The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Defensive Gun Use Among Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians
As I mentioned yesterday, there's a new survey aimed at determining patterns of gun ownership and defensive gun use, from Prof. William English at the Georgetown University. It's much larger than most other such surveys, with over 54,000 adult American respondents, of whom over 16,700 personally owned guns.
The large sample allows the survey to give much more reliable information about subcategories of the U.S. population, for instance getting a sense of gun ownership rates by state (ranging from 16%, or about half the national level, in Massachusetts, to 54%, or more than half above the national level, in Idaho). My own California, generally seen as a state with very heavy gun regulations, is still not far below the average, at 25%. Even deepest-of-deep-blue D.C. is at 24% (though with a higher margin of error, 16% to 35%).
It also gives more reliable information about demographic subgroups. Gun ownership was reported by:
- 25.4% of black respondents.
- 28.3% of Hispanic respondents.
- 19.4% of Asian respondents.
- 34.3% of white respondents.
- 38.2% of American Indian respondents (information not in report, but supplied to me separately by Prof. English).
But black and Hispanic gun owners report a higher rate of defensive use of the guns they do own than do whites (and the differences is statistically significant); defensive uses were reported by
- 44.3% of black gun owners.
- 39.3% of Hispanic gun owners.
- 26.0% of Asian gun owners.
- 29.7% of white gun owners.
- 47.7% of American Indian gun owners.
Multiplying out yields estimates of about 18% of American Indian respondents and 11% of the black and Hispanic respondents reporting having used a gun defensively, and about 10% of the white population, though only about 5% of the Asian respondents. (As other surveys report, the defensive uses are much more often displaying the gun or saying something like "I have a gun!" than actually shooting the gun.) There thus seems to be virtually no racial disparity in reported defensive gun use among the three largest racial/demographic groups in the U.S.
There's more interesting stuff in the survey, which I hope to report on in later posts. One general note: Surveys of course have various limitations, including that respondents might err (deliberately or inadvertently), yielding either overcounts or undercounts. Still, for questions such as this, a well-designed survey is pretty much the only game in town, since there generally aren't other ways of measuring gun ownership or defensive gun use. (Many defensive gun uses, for instance, might not even get reported to the police, for instance if a gun user scares away a burglar: The gun user might think there's no point in reporting, especially if he didn't see the burglar's face clearly, and might even worry that there's some risk, for instance if he's not sure that his gun ownership is technically legal. If the crime is reported, the gun user might not mention the gun use. And if the gun user mentions the gun use, that might not get stored in police records in a way that could then be aggregated with similar information from other records.)
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The gun user might think there's no point in reporting,"
.... or get arrested. see the recent Baltimore incident where the good samaritan stopped a robbery, probably saved some lives, and then got arrested. He did not even have to brandish the gun.
Do not be a good Samaritan in the hood! It's unfortunate but these tend to be setups.
Call 911 and tell them driver needs assistance.
not the hood, a Fells Point bar. google it.
Yea I believe you. Just overall be wary of the Good Samaritan thing.
Damn, all you folks see this beachball sitting on a tee and nobody hits it?
Truer words never spoken I'm EMT-I, and I won't lift a finger if I'm not on the job or know the person. I will certainly not involve myself in a DGU for anyone I don't know. The road to jail is paved with Dood Samaritans.
What is the useful life of a survey or poll? Prof. English's survey was taken about a year and a half ago. Since then, at least according to most reports, gun sales and crime have increased dramatically. How might this have affected the results of that poll?
Did they ask Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend?
I hope you aren't blaming the victim here.
Like Ashley Babbitt?
Black man in dangerous situation draws his gun. Police arrive, seeing 1) black man with gun + 2) dangerous situation. The police, relieved, say, “We’re glad you took care of this by exercising your Second Amendment rights!” and help him out.
hahahaha
Yep, I guess you are blaming the victim here.
The dangerous situation here was all of the cops own making, not Breonna Taylor or her Boyfriend.
Now I suppose people who are dealing drugs should be on notice that the police could raid there apartments, but law abiding citizens who have no reason to expect police raids in the middle of the night. And no blame should attach to his law abiding reaction to an illegal home invasion.
