Are people who defend themselves with a firearm more likely to hurt others?

So in another thread here another poser claimed that someone who uses a firearm in self defense is just as likely to harm innocent bystanders as successfully defending themselves against an attacker.

Are there any statistics that show the number of times a firearm was successfully used to defend oneself from an attacker vs. the number of times an innocent bystander was injured or killed in the process?

It would be especially relevant if the defender was a CCW holder, since the debate involved the two CCW holders killed at the Virginia Tech rampage.

Basically a concealed pistol permit. It's the generic abbreviation.

and good aim ;)

Gun owners are as diverse of a group as this country.

Even if you are a good shot and hit the attacker, the bullet may go through their body and hit someone else.

Most police departments issue them and CCWs generally carry them - the rationale is twofold, first off they are much more effective stoppers, but they also don't overpenetrate. They go in, but they don't usually come out, and even if they do they don't have much energy...if you hit your intended target with a JHP, it's extremely unlikely that the bullet is going to hit anybody else.

to get hurt with their own gun. Don't have a link though. If it's true that stinks because it looks like the intelligent American should have a firearm for self defense. Peace, Kim

Kellerman reported in a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine that guns in the home were 40+ times more likely to kill the owner or a family member. That, and many of his other "studies" have been criticized for their methodological flaws. See http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html for additional information and specifics. In addition, in one study Kellerman asserted that you were 22 times more likely to be killed if you kept a firearm in your home. One small fact that Kellerman did not report was that all of the murder victims reported on in his study were killed by guns brought in from outside the home. Why is this fact so important? Well, if all the victims were killed by someone who brought their own gun to the fight, wouldn't that make:
a) it seem reasonable for the victims to conclude a firearm may be necessary for defensive purposes? After all, it proves the contention that someone might (and indeed did) come to the victim's home with a firearm intent on harming them.
b) the relative risk of possessing a firearm in the home, based on conclusions of that study incorrect? The risk of death was not influenced by the mere possession of a firearm, as that firearm was not the cause of death. It was another gun, one brought to the house by the attacker, that killed the victim. Having the gun in the house was not the risk factor associated with the murder.

There are many, many studies reported in peer-reviewed professional journals that refute these myriad contentions that owning guns significantly increases various risks. Another often cited study, as reported in a recent Amici Brief ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x156343 - Thanks Bossey22)submitted in Heller, Jacquelyn Campbell et al., Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships, 93 AM.J.PUB. HEALTH 1089,1090-92 (2003), is used by the "antis" because the study showed that there was a statically increased risk of the abuser killing the spouse if he owned a gun. The second part that never gets reported is the fact that a female victim of abuse, living alone and owning a gun, did not have any statically significant risk of murder, thereby unequivocally refuting the often cited concern that if a female has a gun, it'll be used against her by an attacker. Other studies also clearly show that the concern of a gun kept for defense being turned against them is false.

Let's assume that 1.3 million times a year there are Defensive Gun Uses, or DGUs. Yet, less than 200 people are killed in justified self-defense annually.

Offhand, I'd say no.

the gun owner actually knows how to use a gun. I don't have statistics, either, but I did hear on Air America that those who have a gun in their home are more likely to be harmed by it than to harm an intruder. The VA Tech shooting was frightening and tragic, but I disagree with those who say that it could have been prevented if guns had been officially allowed on campus. It would have been a recipe for earlier and more frequent tragedy if an entire campus full of untrained young people were carrying guns. Yikes! That's the issue that I have with guns and the reason that I support gun control. Just having a gun does no good unless you are trained how to use it...

The vast majority of DGU's do not, and should not, include harming intruders.

Since all but a few bloodthirsty loons like the old fellow who ran outside to shoot some burglars would agree it's better to scare off intruders than kill them or even shoot them to wound (a silly idea in itself), then surely the effectiveness of guns in the home would be how often they prevent or put to flight intruders, not how often they harm or kill them.

