Government Continues to Downplay, Distort Data on Defensive Gun Use

Referencing a 2023 release by the National Rifle Association (NRA)
claiming in the title that "[the US] Government Continues to Downplay,
Distort Data on Defensive Gun Use"

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230911/government-continues-to-downplay-distort-data-on-defensive-gun-use#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%20more,on%20more%20than%20one%20occasion.

One of the prime difficulties in interpreting "studies" of gun-related
human behavior is detecting a fiduciary relationship between the
researcher[s] and the topic under study.  Of course, this issue is by
no means limited to the study of firearms; for example: one should
take with a grain of salt a study of pharmaceuticals conducted by an
organization funded by the pharmaceutical industry.  Paraphrasing
Sinclare's Law: "A person or organization whose income depends on some
assertion being true will accept *extremely* flimsy supporting data as
hard proof of the assertion."  In this case, the NRA, being in the
business of promoting guns for the US industry, cannot be expected to
weigh relative data in an unbiased manner.

Similarly, the article is highly focused on John Lott, who has never
been published in this field and whose research (and academic
integrity… see: "The Mary Rosh Affair") is highly questionable.  Dr.
Lott also has a well-documented fiduciary relationship with the gun
industry.

The article cites a 2022 study (English, 2022) which amounts to yet
another iteration of what are generically known as "Kleck surveys",
after Gary Kleck;s eponymous work at Florida State University.
Essentially, these surveys conduct anonymous, cold-call interviews
wherein respondents are asked whether of not they have ever used a
firearm in a defensive manner.  The survey defines a positive answer
as a "DGU", assumably invoking the idea of a "defensive gun use";
however, it is important to keep in mind that the artifacts being
counted are simply survey answers by anonymous respondents.

There is nothing inherently wrong with data obtained from survey
instruments; however, the data have to be validated.  This usually
means taking a sample of the data and investigating them rigorously,
and, in the Kleck surveys, this step has never been attempted.  (I
have no idea how this would, or could, be done in an anonymous
telephone survey.)  The extrapolation is statistically valid if you
are careful to say that there would be 60 million [always end made-up
numbers with zeros so that your asshole doesn't slam shut when you
pull 'em out!] positive answers to the survey were it to be
administered nationally; however, not a single use, defensive or
otherwise, of a firearm was ever documented.

A second possible method of validation exists that *can* be used on
anonymous surveys.  It's not as reliable as data sampling; however, it
can provide insight.  The technique is called "complimenting the item"
or asking the question backwards to flip the suspected bias.  In this
case, the respondents would be asked if they had ever been involved in
a gun-related incident where the other person could *possibly* have
believed he or she was acting in self-defense.  Of course, the number
of positive responses is expected to be far lower than the original
survey; however, the quotient would give the reader a metric of
validity… *anything* would be impressive!  (I wrote to Dr. Kleck and
asked why he didn't try that.  I haven't heard back, and don't expect
to.)

The bottom line is that we have no idea how many defensive uses of
firearms we have had in the US.  Not a single one has ever been
proven; however, none have ever been disproven, either.  To get an
idea what an estimate of that number might be, we should avoid
listening to any organization or researcher funded by money from the
gun industry.



References:

English, William, 2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis
Including Types of Firearms Owned (May 13, 2022). Georgetown McDonough
School of Business Research Paper No. 4109494, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4109494 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4109494