Free Minds & Free Markets

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

UPDATE: The paper discussed in this post below has been withdrawn by the author Gary Kleck after Reason brought to his attention an important detail first pointed out by Robert VerBruggen of National Review: Kleck in the original paper treats the CDC's surveys on defensive gun use as if they were national in scope, as Kleck's original survey was, but they were not. From VerBruggen's own looks at CDC's raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Kleck later produced a new version of the paper that recalculates the degree to which CDC's survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and a discussion of those fresh results can be found in this post published on September 4, 2018.

The original post follows:

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is "to advocate or promote gun control." (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"**—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Those polls, Kleck writes,

are high-quality telephone surveys of enormous probability samples of U.S. adults, asking about a wide range of health-related topics. Those that addressed DGU asked more people about this topic than any other surveys conducted before or since. For example, the 1996 survey asked the DGU question of 5,484 people. The next-largest number questioned about DGU was 4,977 by Kleck and Gertz (1995), and sample sizes were much smaller in all the rest of surveys on the topic (Kleck 2001).

Kleck was impressed with how well the survey worded its question: "During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?" Respondents were told to leave out incidents from occupations, like policing, where using firearms is part of the job. Kleck is impressed with how the question excludes animals but includes DGUs outside the home as well as within it.

Kleck is less impressed with the fact that the question was only asked of people who admitted to owning guns in their home earlier in the survey, and that they asked no follow-up questions regarding the specific nature of the DGU incident.

From Kleck's own surveys, he found that only 79 percent of those who reported a DGU "had also reported a gun in their household at the time of the interview," so he thinks whatever numbers the CDC found need to be revised upward to account for that. (Kleck speculates that CDC showed a sudden interest in the question of DGUs starting in 1996 because Kleck's own famous/notorious survey had been published in 1995.)

At any rate, Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."

Kleck figures if you do the adjustment upward he thinks necessary for those who had DGU incidents without personally owning a gun in the home at the time of the survey, and then the adjustment downward he thinks necessary because CDC didn't do detailed follow-ups to confirm the nature of the incident, you get 1.24 percent, a close match to his own 1.326 percent figure.

He concludes that the small difference between his estimate and the CDC's "can be attributed to declining rates of violent crime, which accounts for most DGUs. With fewer occasions for self-defense in the form of violent victimizations, one would expect fewer DGUs."

Kleck further details how much these CDC surveys confirmed his own controversial work:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."

NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.

For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.

However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year.

    This is why there's a reasonable hesitation to 'block' the CDC from studying gun violence. Gun violence isn't a disease, and the whole thing is tainted by bias and politics. People are legitimately afraid that the CDC will be pushing an agenda, and there's no reason to believe they won't.

  • ||

    People are legitimately afraid that the CDC will be pushing an agenda, and there's no reason to believe they won't.

    That they were, in fact, pushing an agenda is exactly why Congress de-funded their gun violence studies in the '90s. Which now circulates as "CDC forbidden to study truth about guns by nefarious NRA lobby."

  • Naaman Brown||

    Katherine Christoffel, M.D.: "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.... Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths." in Janice Somerville, "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, January 3, 1994, p. 9.

    Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control: "We're going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We're doing the most we can do, given the political realities."

    Dr. Mark Rosenberg, CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, 1994: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes.... Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly, and banned."

    Their theory is guns are the germ of gun violence and that eliminating the germ will cure the disease. A medical approach to a criminological problem. If I had to fit gun violence to a medical model, it would be the immune system failure model, not the germ theory.


  • Naaman Brown||


    CDC Additional Requirement 12 banned using grant money in violation of the Anti-lobbying Act. CDC is part of the Executive Branch and cannot use grant money from Congress to lobby Congress on specific legislation.

    The clique at CDC pushing the germ theory of gun violence to lobby Congress to act on their apriori assumptions on gun control gave rise to Additional Requirement 13: you can use grant money for empirical research on guns, you cannot use grant money to lobby for gun control. In other words, AR12 applied to the subject of guns too. This is usually represented in the media as barring research on guns.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "People are legitimately afraid that the CDC will be pushing an agenda, and there's no reason to believe they won't."