He had no need to do anything, was warned against it, since the police were already on the scene.:eyes:

I agree that scaring someone off is the best course of action, especially if you have a large guns (I used to shoot a 22 rifle), but if it's in your house, unless it's securely locked up and difficult to get to, and ammo kept elsewhere, there's always the chance that the wrong person could get hold of it. I never kept a gun at home...

Since all but a few bloodthirsty loons like the old fellow who ran outside to shoot some burglars would agree it's better to scare off intruders than kill them or even shoot them to wound (a silly idea in itself), then surely the effectiveness of guns in the home would be how often they prevent or put to flight intruders, not how often they harm or kill them.

But what I was interested in is when firearms are discharged in self defense, how often does an innocent bystander get harmed?

Obviously no bystanders can be harmed if the firearm is never fired.

that whole mantra about a gun in your home being more dangerous to you stems from i believe the Kellerman study, which was a non-scientific pet project that was designed to produce a "wanted" result. It only counted how many times an inturder was killed, not even how many times a homeowner wounded an intruder, or just scared them off. It also counted things in such as suicide, not distinguishing between a gun already in the home and a guy who bought a gun to commit suicide. in reality we dont have a really really great statistic on how many defensive gun uses there are because the belief is the overwhelming majority of defensive gun uses involve a criminal running away just at the sight of a gun.

Most CCW holders are trained- they go to the range and fire there guns alot- which is he only true way of getting good. most people who have CCW's care alot about weapons proficiency. There are some rumors that CCW holders are probably better shots than most major police departments.

Most CCW holders are trained- they go to the range and fire there guns alot- which is he only true way of getting good. most people who have CCW's care alot about weapons proficiency. There are some rumors that CCW holders are probably better shots than most major police departments.

I agree with you that most CCW holders are probably dedicated shooters, and highly skilled and proficient at shooting firearms.

The argument will be that they have had no combat training, as I'm guessing the police do, enabling them to do valid threat and target assessment in public environments.

Mind you I'm still all for CCW carry - I'd rather have a proficient shooter on my side with a gun than disarmed.

I was trained, and am a pretty good shot, even taught kids (well, teen-agers, LOL, not tots), but never held a CCW, since I shot 22 rifles, LOL.:-)

A agree with you that training makes all the difference and have no issues with CCW holders. They're trained and know what they're doing. And there are far too many stories about green police officers who panic and makes mistakes. And I agree that most studies are skewed, and appreciate your info. In certain places there aren't sufficient background checks, as with the VA Tech shooter, who is an example of the wrong person owning a gun. :-(

are that unlike gun owners who are interested in guns and therefore usually takes the time to learn how to use it, a cop just looks at a gun as another tool on his belt. I doubt the carpenter gives much thought to the hammer in his hand.

had to memorize and understand a whole set of rules before were were even able to pick up a gun. And we shot competitively, target shooting only, not professionally. I was also taught to use a hammer, LOL, but never was very good at that...:-)

BTW, welcome to DU, bossy22! We're glad to have you with us...:hi:

it is sad that these new recruits don't respect firearms like they should, but it seems to be localized in certain areas- mostly inner cities where prior firearm experience is few and far between. Its a culture thing most likely

but I disagree with those who say that it could have been prevented if guns had been officially allowed on campus. It would have been a recipe for earlier and more frequent tragedy if an entire campus full of untrained young people were carrying guns.

Bear in mind we are not talking about letting anyone wander around in public with a gun. In order to carry a concealed weapon on your person, you have to have a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit.

It has been shown in other thread in this forum ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=155031&mesg_id=155031 ) that CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to commit crimes than non-CCW permit holders. I would hazard to say that CCW permit holders are in general highly responsible, highly experienced shooters.

There are at least two instances of a shooting at a school being thwarted or interrupted by law abiding citizens with firearms. (Appalachian Law School is one, I can't immediately recall the other)

States with liberalized concealed carry laws have lower crime rates and virtually zero crime by CCW holders. (See Florida and Texas crime reports)

CCW holders are on average, better shots than most police officers. Multiple reports of police shootings show that officers have "hit" ratios of less than 50%, and yet many opponents of liberalized CCW cite concerns about bystanders being hit. Why aren't they concerned about bystanders being hit by errant police rounds?

