if they were overrun...No one even CALLED the hospitals to figure out what was going on. They were all using the stupid models put out by the pro-lockdown "Flatten the Curve" pundits.
What annoys me even more is Reason had multiple articles about the deficiencies of the FBI crime database just 2 years ago, but now accepts it.
We have entities that do citizen surveys to estimate crime, and it shows a large increase as compared to the government data. Just like the worker survey and federal employment data became wildly divergent just 3 years ago.
"Does this mean the FBI can’t be trusted on other things, like say crime statistics?"
Yes ... or official investigations ... or Federal criminal charges ... or Congressional testimony ... or
The FBI Is Undercounting Firearm Self-Defense Incidents
Of course they are. They’re proven liars and allies with the political party that wants to abolish the 2A.
This CAN'T be true! Misinformation is only promulgated by extremist cranks, not people like the Honorable High Mucketymuck Tushbottom! If we can't believe the pronouncements of our own elected and appointed officials, then who CAN we trust?!
So Garland is going to speak denouncing "dangerous" and "outrageous" attacks on DoJ prosecutors and personnel.
What are these dangerous and outrageous attacks?
"These attacks have come in the form of conspiracy theories, dangerous falsehoods, efforts to bully and intimidate career public servants by repeatedly and publicly singling them out, and threats of actual violence," Garland will say. "It is dangerous and outrageous that you have to endure them."
Conspiracy theories - Thoughts / speech
Dangerous falsehoods - Opinions / speech
Singling them out - Cancel cultures / speech
Threats of actual violence - This one I'll give credit for.
Government is targeting your thoughts, opinions, and speech. I'm guessing me posting this falls under #1.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/attorney-general-merrick-garland-to-denounce-dangerous-and-outrageous-attacks-on-doj-prosecutors-and-personnel/ar-AA1qsziH?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=1b034e14e8fd40e4acc79b9913c7d830&ei=46
Two comments:
1. There was a mall shooter several years ago, shot by a CCW carrier from something like 50 yards away, and there were not enough dead to trigger the FBI’s 4 dead requirement.
2. Someone got curious about this 4-dead requirement and researched various news source to find 100 (very much ?) spree killings, as I think he called them, conducted in public and not against co-workers, family, etc. The vast majority with low body count had been stopped by a member of the public, either scaring the killer into committing suicide or running away, or killing him. The vast majority with at least 4 dead were stopped by police.
I used to have a link to the guy’s web page, but can’t find it now. I’ll keep looking. --ETA found the link, it's dead. http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
The lesson was clear: the first responders are the people at the scene who see it and respond immediately. Police have to get there, they don’t know what has happened or where anybody is, and by the time they figure it out, a lot of people have died.
The wayback machine has a copy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120803025549/http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
Even the FBIs own 'Active Shooter Incidents' reporting reflects this or similar. The vast majority (like 65%) of shootings stop when the shooter commits suicide or flees the scene. Of the ones resolved at the scene, the shooter commits suicide or is subdued or stopped by civilians at the scene was the second greatest outcome. *Armed* officers *engage and kill* the shooter at the scene and *unarmed* civilians *attack and subdue* the shooter at the scene had the exact same number of incidents/relative frequency.
It should be noted that, between the two sources, that the FBI and/or DOJ (re)defined, not entirely unjustifiably (e.g. excluding love triangles and domestic violence), a mass shooting as distinct from active shooters via the "3 or more dead" criteria.
Not to entirely exculpate the FBI/DOJ but some to a lot of this is intentional specific ambiguity at levels outside the FBI. If a guy starts shooting in a local park, hits no one, and the hot dog vendor shoots and stops him, it's not the FBI's job to go interrogate the shooter, figure out how many victims he intended to kill, and report it as a prevented mass shooting or other, it's the local PD or DA's job to figure that out and report it to the FBI.
That said, that's no excuse for the "The FBI data says you're wrong and that's the irrefutable facts." reporting that Reason spouts.
Technically, unless a Federal law is broken, a Federal Employee is involved or if the FBI is asked to assist, the FBI has no business being involved in any shooting. The only reason for it's involvement is because such shootings are being made political issues..
“…and by the time they figure it out, a lot of people have died.”
Those are proper mass shootings. I recall a few years ago where an armed church member in Texas shot an killed the shooter, who had claimed 2 victims. A media quote was literally “that armed church member was the most dangerous aspect of this incident.”
MSM and progressives want a body count, because it serves their purpose [of exerting greater control over the populace]; those damned deplorables who take out shooters [like Eli Dicken in Indiana] just muck things up for them.
I was surprised to find a report saying the 4-dead limit was established by Mother Jones or some other lefty rag, and that the FBI had copied it. Whether that's true or not, it still surprises me that they have the same limit.
I can only conclude they are more interested in scaring the public than stopping these spree/rampage killers.
