Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 111–131 | Cite as

Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey



The number of civilian defensive gun uses (DGUs) against criminal attackers is regularly invoked in public policy debates as a benefit of widespread private ownership of firearms. Yet there is considerable uncertainty for the prevalence of civilian DGUs, with estimates ranging from 108,000 (using the National Crime Victimization Survey) to 2.5 million (using smaller telephone surveys) per year. In this paper we analyze the results of a new national random-digit-dial telephone survey to estimate the prevalence of DGU and then discuss the plausibility of the results in light of other well-known facts and possible sources of bias in survey data for sensitive behaviors. Because DGU is a relatively rare event by any measure, a small proportion of respondents who falsely report a gun use can produce substantial overestimates of the prevalence of DGU, even if every true defensive gun user conceals his or her use. We find that estimates from this new survey are apparently subject to a large positive bias, which calls into question the accuracy of DGU estimates based on data from general-population surveys. Our analysis also suggests that available survey data are not able to determine whether reported DGU incidents, even if true, add to or detract from public health and safety.

defensive gun use firearms survey bias 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bea, K. (1994). Issue Brief: Gun Control, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC (Order Code IB94007; revised Sept. 19).Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G. (1971). Economic Theory, Alfred Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bourndon, K., Rae, D., Narrow, W., Manderscheid, R., and Regier, D. (1994). National prevalence and treatment of mental and addictive disorders. In Mental Health, United States, 1994, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Mental Health Services, Washington, DC, pp. 22–35.Google Scholar
  4. Bradburn, N., and Sudman, S. (1979). Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1996). National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization 1994, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, P. J. (1985). The case of the missing victims: Gunshot woundings in the National Crime Survey. J. Quant. Criminol. 1: 91–102.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, P. J. (1991). The technology of personal violence. In Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 14, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–71.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, P. J., Ludwig, J., and Hemenway, D. (1997). The gun debate's new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? J. Policy Anal. Manage. 16(3): 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1995). Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1994, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, L. D. (1995). The validity of self-reported data on drug use. J. Drug Issues 25(1): 91–111.Google Scholar
  11. Hemenway, D. (1997). Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 87(4): 1430–1445.Google Scholar
  12. Kellermann, A. L., Rivara, F. P., Somes, G., Reay, D. T., Francisco, J., Banton, J. G., Prodzinski, J., Rligner, C., and Hackman, B. B. (1992). Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N. Engl. J. Med. 327: 467–472.Google Scholar
  13. Kellermann, A. L., Rivara, F. P., Rushforth, N. B., Banton, J. G., Reay, D. T., Francisco, J. T., Locci, A. B., Prodzinski, J., Hackman, B. B., and Somes, G. (1993). Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N. Engl. J. Med. 329: 1084–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kleck, G. (1988). Crime control through the private use of armed force. Soc. Problem 35(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  15. Kleck, G. (1991). Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Aldine De Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Kleck, G. (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kleck, G., and Gertz, M. (1995). Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 86(1): 150–187.Google Scholar
  18. Kleck, G., and Gertz, M. (1997). The illegitimacy of one-sided speculation: Getting the defensive gun use estimate down. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 87(4): 1446–1461.Google Scholar
  19. McDowall, D., and Wiersema, B. (1994). The incidence of defensive firearm use by U.S. crime victims, 1987 through 1990. Am. J. Public Health 1982–1984.Google Scholar
  20. Mendenhall, W., Wackerly, D., and Scheaffer, R. (1990). Mathematical Statistics with Applications, 4th ed., PWS-Kent, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Sinauer, N., Annest, J. L., and Mercy, J. A. (1996). Unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries: A preventable public health burden. JAMA 275(22): 1740–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skogan, W. (1981). Issues in the Measurement of Victimization, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Skogan, W. (1990). The National Crime Survey Redesign. Public Opin. Q. 54: 256–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, T. W. (1997). A call for a truce in the DGU war. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 87(4): 1462–1469.Google Scholar
  25. Sparks, R. F. (19xx). Surveys of victimization—An optimistic assessment. In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 3, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
  26. Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. M. (1974). Response effects. In Surveys: A Review and Synthesis, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1995). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995, 115th ed., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. White, A. (1983). Response rate calculation in RDD telephone health surveys: Current practices. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, Washington, DC, pp. 277–282.Google Scholar
  29. Zimring, F. E. (1968). Is gun control likely to reduce violent killings? Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 35: 721–737.Google Scholar
  30. Zimring, F. E. (1972). The medium is the message: Firearm calibre as a determinant of death from assault. J. Legal Stud. 1: 97–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke UniversityDurham
  2. 2.National Consortium for Violence Research and National Bureau of Economic ResearchUSA
  3. 3.Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown UniversityWashington, DC, and
  4. 4.Northwestern University/University of Chicago Poverty CenterEvanston

Personalised recommendations