My initial thoughts are that the racial differences may be primarily socioeconomic in nature, and often a result of where you live. I grew up, and spent almost all of my life, in safe, white, upper middle class environs. The only two exceptions were in my 20s (primarily, PG County, MD) and for three years recently on the west side of PHX. We lived there in a very nice new subdivision, with big houses, but it was located within an area of town with less desirable locals, and a lot more sketchy people. We ultimately moved across town, right next to N Scottsdale, after my wife got tired of our backyard getting lit up at night by police choppers. And that was when I arguably used a handgun defensively. I would sometimes run into gang bangers at the Walmart/McDonalds about a half a mile away late at night. The eyes of several of them would be tracking me, as I walked across the parking lot. I would use my elbow to print my gun, as I stared at their leader. They would respond by looking elsewhere. They knew that I knew that they were watching me, and that I was armed and watching them. Onto easier prey. It wasn’t just once, but maybe once a month. Enough to know that I wasn’t imagining it.
The sad reality is that the farther down the socioeconomic ladder you are, the more likely you are to face violence. And that socioeconomic ladder has a significant racial correlation. If you don’t live around criminals and the occasional violent predators, you are much less likely going to need to use a gun defensively. Worst (except for Indians) are minorities living in densely packed, poor, inner city communities, where Blacks are greatly over represented.
And yet the voters in high violence areas are in favor of gun control. Explain.
Got a basis for your statement?
They are in favor of a lot of self destructive policies. Unfortunately I think the "gimme dat" racial preference stuff trumps other issues that they should be giving priority.
"And yet the voters in high violence areas are in favor of gun control. "
Dude, they vote for Democrats, they're just not very good at voting.
And yet the voters in high violence areas are in favor of gun control. Explain.
Voters in high violence areas tend to not be the most educated and well-informed segments of society. I'm sure you can relate.
Which means they deserve no agency, says the anti-elitist.
I haven’t heard a non-racist explanation yet. Have you?
I haven’t heard a non-racist explanation yet. Have you?
So all I reference is "high violence areas" and the undisputable fact that residents in such areas tend to not be well-educated/informed...and you immediately jump to some sort of conclusion about race? It sounds like some self-reflection is in order for you, you hypocritical dipshit.
If you use ‘tend’ to implement a blanket generalization, you are pre judging individuals.
Predjudice.
And it is, if not explicit, at least co-located with black population centers, just ask that Isaac guy below.
Why are you not following the science?
If you use ‘tend’ to implement a blanket generalization, you are pre judging individuals.
Predjudice.
And it is, if not explicit, at least co-located with black population centers, just ask that Isaac guy below.
Your eyes must be a deep shade of brown, as utterly full of shit as you are.
“They vote for Democrats” is three posts up from your nonsense post. You might not agree with it as an explanation but it’s certainly non-racist.
Saying that it is makes you look like a race-baiting moron.
Here's one: Regardless of race a larger percentage of voters in large urban areas vote for the party of gun control (Democrats) than those in suburban and rural areas.
What do I win?
Which means they deserve no agency
No, you lying sack of shit....it means nothing of the sort. I was answering a question.
They want gun control. But they don’t get it. Which you explain by the fac that they’re probably ignorant.
Yeah you may not have typed it, but you did say it,
Ooh. “Gun control”. That’s a glittering generality. Describe a “gun control” scheme that will succeed in making the violent lawbreakers that do so much damage in minority neighborhoods put their guns down and behave like the decent people they victimize.
Opinions on policy effectiveness is not the issue we are discussing here.
Opinions on policy effectiveness is not the issue we are discussing here.
As you've already demonstrated, you don't have the faintest idea what is being discussed here.
Of course it isn't. If it was you would either have to admit gun control isn't effective or just lie about it.
It’s about political voice, it’s not even subject specific.
‘These people want this policy they are not getting. Why?’
‘Because they are ignorant’ is a fucked up answer to that question. There are plenty of potential answers - that one is bad. Undemocratic. Elitist,
Well, I didn’t call anyone ignorant.
All of us have policies that we want that we aren’t getting. I have a whole bunch. Am I being oppressed.
And it probably doesn’t help that the specific policy you’re discussing is close to unconstitutional, if not absolutely unconstitutional.