Whether that’s true or not, it still surprises me that they have the same limit.
This is between speculative and retcon.
Logistically, 3+ makes sense as, otherwise, you're counting domestic disputes and drug deals gone bad as 'mass shootings'.
Again, not that 3+ definitively excludes the DV or drug dealing shootings but, strictly statistically/mathematically, if you're undercounting self-defense incidents at 3+ homicides, increasing it to 4 or 5+ homicides doesn't reduce and likely increases the missed number of self-defense incidents.
3/4 is arbitrary nonsense. The dead don't care one way or another. Families of 4 or 5 don't accept their fate any better than a childless couple.
You had to bring childless cat ladies into this, didn't you?
by the time they figure it out a lot of people have died
.... well at least 4 I guess. That number wasnt chosen randomly - it effectively filters out events that go against the narrative.
The metric of ‘4 victims makes a mass shooting’ statistic will eventually get buried deeper than a thing that gets buried deeply that you don’t ever want dug up. Trust me on this.
*looks at list of perpetrators*
Uhh...
"An adolescent rescue fantasy," adds an "expert" on CBS.
Hitting an active shooter with a folding chair while someone else spear tackles him like a goddamned a WWE tag team match is an exceedingly adolescent rescue fantasy too. I'd say saving a governor from a kidnapping plot set up by a rogue Michigan militia is an adolescent rescue fantasy as well.
So... was there a point to calling it an adolescent rescue fantasy or are you just up there at the podium identifying things as adolescent rescue fantasies for your poor, ignoble and ignorant subjects, princess?
And consider the events in which a robber or attacker is scared away just by the prospective victim showing a gun, without a shot fired.
Brandishing a gun without the resolve to use it unhesitatingly can be a surefire way to escalate the situation not necessarily to the advantage of the defender. ie Showing a gun you are reluctant to use is not a good idea.
True but irrelevant. Jerry's point is that brandishing is a legitimate defensive use that is also ignored in the FBI statistics.
I imagine there are all sorts of situations that are ignored in the FBI statistics. Brandishing a toy or prop gun, claiming you have a firearm but don't, etc.
One difficulty that comes to mind is if we have two 'civilians' exchanging gunfire. Both are attacking each other, both are defending themselves from the other. How do you want the FBI to record the incident? Two instances of the use of firearms in self defense? One? Zero?
The bottom line here is that politicians are citing official lies promulgated by the FBI and DoJ. Some of them KNOW that they're repeating lies for effect and some of them are just ignorantly repeating lies because the lies support their own opinions or those of their constituents and they don't want to find out that they're lies.
"The bottom line here is that politicians are citing official lies promulgated by the FBI and DoJ."
I don't see any bottom line. Stossel doesn't get into what exactly the FBI is counting or how. Without getting into the details of what constitutes a life saved thanks to guns, politicians and pundits with their own agendas and constituencies are going to use the issue for themselves. I need more details before we start talking about the bottom line.
The gun doesn't have to be brandished in the face of a violent attack to be a defensive use. Deterring violence is the most common "use". The abused woman who includes a pistol as a supplement to a worthless protective order deters a visit from her abuser. The urban jeweler who tends to his customers with a visible pistol holstered on his belt is using the gun defensively by deterring robberies. The fact that a burglar by-passes a house because the residents may be home (and might shoot him, because gun ownership is common in the community) is guns doing their intended job, with no statistic for the FBI. A hiker in the woods who shoots a rabid coyote is a defensive use that never makes the crime reports. The list goes on.
I see how we arrive at the 'couple million lives saved every year.' Everyone who lives in a house with a gun and hasn't been murdered can be added to those whose lives have been saved by gun possession. The pistol packing jeweler, too. I'm not persuaded.
You might not be persuaded, but the rational criminal is.
Everyone living in a house with a gun and is not murdered is included in the yearly count of those whose lives were saved by guns? It's absurd. Do you also contend that everyone living in a house with a door lock and is not murdered should be included in the yearly count of those whose lives are saved by door locks? That's absurd, too.
Stossel seems to be undercounting use of firearms in self defense, whether intentionally or not. All his anecdotes involve use of firearms by humans defending themselves (or others) against other humans. How about attacks by bears, wolves and other beasts of prey? Not a mention.
And getting back to humans defending themselves against attacks by other humans, why the focus on firearms? Surely knives, swords, brass knuckles, piano wire, lead pipes, broken bottles and like have been successfully employed in self defense. All cheaper and less controversial than the use of firearms. Not a mention by Stossel or presumably the FBI.
And less effective too. There are reasons why police and military have firearms as primary weapons, not lead pipes and broken bottles. Firearms are the weapons most effective in making people approximately equal in terms of ability to defend oneself.