    They even SAID they were pushing an agenda. They weren't even pretending otherwise until doing so turned out to be unpopular.

  • Flinch||

    I'm not surprised. The Clintons were pretty consistent, and the methodology of the failed Hillary 'health care' instructs well. The conclusions were written before any of the medical professionals ever showed up to any summit or hearing for alleged "debate" - they sure weren't there to provide input. Also, with all the political capital used to shove through the Brady bill early in the Clinton administration, congress was not eager to show how stupid it is and there were no ears to hear [they rarely repeal bad law the same decade its passed anyway]. Bill on the other hand, was still stinging from the Waco debacle and breaching a topic that might crack open a discussion about whether or not religious people needed their guns more than ever to defend themselves against a government waging open war on citizens [that could have just been apprehended while out shopping/away from their weapons cache] simply was a no-go. I do remember the CDC did have a poltical prism handed to it during that time: there was a move on to demand doctors ask patients if they owned a gun, and the hacks were going to try to use that in some nefarious fashion, applying baseless risk assumptions and hiding behind children as evil statists are wont to do. Add too, the idiot secretary of education chiming in with her own fact free narrative about how most domestic violence was committed around the superbowl - the government under Bill was well aligned against the people.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why didn't you post this information earlier? Why am I seeing this so late in the day?

  • Texasmotiv||

    *lights the Hihn signal*

  • Microaggressor||

    You just want us to suffer.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [waves garlic]

  • Devastator||

    Gotta love the hot girls with guns meme (the photo). I'll wager 98% of the girls I've met on the range are not hot girls with guns.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    She looks like Phoebe from Friends.

  • Iheartskeet||

    hmmm she's a "buttaface" with poor trigger discipline

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    She looks angry. And not in the good way.

  • JeremyR||

    No, most are only moderately attractive

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They can't all be above average, after all.

  • ThomasD||

    Marginal Girls in Lara Croft Attire.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Actually I think hotness is above average on gun ranges I frequent;. Ugly women don't have much use for guns.

  • marshaul||

    You just need to go to better ranges.

    I live in Blacksburg, a college town containing one of the fittest campuses in the country. The girls here in general are well above average.

    The public range here is, when classes are in session, heavily populated by students.

    The result? The women I see at the range heavily skew towards well above-average.

  • Devastator||

    Good article; going in the archive.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I'm glad these surveys are finally being made public.

  • Longtobefree||

    But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

    The answer to the question is irrelevant; the constitution still has a second amendment.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, the CDC might as well 'study' the effects of Marxist literature on mental health.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns."

    Don't tell the "party of science" leftists who are always yammering that "reality has a liberal bias".

  • sarcasmic||

    You really think science means the scientific method, surveys and statistics? No, science is consensus. A consensus of really smart people say this survey doesn't matter, so that means it doesn't matter. Guns are bad in the hands of anyone except government angels. That's all the science the left needs.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The party of science is all for scientific inquiry that confirms its values and world view.

    Any inquiry that could possibly refute progressive values and world view is obviously pseudoscience. That why progressives know with certainty that the inquiries by contrarian sociologists like Charles Murray, contrarian 2nd Amendment types like John Lott and Gary Kleck, contrarian climate scientists like Judith Curry and Patrick Michaels, and contrarian environmentalists like Bjorn Lundberg and Patrick Moore are obviously the work of corporate shills engaged in pseudoscience. You can safely predict that any government-funded study in any of these fields will yield a politically correct result.

    However, progressives don't have a coherent ideology, so some difference still persists in a few fields of inquiry. For example, some are staunchly pro-vax to the extent that they essentially advocate coercive vaccination of the herd whereas others are staunchly anti-vax.

  • Henry||

    Are these the same "party of science" leftists who still insist humanity has 73 genders?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    There are 73 now? I have to go back and learn 26 more.

    And all of this for a population that doesn't understand their, there, and they're.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    But they'll tell you all about who, whom, whomst, and whomst'd've...