I want us to have a 30 year old hottie for president. But it can’t happen. Come and see the oppression inherent in the system!!!
I didn’t say you called anyone ignorant.
No, you can’t analogies you as an individual to black prior in cities.
Why? If I can’t get policies I want and they can’t get policies they want, we’re pretty much the same. And if those policies are unconstitutional we’re precisely the same.
You’re making assumptions simply because of race that don’t necessarily apply. Just because a group of black people are disappointed by an outcome doesn’t automatically mean that it was caused by racism.
‘These people want this policy they are not getting. Why?’
‘Because they are ignorant’ is a fucked up answer to that question.
No, it's a rational and fact-based answer to the actual question (which was not the paraphrased bullshit you typed above).
Care to provide facts other than that they are undereducated and ignorant?
Care to provide facts other than that they are undereducated and ignorant?
Care to demonstrate that you're capable of something even remotely resembling an even semi-honest argument?
They want gun control. But they don’t get it. Which you explain by the fac that they’re probably ignorant.
Yeah you may not have typed it, but you did say it,
You really are as dumb as a bag of hammers. Even if that is what I said (and it isn't, because you're also a lying sack of shit as we all know) it still doesn't mean "they deserve no agency". But that's irrelevant, because the question was...
"And yet the voters in high violence areas are in favor of gun control. Explain."
The challenge was to explain why the wanted it, not why they didn't get (or "deserve") it, you dumb SOB.
Dig up next time.
Kiss my ass, you lying sack of shit.
You are the one that said blacks like stuff you don’t like because they are undereducated and ignorant.
But now you protest naw their policy preferences are bad because they are dumb. Maybe you have more nuanced policy reasons but you didn’t bother to include them.
The left does the same shit about the South generally. They suck too.
You are the one that said blacks like stuff you don’t like because they are undereducated and ignorant.
OK, mission accomplished. After all these years I've finally had my fill of your nonsense...you lying sack of shit.
Because those voters are mostly blacks, so they want whites disarmed so that their "brothers," who will carry regardless, can rob them.
"And yet the voters in high violence areas are in favor of gun control. Explain"
It's cause and effect: They vote for gun control, they get to live in a high violence area.
Bullshit, Brett. They want gun control because they’re tired of getting shot at.
Doesn't matter. They're getting shot at because they vote for gun control, which actually makes things worse, no matter what they imagine it will do.
Voting to disarm yourself because somebody else is attacking you is dead stupid. You can't reasonably expect it to improve anything.
But this would hardly be the first time in history people responded to a problem by voting for something that would make it worse.
Because criminals are the most law abiding group of people. How does that logic even work?
False consciousness.
(Hey, if Commies can use that excuse, why can't I?)
Also, higher rates of Defensive Gun Uses among minorities are likely driven by the fact they live in high crime areas.
They are also poorer than average. High cost of permitting (hours/time+ $$$) also means its much harder for them to get a permit and makes it more likely they carry illegally, because the need is greater.
There are few things leftists hate more than defensive gun use by minorities. Don't believe me? Check out the rest of the comments by the usual suspects.
They hate any defensive use by anyone. Look at how the black Bragg in New York City charged Jose Alba with stabbing one of Bragg's violent "brothers."
Professor Volokh is famously numerate. Here he induces outlandish confusion by encouraging innumerate gun fans to speculate in detail on the basis of garbage statistics. The comments show that process began promptly.
This was a survey of respondents free to self-select, each using their own subjective criteria to define defensive gun use. Volokh's disclaimer shows he understands what nonsense that process was. It is not in any way improved by sleight of hand such as, "This is the best we have." That is nonsense. It is worse than nothing. It is an encouragement to belief in falsehoods.
Experience shows that whatever falsehoods win favor among gun advocates will soon win accustomed place in the canon of gun pedantry. Anyone suggesting doubts, or denying such sanctified twaddle will be denounced as ignorant.
When controversial issues get debated, degraded commentary is all too common. It arises naturally. It doesn't need the kind of expert encouragement Professor Volokh gives it here.
Better data is always welcome. Ignoring less than perfect data is willful ignorance.