Police and military are not issued firearms to protect themselves. We're talking about self defense, which means defending oneself. It doesn't have to mean killing an attacker, an action whose finality means that can't be undone. I'd feel more comfortable dealing with an assailant with a non-lethal comb raked across their eyes, or pepper spray, than using a firearm that's far more likely to end in death of one or both of us.
Good for you. Many people would rather have a gun. Especially people with others to protect or who don't have the physical strength to use the sorts of weapons you are talking about.
"Many people would rather have a gun."
That's not surprising given the place of pride our culture gives to gun play and those who use them. Everyone aspires to be the 'fastest draw in the West.' It doesn't take a lot of physical or moral strength to use pepper spray or a comb across the eyes.
Firearms kept at home meant to protect family members are responsible for over a thousand accidental deaths of children over a period studied according to the CDC, not the FBI. More than 80% of the victims were boys. Children 11 to 15 were hardest hit, accounting for a third of the deaths. These firearms are often stored, loaded, in Hollywood style, conveniently in a night stand chest of drawers.
I'm not saying guns have no place in self defense, just that they will tend to fatally escalate a situation when de-escalation might be the preferred solution.
If you're going to quote the CDC, why not also bring up the CDC study a few years ago on preventable deaths that estimated between 200,000 to 1,000,000 defensive uses of firearms per year?
I believe the CDC tried hiding the study a few years later (around 2022) when that study was being quoted repeatedly by people to show exactly what this article is discussing.
"If you’re going to quote the CDC, why not also bring up the CDC study a few years ago on preventable deaths that estimated between 200,000 to 1,000,000 defensive uses of firearms per year?"
I wasn't aware of it. Are you aware of any studies on deaths prevented by other means than firearms? Just to get a perspective? How many deaths were prevented by fleeing, or a karate chop to the throat, or just complying with the assailant?
The million a year number sounds fishy.
""Still had 125 rounds of ammunition on him when he was stopped!" says Lott."
Does that mean 125 deaths were prevented? It seems any statistics are going to be problematic to someone. Not to mention highly politicized, in a way that simply running away from a gun man will never be.
How many deaths were prevented by fleeing, or a karate chop to the throat, or just complying with the assailant?
I’d be interested in those stats if politicians were trying to pass laws against fleeing, having hands, or complying.
But since we’re already free to flee, own hands, and comply as much as we like, there’s no particular need to mount a statistical defense for any of them.
"I’d be interested in those stats if politicians were trying to pass laws against fleeing, having hands, or complying."
I'd be interested regardless of what politicians think. We are talking about self defense, but some confuse this with arguing for or against the use of guns, which is a hot and emotional political issue with deep cultural resonance. Guns can certainly be helpful in self defense but my concern is they ratchet up the escalation in a confrontation too fast and too far.
"there’s no particular need to mount a statistical defense for any of them."
I wouldn't ask for a statistical defense, just a comparison between various tactics and strategies used to defend oneself in a tight spot. Guns are near the top of the escalatory ladder. There are many steps in between that may be preferable.
Safe bet you haven't had much close up and personal exposure to human violence. Please, just say it: those who chose guns should just shoot the assailant in the leg to stop the attack.
"those who chose guns should just shoot the assailant in the leg to stop the attack."
Better to aim for mass. The middle of the chest. That's one thing I've learned from the commenters here. If you don't wish to kill your assailant, choose a more appropriate weapon.
Even going by the low end, it vastly dwarfs the number of gun homicides each year.
It's not an either-or thing. Almost all accidents happen at home because that's where most people spend the most time. The failure of parents to maintain gun safety at home is not an argument against gun ownership or concealed or open carry. It's an argument for better parenting. Sometimes members of the public respond badly to an incident in public with a gun too, but that is also not an argument against carrying in public. Let's get some logic into this please.
" It’s an argument for better parenting. "
Even bad parents want to protect their children. There are millions of guns out there, and some of their owners are bad parents.
I'm arguing that guns have their place, but if your aim is to come out of a violent confrontation alive, and ensure the safety of your children, guns are not always the answer. Pulling out a pistol and hesitating, even for a second, could get you and your family killed, for example.
That's why we need common-sense comb control!
Kookie better not lend his!
"The FBI Is Undercounting Firearm Self-Defense Incidents."
Gee, I wonder if the FBI's undercounting has anything to do with they're part of the Biden team?
"FBI’s undercounting "
What is the FBI's count? Do they keep any statistics of the use of firearms in self defense? The term 'undercounting' implies there is some effort to count, but what is it? Presumably it's less than the 'couple of million' times each year that Lott refers to.
Who in the hell defends the FBI? Oh, that's right--a hoplophobic sea lion.
I'm asking what the FBI count is. I'd also like to know how they arrive at whatever figure they come up with. Stossel provides us with neither. He only claims that someone claims 'a couple million each year' defend their lives with firearms. I'm skeptical, aren't you?