The Martialist: The Magazine For Those Who Fight Unfairly

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed
ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for
protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and
long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the
deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted
whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home
was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were
excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a
total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some
self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and
accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of
Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers
noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the
media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur
Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that
claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a
homicide. 4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where
homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no
harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American
households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to
control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories
of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck
wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since
diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession
of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in
his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the
association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor
Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that:
‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun
ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any
conclusion.” 5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, 6 for a landmark
study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as
possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi
questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and
found:

•81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential
victim is armed.

•74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

•80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

•40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

•34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed
victims.

•57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he
feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in
“excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by
civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600
justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a
firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot
without injuring anyone.