To ignore it would be to dismiss it without even trying to justify why it shouldn’t be used. Considering it and arguing that it isn’t reliable enough to be used to draw any useful conclusions is not ignoring it in any way, shape, or form.
You misspelled "hand-waving".
But Lathrop didn't do that. He just said, "I don't like what the data says."
Nieporent, no. I said I do not like the methods used to collect the, "data." A term which in this case can only serve to dignify twaddle.
So-called, "defensive," gun use which does not even rise to the level of contemporaneous public notice must remain suspect until evaluated factually. It cannot legitimately be publicly defined by its perpetrators on the basis of their own self-interested, subjective impressions. But here we have a survey which purports to do that.
Consider the more-formal purpose of this survey. It was intended to be used, and was used, to materially encourage laws which make it easier and more acceptable for people to threaten each other with guns. Built into the survey method by implication was encouragement to think threatening gun conduct can be defined as publicly virtuous, "self-defense," entirely on the basis of the gun wielders' own opinions.
There is far too much of that conduct already. Much of it amounting not to defensive gun use, but to assault—a result the survey's lax methodology encourages. I have personal experience of that kind of assault, which could be anomalous, but isn't.
Talk to people who grew up black in gun-wielding communities and you will elicit accounts which make my experiences—so shocking, apparently, that I cannot repeat them without being accused of making them up—pretty tame by comparison. Plenty of Americans experience even before they reach adulthood intimidating and threatening gun conduct more commonplace than any tales I have to tell. Too many people get needlessly injured or killed because of that conduct. To create pro-gun ideology to make that seem acceptable is at best unwise. I call it reckless.
But you really do not even need to talk to anyone. Just read the bristling commentary from gun advocates on this blog. They prove in every gun-related thread how far from sober self-restraint they are. They prove it even while professing their self-restraint. Make it a point to notice, how often reassurances about responsibility and restraint veer off course into boasts about personal attributes and gun prowess.
What I do not like is pretense that routine intimidation and assault with guns is a social virtue. Recklessly constructed, purpose-built research to further more of it? I don't welcome that either. Nobody should.
That was a very long winded way of saying, "Yes, you're right; I don't like what the data says."
"The survey respondents could be lying" is a potential flaw in all surveys. Now if you're prepared to say, as Bob from Ohio does, that you reject every survey result, that would be one thing. But you don't. You just reject this one because you don't like its implications.
If the survey were, "Have you ever been the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace?" or "Have you ever been subject to excessive use of force by law enforcement?", or "Have you ever been the victim of a crime?", I don't believe you'd be arguing that the surveys were invalid because they rely on the subjective views of respondents rather than something Lathrop-approved. Obviously people who feel they were victims of these things are not unbiased. That does not mean that we should throw out all such surveys as having "lax methodology."
Nieporent, your comparison examples will achieve relevance as soon as courts are actively promulgating law to empower the classes you mention to intimidate with arms, or even kill their oppressors. If that were to happen, I would object on the same basis I object to these shoddy, "defensive gun use" surveys.
Conversely, if the context of the defensive gun use surveys had no more connection to legally empowering the people surveyed than do your examples, I would not object to the defensive gun use surveys. But I also think if legal empowerment for gun owners were not the subtext, pretty much everyone would be baffled why such an undisciplined survey was of interest to anyone.
See thats the beauty of 2A. You can debate amongst yourselves but until you amend, which won't happen, it applies.
I believe that was intentional and literal.
It didn’t apply* until a Supreme Court majority said it did just twelve years ago. There wasn’t any amending done there.
*here, I mean that it wasn’t used to limit government regulation of firearms.
Actually, it was passively limiting government regulation, on account of most people being aware that it was a right even if the courts didn't much care.
But, yes, there wasn't a new amendment, the Supreme court just stopped blowing off one that had already been there for a couple centuries.
JasonT20 probably believes that the 14th Amendment always protected the right of a man to penetrate another man and "marry him," the courts just didn't know it yet!
It applied, Heller and Macdonald and even Bruen changed nothing in 3/4 of the country where state and local officials respected the constitution. Even deep blue states like Vermont, Washington and Oregon and Minnesota.
You don't think that such widespread conformance to the 2nd was just coincidence because nobody ever thought it applied do you?
