Defensive Gun Use Information
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self
Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994,
the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had
the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun
about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed
someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or
used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for
defense wouldn’t make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill
the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy”
by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the
police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find
out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the
intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were
rare –well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense
will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or
more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these
cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper
spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting
away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A
quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender’s
home.

Source: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume
86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology
and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be
the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in that same issue, “I am
as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in
this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate
all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police …
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I
am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of
methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically
opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal
perpetrator. …I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution
expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two
million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive
measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge
the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime
Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the
Mauser and Hart Studies. … the methodological soundness of the current
Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. … The Kleck
and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the
elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their
conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and
have done exceedingly well.”

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country
who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the
scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.