  • AZ Gunowner||

    That is right, the to right to self-defense, and therefor to arms, is not subject to cost/benefit considerations.

    It doesn't matter whether DGU's are 1, 100,000 or 2.4M per year, the right to self-defense is absolute. Therefore the right to arms is also.

  • ||

    That is right, the to right to self-defense most anything that isn't preemptory force against another human, and therefor to arms, is not subject to cost/benefit considerations.

    Skiing costs more lives than it saves every year. Skateboarding costs more lives than it saves every year. Killer whales cost more lives than they save every year. Vending machines cost more lives than they save every year....

  • Naaman Brown||

    Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig on the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms NSPOF that gave higher DGU numbers than Kleck and Gertz National Self Defense Survet NSDS:

    In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated
    or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the
    respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent
    with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF
    respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU
    criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the
    DGU was rape, robbery, or attack--but then responded "no" to a
    subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or
    injure you?"

    6 of 19 NSPOF DGU successful defenders did not count themselves as crime victims. What does that imply about the DGU numbers from the National Crime Vicitimisation Surevy NCVS? Hmmmm.

    The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS
    estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million
    from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the
    false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
    first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS
    respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question,
    falsely or otherwise.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Gun control advocacy is subject to cost benefit analysis. If ourbetters believe gun control impacts violent behavior, the Constitution be darnned to our betters. It is not as beneficial as they claim, it is more harmful than they recognize, and it is unconstitutional.

  • JSR2||

    Hmmm... The perpetrator discovers that his intended victim is armed. The perpetrator decides not to continue with the attempt. Is the intended victim still a victim?

    Perhaps the NCVS methodology biases the results just as badly as Cook and Ludwig claim is the case with the NSPOF?

  • ravenshrike||

    Taking the absolute low end of the CDC survey results at around 1.8 million, that means you're still looking at 1.23 million uses per year. Pretty big number that.

  • DesigNate||

    Which works out to about 35 dgu for every gun death in america.

  • Cy||

    No one is going to bring up the shitty trigger discipline?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No one? You are the second commentor to bring that up.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Perhaps her peripheral vision is on an intended target? (Maybe a gragoid from Tremors.

  • Naaman Brown||

    ... graboid from Tremors).

  • 1980-f||

    Oh, this is just silly. Using this set of statistics is just as biased as the way the gun control advocates use others. If there weren't so many guns around, you Americans wouldn't need to use them in defence. I don't have one. I don't want one. I am pretty sure I will never remotely need one. And that is, at least in part, because almost nobody in the UK owns a gun. I know there are many other factors, such as the high level of ownership in places such as Switzerland, but it is still true.

  • DaveSs||

    If there weren't so many guns around, you Americans wouldn't be able need to use them in defence


    Your presumption is that without guns around people would therefore cease having a need to engage in personal protection.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Each year 500 to 800 people are killed by unarmed attackers. More than are killed by atteackers using all rifles combined. Disarming the citizens empowers the thugs. The murder rate in London has exceeded the murder rate of New York City. Checkout the British Home Office Report #298 on the illegal market in firearms in England and Wells ten years after the 1996-1997 bans. Checkout the Michael Caine movie Harry Brown.

  • DesigNate||

    And that's using their bullshit metric of a murder occurring when someone is actually convicted.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Your decision not to own a gun is not a justification to demand a gun-free society, silly.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    If there weren't so many guns around, you Americans wouldn't need to use them in defence.

    Says the asshole living in a country currently afflicted by an epidemic of knifings.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Of course England doesn't want you to have guns. The imperialist bastards can't take over your country if you're well armed.

  • mr burns||

    Using statistics to show that firearms deter millions of crimes is just biased and silly. All inconvenient facts are silly. That communism always fails while murdering millions is just biased and silly. All of reality that I don't like is silly. But " I am pretty sure I will never remotely need one." even though London is not as safe as New York, the populace includes thousands who heartily endorse the idea of killing as many infidels as possible and England has far more home invasions that the USA does isn't a silly statement at all. Please don't stab me or throw acid in my face, after all that would be biased and silly.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    If you are a Brit faggot who won't fight back against a sandnigger mayor stabbing etc is what you have earned.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I think Mr Burns is being sarcastic.