The federal statutes are a big problem too. For example, the National Firearms Act, the provisions of the GCA that prohibit interstate handgun sales, and so on.
Much of them aren't even legitimate under rational basis.
If you have a better survey, provide it.
In the meantime, your criticisms fall flat. No, there was not a subjective criteria to define defensive gun use - there was an open-ended definition that accepted the reporting of all defensive uses. That is, not merely those defensive uses that rose to the level of pulling a trigger.
Furthermore, as both the survey report and the article above already say, the results published here are consistent with other, independently conducted studies. The disclaimers are part of responsible journalism by giving readers a sense of the overall margin of error of the results, not as you allege a concession that the results are meaningless.
The bottom line, by the way, is that while we don't (and maybe can't) know the precise rate of defensive gun use, we can definitely exclude the statement which was loudly and repeatedly shouted by gun control advocates that defensive gun use is zero (or negligibly low).
No, there was not a subjective criteria to define defensive gun use - there was an open-ended definition that accepted the reporting of all defensive uses.
What a load. Not counting the time I was mistakenly arrested at gunpoint, only to be released after identifying myself, I have been at the scene of at least 3, "defensive," gun uses.
One occurred when the in-building manager at a converted brownstone where I rented an apartment had to defend himself against me. The problem was two-fold, I was an agent of the CIA and the FBI, put in the building to spy on him, and he was a paranoid schizophrenic. That was one of the rare defensive gun use incidents which involved shots fired—at me, but they missed. In another incident, someone in possibly illegal possession of an automatic weapon put a burst of fully automatic fire into a wilderness path, about 30 feet in front of me as I made my way along. I never saw the shooter, or even where the shots came from, but I speculate he was a lookout for an illicit marijuana operation on public land, defending it from accidental discovery by me. I turned back, of course, so that was a successful defensive gun use. A third instance occurred when I lived for a time in one bedroom of a 4-bedroom apartment rented by a friend of mine. It happened that a woman applied to rent the remaining empty bedroom, and moved in. She attracted the attention of another tenant from the floor above. He came by one day with a package, knocked on our apartment door, and asked me to deliver it to the new tenant. He said it was urgent. She was not there. I went out, and returned shortly to find her bedroom door closed with light under the door. I fetched the package, and knocked on the door. She said, "Come in." I opened the door and found her in bed, leveling a .44 magnum at me. I explained about the package. She said, "If you had come through that door without knocking, I would have blown you away." I was lucky I hadn't thought to leave the package on her bed, to be found when she returned.
I have no doubt that if those gun wielders were surveyed, each of those assaults on me would have been recorded as a, "defensive gun use." Why not? People like to self-justify. You can say anything you want.
I'll take "Things that never happened" for $800, Alex.
IsaacDanielcm — Would it matter to you if they had happened? If not, what on earth could make you so stupid as to challenge someone's personal account of events you don't care about and know nothing about?
Of course those are three true accounts, all of them from long ago. Even now, two of them I could readily prove to disinterested bystanders beyond reasonable doubt. The one about the path in the wilderness I have no corroborative evidence for, except for telling a few people I knew many decades ago, shortly after it happened.
You can say anything you want.
The years of bullshit you've spewed here are ample evidence of that.
Setting aside your vivid imagination, do you apply this level of nihilism to all surveys? Or just ones which report results you don't like?
What a load.
Curiously, that's what most people think every time we see "Stephen Lathrop" comments.
High five, teufelhund. Put it exactly in the center.
Without seeing the actual questions, or seeing how they were presented, it is difficult to form any opinion on the statistics whatsoever.
This is purely anecdotal but the defensive use numbers seem awfully high to me. I don't believe I have ever met a single person who has said that they used a gun in any capacity to thwart a crime.
OK, while typing this I recalled as a kid I had neighbors who held a burglar they caught at "shotgunpoint" and "dobermanpoint" until the police arrived.
This is purely anecdotal but...
...you're going to pretend that it has some value anyway.
I don't believe I have ever met a single person who has said that they used a gun in any capacity to thwart a crime.
I've never met a single woman who has said that she was raped. Should I conclude that any/all rape statistics are high?
Funny. I know several, including my wife.
Funny. I know several, including my wife.