Irrational fear of law abiding gun owners and CCW holders is just that, irrational. All experience to date, in multiple states, show that the fears of "Wild West" conduct by CCW holders, and the "blood in the street" analogies are unfounded. Even the CDC has stated there is no basis in evidence that gun-control laws have resulted in any reduction in crime or gun-related deaths.

And, you do know that the police are not obligated to protect you, right? And, that calling 911 rarely results in police getting to the scene of a crime in time to stop it, right? Or maybe you are concerned that someone may have their gun taken by the criminal and used against them? Well, that's not true either - Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey report that a victims gun is forcibly removed less than 1% of the time (NCVS as reported in Gary Kleck & Jongyeon Tark, Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes, 42 CRIMINOLOGY 861, 903 (2005)). Here's a good example of why you shouldn't rely on 911...this woman did everything right. Made multiple reports to the police, called 911 and retreated as far as possible during a break-in, and despite all of this, she needed to use a gun to neutralize the threat posed by the intruder. http://www.mrssurvival.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=178362&page=1
Since she had just gotten the gun she righteously used to defend herself that day, a waiting period for said purchase could have resulted in a less favorable outcome, i.e., good guy/girl dead instead of the bad guy.

The reason I think most people are supportive of more gun control laws are that they are uninformed on the facts, and the facts are frequently mis-represented, or worse, completely ignored, by the main stream media. Even worse, IMHO, are the public figures, celebrities and politician, who express their anti-gun stances, yet either hire bodyguards that carry guns (Rosie O'Donnell) or have concealed carry permits (Dianne Feinstein - who wants to ban all guns, yet obtained a CCW and carries because she received "threats"). I don't know about you, but I cannot afford to hire a bodyguard, and if I were living in San Francisco, I doubt I would ever qualify for a CCW, despite a perceived need and demonstrated competency. Why the hypocrisy?

...and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly... Firearms-related fatalities fell 40 percent between 1995 and 2005, the greatest decrease in percentage of all measured types of accidental fatalities in the U.S." Outdoor Life, May, 2007.

This report is based on findings from the National Safety Council. While not a tailor-made answer to your concerns, it does indicate that in terms of accidental deaths (not crime-related), fatalities are low and falling fast. Something to consider when examining the debate of armed self-defense.

As to your belief that VT could have been worse "...if guns had been officially allowed on campus. It would have been a recipe for earlier and more frequent tragedy if an entire campus full of untrained young people were carrying guns. Yikes!": (1) VT was made into a "gun-free zone" just before the shooting; hence, the campus was not a "gun-free zone" beforehand. That being the case,(2) how come the school was not an "entire campus full of untrained young people...carrying guns" at the pre-"gun-free" time?

The passing (or not) of a law does not usually cause that much behavior change. In other words, the drug-prohibitionist's argument that "if we legalize drugs, it will open the flood gates" flies in the face of the reality that drugs are more prevalent, cheaper and easy to come by than ever, yet drug use is rather static.

CCW on campus would only allow those TRAINED AND LICENSED to carry concealed guns the legal right to do so.

there were 2 CCW holders that were killed at VT?

You also have to consider what numbers your looking at.

1. Many times when an intruder / prowler is chased away, a gun is never fired.

Are you considering that a defensive gun use? If so, how do you measure it?

2. Most of the time when on person shoots another, the person doing the shooting is arrested. This is true even if it was done in self defense. The cops don't want to make a mistake and not arrest a possible killer. Later that day, or the following day, the shooter will be released and charges will be dropped if it's decided it was a defensive shooting. I say all of this, to explain why you should NOT look at arrest records for CCW holders.

3. What you could look at is the conviction rate for CCW holders. Or the number of CCW holders who have had their license revoked. I don't know how much of data is available for either one.