    I hope.

    Sometimes it's hard to tell with anti-gunners, they are so biased and silly at times.

  • AdamB||

    Says the person who would be speaking German if it wasnt for trigger happy yanks....

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't have one. I don't want one. I am pretty sure I will never remotely need one.

    I own several. I want more. I am also pretty sure that I will never remotely need one. But I would rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

  • Henry||

    Let me fix that for you: "Only the WRONG people owns guns in the UK now."

    "U.K. knife and gun crime both increased 20 percent in the year ending September 2017"

    Whistle past as many graveyards as you choose.

  • TLBD||

    I find little difference between British people and teenage girls.

  • TLBD||

    I find little difference between British people and teenage girls.

  • TLBD||

    I find little difference between British people and teenage girls.

  • TLBD||

    The squirrels agree.

  • Clayton Cramer||

    So why has London's murder rate for the year just passed New York City?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Don't need a gun, don't need a knife, don't need free speech. That about sums up Great Britain; you can keep it asswipe. Sod off.

  • Deplorable Victor||


    All of it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Has anyone successfully accessed the paper itself? The link led to a rat maze of circularity.

  • susancol||

    Yes, I got the paper. Choose the "download pdf" option (well, that's what worked for me).

  • cuje||

    What does not get reflected in the statistics is the fact that the most frequent use of a gun in self defense involves merely brandishing the weapon, with no shots fired. Just showing the weapon scares off the bad guy. No statistic. Probably happens 100 times more frequently than actually firing a gun during an altercation.

  • sarcasmic||

    My gunsmith, who always has a Glock tucked into his waistband, told me a story that was pretty much that. He was in a convenience store and some dude was acting all nervous like he was psyching himself up to rob the place, and my friend simply lifted his shirt a bit. Dude left. Nothing else happened.

  • Ben of Houston||

    I actually had the same effect back in college. I was on the fencing team and routinely walked around campus (bad part of town) after dark with a sword or three on my back. I never had a problem. Some of my friends weren't so lucky, but the captain of the Aikido club enjoyed the practice from scaring muggers. Once they realized their prey could fight back, they ran every time.

  • Henry||

    The important datum to take away from this article is not the defensive utility of firearms, but the reliable cupidity of government agencies.

  • susancol||


  • LifeStrategies||

    When one survey has a vastly smaller Defensive Gun Usage count than all the others, it's an outlier, this time because it's not even asking the same question..

    The tiny number is no surprise at all because the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) stated outright that it's carried out by the Bureau of Justice - who can arrest anyone for even slightly questionably legal gun usage - actually recorded respondents' names and addresses, and asked about crimes rather than any direct questions about DGUs. No wonder its findings are some 97% lower than more comprehensive studies.

    Even anti-gun campaigner Marvin E. Wolfgang, who called himself "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among criminologists" in his seminal article - A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed - dismissed the notion that the NCVS contradicts the much larger number of DGUs found by Kleck and Gertz.


  • FlameCCT||

    "...Bureau of Justice - who can arrest anyone for even slightly questionably legal gun usage..."

    Which is why many people use coverage from USCCA (US Concealed Carry Association.)

  • Naaman Brown||

    Questioning protocol:
    1. Do you own a gun?
    (If the answer is yes, ask:)
    2. In the past year, have you used a gun in self defense?

    Gets different results than
    1. In the past year, have you used a gun in self defense?

    Of the four women in my immediate family who have used guns in self defense, one used a gun owned by her employer and one used a gun owned by her boyfriend and two owned the guns they used.

    Tom Smith questioned Gary Kleck's DGU stats because 40% of Kleck's defenders were women but only 20% of women report owning guns to surveyors.

    Either women use guns in self defense but don't personally own a gun (my experience) or women consider it none of a surveyor's business if they own a gun (Pew did a survey on that question and found even some Democrats who own guns would respond no) or maybe a combination of the two.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Errata: it was not Pew, it was Zogby
    Zogby Analytics Feb 25, 2015
    QUESTION: "If a national pollster asked you if you owned a firearm, would you determine to tell him or her the truth or would you feel it was none of their business?"
    36% of the random sample of Americans felt it was none of the pollster's business.

  • Ben of Houston||

    The biggest concern is that the CDC is being shown, like the EPA before it, to be hiding contrary evidence. Results of their research that contradict the desired result are suppressed.

    This is scientific malpractice 101, elementary school science fair level. All data must be presented, whether it agrees with your desired result or not. If you hide one thing, no one will believe you ever again, even if there was good reason to discount the outliers.

  • Nagita||

    Girls should defend themselves with karate & guns in this fucking 21st century. There is nothing wrong in it.

  • JohnH3||

    The link to Klecks paper doesn't work. Looks like the paper was removed. :(

  • Richard Rider||

    Here's a study I did, addressing the unfounded fear of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens:

    "Texas stats prove that 1.2+ million concealed carry permit holders seldom murder anyone"
    by Richard Rider


    About 5.9% of Texas adults have an active permit (paid up) -- over 1.2 million adults. The adult (18 and over) population of Texas in July, 2016 was 20,256,000.

    . . .

    Turns out that these heat packers are far less likely to shoot someone than the rest of the population. In 2016 there were 218 convictions for murder in Texas. Only 2 were CCW holders. Hence the NON-CCW adults -- the ones NOT allowed to carry a weapon in public -- are 6.8 times more likely to commit a murder than a CCW permit holder.

    . . .

    CCW holders, who constitute 5.9% of the adult population, committed 0.3458% of the crimes. Stated differently, the general Texas population commits crimes 17 times more often than CCW holders.

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, and though I'm too lazy to look it up, I like what happens if you compare CCW adults vs police officers.

    Yes, only the government is to be trusted with weapons!

  • MBaker||

    The link to the Kleck paper is not working. Does anyone have an updated link?

  • Absaroka||

    Dave Hardy snagged a copy; here it is on the Wayback Machine

  • Rockabilly||

    Who's the babe with the dog?

  • RodgerMitchell||

    "Confronted another person" is much different from self-defense. All it means is "Have you ever pulled your gun on anyone?" What would be the answer for a car-jacker? A robber? A serial killer? A mass murderer?

    Truly, the most biased question possible. No way to defend it. Another crap survey.

  • vek||

    I'd bet my left testicle that the reason this information never saw the light of day is exactly because it showed such a high number of defensive uses every year.

    If you accept that guns are used 3-4 times more often by good people protecting themselves than by bad people, it gets to be kinda hard to argue they should be taken away.

  • John Kirno||

  • LifeStrategies||

    The National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) surveys don't count the number of dgus in total, because its design ensured it would not. The NCVS stated outright that it was carried out by the Bureau of Justice and recorded the respondents' name and address. So survey respondents were required to identify themselves to the government department which could prosecute and imprison them for any illegal gun use. It also asked no direct questions about Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) and, unsurprisingly, found very few!

    Therefore the DGU estimate in the NCVS crime survey is much lower than the dozen or so other studies. But it is a proxy for those recorded in police statistics, since it excludes those in which the gun was not fired, no serious crime was committed and the DGU was not reported. Its shortcomings prompted the reason article explaining how to count the defensive uses of guns.

    So the DGU estimate in the NCVS crime survey is much lower than the dozen or so other studies. But it is a proxy for those recorded in police statistics, since it excludes those in which the gun was not fired, no serious crime was committed and the DGU was not reported.


  • TSTB||

    So, you are saying that the CDC is politically biased, or statistically illiterate?

  • MikeyParks||

    There should be a calculation of the number of multiple-victim shooting events that might have been stopped or ameliorated by a person legally carrying a gun. This would take in states with harsh, anti-2nd Amendment laws and/or events in gun-free zones.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online