Did you really completely miss such an obvious point, or are you just dishonestly trying to deflect by pulling a weak plea to emotion?
Why are you so nasty? Dude had an opinion, based in personal experience only, and acknowledged it as such.
Your explanation about how personal experience may not always be right was distracting and necessary applicable to all uses of personal experience.
And distracting, to someone who knows rape victims.
Nothing dishonest about that even if you think it’s a bad opinion.
Why are you so nasty?
Why are you such a pathologically lying, oxygen-wasting sack of shit?
I'm one. A black thug knocked on my window at a red light and wouldn't get away from the car when the light turned green. I pulled my gun on him and told him to back the fuck away, right now. It worked. No one was hurt and I went about my day.
The actual question was
"Have you ever defended yourself or your property with a firearm, even if it was not fired or displayed? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
It's not that hard to click on links. It's almost like the WWW was designed with that in mind.
Prof. English also notes that this potentially undercounts defensive gun use, because the question was only asked of current firearm owners, not past ones.
Defensive gun uses by women known to me.
_ two used their personally owned firearms
_ one used her employer's firearm
_ one used her boy friend's firearm
Defensive Gun Use surveys that start:
"Do you own a gun?"
get lower DGU counts than surveys that ask:
"In the past year have you used a gun in self defense?"
By the various surveys:
_ 32% of Americans own guns.
_ 54% of households include at least one gun owner.
Therefore, a lot of non-gun owners (or gun non-owners) live in households with a gun available for self defense. Asking first, "Do you own a gun?" will miss a non-owner in a household with a gun.
(When my Dad rook me to the country to visit relatives, most farm households had a "family" not "personal" gun set aside for defensive use (mostly defense of livestock from predators).)
The National Crime Victimization Survey so beloved by gun controllers misses a lot of defense gun use because very few of the sample are ever asked a defensive gun use question.
I downloaded the PDF and saved it in my collection of DGU material.
Nieporent, links to that site do not work for me, possibly because I use some light-duty privacy protection which guards against cookies and tracking. I doubt it actually does me much good, but it succeeds in creating inconvenience.
Oh no, not cookies! The horrors!
All issue polls are garbage.
I can agree with that.
"It is an encouragement to belief in falsehoods." In that sense, every survey is a falsehood because responses of sample populations can never be proved to exactly represent the views of the general population. But that does not mean all surveys are useless. Each stands or falls on its own methodologies. The survey cited by Volokh does not have any obvious deficiencies. It is likely more accurate than inaccurate.
GKHoffman — One obvious deficiency is that someone who used a gun to threaten another person, perhaps using conduct which qualifies as criminal assault, can tell the survey it was defensive, and believe it was.
Another obvious deficiency is it purports to measure nothing but opinions of respondents, who by virtue of owning guns are more likely than most Americans to want to self-justify about guns. Some will be motivated to deliver whatever stories to the survey will advance pro-gun policies. If pro-gun advocates who comment here represent the type accurately, many of them will not scruple to lie. Look at the other comments to find examples of that attitude, candidly expressed.
Again, these arguments apply to all surveys.
"This survey is bad because tries to measure the opinion of respondents!"
What kind of stupid argument is that?
It's the kind of stupid argument you came up with yourself, after deciding to pretend you do not understand my argument.
note the defensive use of weapons
- especially by minorities
- who tend to live in higher crime areas
- are a major reason NOT to have gun free zones
- and indicate the RACIST nature of the antigun movement
Gun control laws are racist - full stop.
All gun control is classist, which is the intent, and key. All gun control by its nature has disparate impact on minority groups.
Also to avoid the Big Brother tracking by the credit card companies buy your guns with cash.
I have been buying ammo online with a card but will probably change that habit.
Those interested in the purpose of the survey can read the amicus brief submitted by William English, on behalf of petitioners, in NY State Rifle and Pistol Assc. v. Bruen. I guess it's not really surprising that Eugene would omit this advocacy by English.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184380/20210720135957258_20-843%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20William%20English%20et%20al..PDF
Link returns error message.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184416/20210720152626673_NYSRPA%20amicus%20brief%20final.pdf
I failed to see any indication that Prof. English submitted the brief you linked to.
No, he did, the link just wasn't right; this should work.
Thanks but reading an amicus brief on a decided case wasn't high on my list of things to do. I was just trying to understand QBC's point but he really didn't seem to have one.
Submitting an amicus brief doesn't undermine one's credibiity.
The brief itself could, upon examination and discourse.
It's pretty normal for scholars to file amicus briefs in cases where they think their research would be helpful, and I don't think it's customary to mention that when discussing their research. Thus, for instance, John Donohue and Phil Cook, two leading scholars who have come to a generally pro-gun-control position, signed on to an amicus brief in Bruen as well, and I wouldn't generally mention that in discussing their scholarship, either. The scholarship stands on its own, regardless of whether one then argues for a particular result based on that scholarship, whether in briefs, in legislative testimony, in op-eds, or elsewhere. (To be sure, the scholarship might -- or might not -- be motivated by one's views on the underlying issue, but that's a possibility present with all scholarship, whether or not it's followed by advocacy.)
I guess it's not really surprising that Eugene would omit this advocacy by English.
Given that it's not relevant to what the survey has to say nobody should be surprised, nor critical of its omission.
- 25.4% of black respondents.
- 28.3% of Hispanic respondents.
- 19.4% of Asian respondents.
- 34.3% of white respondents.
- 38.2% of American Indian respondent
Did you run these categories by Prof. Bernstein?
I'm pretty sure he can explain how wrong this all is.
100.0% of Sephardic Jews with historic ties to the Ottoman Empire
0.0% of Sephardic Jews with historic ties to Christian Europe
33.3% of Ashkenazi Jews with historic ties to Poland
50.0% of Ashkenazi Jews with historic ties to Germany
…
The funny part is how the percentages do not add to 100. 🙂
Why is that funny? Those are all percentages of subgroups, not a partition of the entire survey population.
In most cities, a gun user, legal or not, is going to pick up their brass (if they can) and just leave the scene.
A legal owner was probably more likely to call the police up until the local DA's all became woke. Now they will just walk away like anyone else.
To use the advice some of my street cop friends have offered; "Look for cameras, and if none are seen ... Shoot, scoot and stay mute"
There's a simple solution to this problem. If, in a self defense case, a DA brings charges that don't ultimately end in conviction that isn't overturned on appeal, the DA must serve ten years in prison. Watch that all end the next day.
These disaffected misfits are your audience, Volokh Conspirators.
Good luck getting the modern American mainstream to take you or your ideas seriously.
Don't you have a 5 year old boy to be grooming?
Getting them to post this tripe is probably part of that process. Some people use candy, others internet comments....
That's similar to the thought I often have about the Volokh Conspiracy's professors and fans -- shouldn't you guys be out suppressing some Black votes, or making life more difficult for gays, or trying to prop up the dying superstition that animates what is left of the Republican Party, or something else that might delay modern America's march toward inevitable progress for a bit?
'Open wider...'
Setting aside for the moment the fact that self-reported data are inherently suspect, what kinds of interactions count as "defensive gun use"?
Are we really to believe that roughly a third of gun owners have actually taken out their heater and pointed it at somebody to defuse a threat?
Or are they more like "I heard a noise, or saw a shadow, reached for my piece and immediately felt safer."
Curious to know more. A vanishingly small number of gun deaths are self-defense killings, so that makes me think the numbers above are inflated. If people were really pulling out their guns that much you'd expect the number of self-defense kills to be higher.
Meanwhile, 2 of 3 gun deaths in the US are suicides.
A vanishingly small number of gun deaths are self-defense killings
Which is utterly irrelevant.
that makes me think
If only.
the numbers above are inflated. If people were really pulling out their guns that much you'd expect the number of self-defense kills to be higher.
Not if one actually applied even a modicum of thought to the matter. First off, that modicum of thought should lead one to expect that the production of a firearm in self-defense to be a compelling case for most be would-be assailants to break off their impending assault with the requirement that shots be fired, especially if they are themselves armed only with lesser weaponry. Secondly, even in the event that a shot is fired, that is often enough to send an attacker fleeing, even if not struck. Thirdly, of those that are struck a great many will either turn tail or be incapacitated without the resulting wound being fatal...especially given that the proper use of deadly force in self-defense is to do so until the threat is ended and then cease its use, not continue using it until the threat is dead.
So, yeah...your line of "thought" is severely flawed, to put it mildly.
Several editing errors, including...
with the requirement that shots be fired
...which should have been...
without the requirement that shots be fired
"Curious to know more. A vanishingly small number of gun deaths are self-defense killings, so that makes me think the numbers above are inflated."
The purpose of defensive gun use is defense. If you can defend yourself without killing the other guy, and you go out of your way to kill them, that's no longer "defensive gun use", it's murder.
Just adding to that....
Additionally, some states (including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have replaced the common law “reasonable person” standard, which placed the burden on the defendant to show that their defensive action were reasonable, with a “presumption of reasonableness,” or “presumption of fear,” which shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor to prove a negative.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx
Not entirely true. The law doesn't require that you use perfect judgment, judged in retrospect, so it's not murder if the state demonstrates that you may have been able to defend yourself without killing the other guy, under some set of circumstances.
But if you KNOW you can do so without killing the other guy, you generally can't.
Consider the effect of "body language":
I don't have to take out my heater and point it at somebody to defuse a threat. Things have already gone too far and various district attorneys can describe it as brandishing.
But, if when I encounter a potentially threatening environment, I place my hands into my pockets or adjust my waistband, belt buckle, or reach into my coat; combined with taking a position with some partial cover or structural impediments such as a wall, tree, or pole; and provide visual clues that I am VERY observant and project situational awareness, I want possible adversaries to feel a lot less confident that I am projecting a vibe of victim-hood.
Can you not distinguish between people who are fearful or zoned out and those who are self-confident and energized?
Put your hand on your holster even when it's pocketed and look in a mirror. A mentally challenged person may not be very perceptive but a predator will be selective in picking a prey and I hope continue shopping.
"immediately feeling safer" will be actualized in your body posture.
zvwmzvwmzvwm — Make that impression powerful enough and that undercover cop you didn't know you were threatening will shoot you dead, and get away with it.
The people I have known who were most experienced using guns to actually kill—combat veterans and hunters with thousands of hours afield—never radiate prowess. They seem allergic to people who do.
I expect it takes real-world, potentially deadly experience to get grounded in the notion that having guns around always makes you at least marginally less safe. No amount of training or care can reduce that margin to zero.
Both happenstance and human fecklessness will play their roles. Knowing that makes genuinely experienced gun carriers look humble and unassuming, compared to the ones who spout confidently about safety and prowess.
What kind of janky-ass thought process bounces around in that brain of yours to come up with a framing like combat veterans and hunters with thousands of hours afield—never radiate prowess?
Studies show that criminals are aware enough of their surroundings to prey on people who appear to be weaker/distracted/unarmed, than people who seem alert/armed/confident.
Take your stupid "undercover cop" nonsense, and stick it with your head, up where the sun don't shine.
'Expert opinion' based on no expertise. Consider the source, this is where he does have expertise, in having 0 knowledge of the matter about which he is writing.
You may be giving the vast majority of people you run into to much credit for their powers of observation. A criminal may decide to look for a softer target, but random hopped up on self-righteousness asshats will likely miss any cues.
Does firing a warning shot into the air (per the advice of our current president) count as a defensive use of a gun?
Actually, it counts as reckless discharge, though it might also be defensive.
I was being somewhat facetious in asking the question. The point was that there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes "defensive use of a gun". Even gang bangers will flee when the targets ( even other gang bangers) produces a gun and or returns fire. No one looks forward to being shot.
As for firing into the air you're right that in most jurisdictions it would be unlawful and just not a good idea (what goes up, must come down).
The point was that there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes "defensive use of a gun".
Except among anti-2A activists, who routinely insist that only cases where there's a dead bad guy count.
No, you're the one peddling lies like "Blacks are not genetically less intelligent" and "Women can be born with a penis."
Some party of science!
Well, it is Baltimore.
Are you saying that Jordan Peterson was wrong in asserting that we learned the lesson of World War II that Naziism is bad but failed to learn the corresponding lesson that Communism is bad too? Because it seems pretty clear that, for example, everyone knows how Poland was invaded by both Germany in September 1939, but they only dimly (if at all) remember that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland later that month.