Something else to consider is the basic rules of gun safety, which include being able to clearly identify your target, and what's behind it.


If a CCW holder does not have a clear shot, and a appropriate backstop, he or she can not take the shot. Period. No room for discussion. If they do take such a shot, they are negligent, and deserve to be punished.

to carry a firearm offensively and defensively in a law enforcement setting. Anytime there are or may be people other than the intended target in the area I was trained to take a knee and shoot from that position so the trajectory was upward and far less likely to strike a bystander. This position also makes it more difficult for a poorly trained shooter to hit me with return fire.

I would also think that a large caliber, low velocity projectile with a large frontal area
would be preferable( a heavy ball and a light charge).

another, often overlooked aspect, is how often the "possibility" of encountering an armed victim deters crime. An interesting study....JAMES WRIGHT & PETER ROSSI, ARMED AND CONSIDERED DANGEROUS: A SURVEY OF FELONS AND THEIR FIREARMS 146, 155 (expanded ed.1994), revealed a significant deterrent effect when a criminal thought a victim might have a gun. Another interesting corallary is the rate of "hot" (home invasions) burglaries in countries with highly restrictive gun laws versus the US. The rates are highest where the intruders don't have to fear the possibility of encountering armed occupants.

If it ever does come down to a situation where it's either take the shot and possibly injure a bystander or not take the shot and definitely be severely injured or worse, where I absolutely have no other possible way of averting it, I'm going to take the shot and risk the consequences. Better to be judged by 12 and all that. I'm a reasonable marksman and I keep in practice, so I'm not worried about hitting the target, and I use 9mm JHPs for carry, so overpenetration wouldn't be a problem with a COM shot...exigencies of war I guess is one way to put it.

1. Many times when an intruder / prowler is chased away, a gun is never fired.

Are you considering that a defensive gun use? If so, how do you measure it?

The poster I was discussing the VT shootings with was making the case that he would not want people with guns able to fight back against an armed aggressor because they would be just as likely to shoot innocent bystanders.

So any case where a firearm holder used a firearm without firing it is going to obviously never result in the harm of an innocent bystander.

What I was interested in is if there was any data to indicate the number of times firearms were discharged at an aggressor vs. how many times they were discharged at an aggressor and harmed an innocent bystander.

If a CCW holder does not have a clear shot, and a appropriate backstop, he or she can not take the shot. Period. No room for discussion. If they do take such a shot, they are negligent, and deserve to be punished.

I know this, and you know this, and I strongly suspect collateral damage caused by CCW holders is statistically very small. But I was wondering if anyone had any data to support that claim, and refute the other posters claim that "They are 'up for the task' (of self defense) as much as they are for hurting an innocent person."

Here is the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=155061&mesg_id=156259

there was a study done at one time that showed that in LEO involved shootings 11% of the people hit by LEO bullets were innocent bystanders. In comparison, shootings by non-LEOs had a 2% rate of hitting bystanders.

This means you're five and a half times more likely to be shot by officer friendly.

I would like to use it in some upcoming testimony for a proposed CCW bill.

Do you have any updated studies on the subject?

Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.193

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than
1 in 26,000.194 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.
Fact: Most firearm accidents are caused by people with other forms of poor self-control. These
include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, multiple driving accidents, and other risky behaviors.195

The numbers 193,194, and 195 refer to citations in footnotes.


GunFacts 4.2 in pdf format can be downloaded here:
http://gunfacts.info

The myth/facts that I quoted start on page 34 of the printed document or page 41 of 96 of GunFacts4-2-Print.pdf.

Thanks a lot, Big Al Mac!

You asked me in another post about the 2 ccw students at VT and If I had a link for them. I just now saw the post you left and sorry that it took so long. I don't have any links off hand but I will look for them. I initially read this info in the San Antonio Express newspaper and later on in another paper (USA Today?)

Anyhow, I will try and get you some links before I leave here for some more training (extreme winter survival and field maintenance of the M-4!):headbang:

I would appreciate the links.

Good luck on your training!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine