The Defensive Gun Use Lie and the Gun Lobby’s Firehose of Falsehood
The Defensive Gun Use Lie and the Gun Lobby’s Firehose of Falsehood
How decades of shoddy research, lax academic oversight, marketing, and outright lies fatally warped America’s gun culture
By: Devin Hughes
This is Part 1 of a 12-part series on the defensive gun use (DGU) myth. Stay tuned for the next piece in the series, which will cover the academic origins of, and the massive flaws within, the widespread DGU theory.
Part 1: An Introduction to Defensive Gun Use
On July 25, 2020, Daniel Perry was working as an Uber driver in Austin, Texas, when he ran a red light and drove into a Black Lives Matter protest.
After he stopped, a group of protestors approached his car, concerned by how close he had come to the protest. One of the protestors, Garrett Foster, was carrying an AK-47 style rifle. Perry drew his own revolver, and fired on Foster, killing him. Perry’s lawyers argued that he feared for his life, that Foster raised his rifle towards Perry, and that the killing was a case of self-defense.
The prosecution argued that because Perry instigated the altercation by driving at the protestors, and there were multiple witnesses who swore Foster never raised his rifle, the self-defense argument fell flat. The prosecution also noted that before the shooting, Perry put up multiple racist and inflammatory social media posts and sent text messages about the protests, stating in one that he “might go to Dallas to shoot looters,” and in others that he could get away with killing a protester if it was seen as self-defense.
Finally, Perry himself stated to investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting that, “I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me” — revealing that Foster had not yet actually raised his rifle.
In April of this year, the jury reached a guilty verdict that caused outrage in pro-gun circles, with former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and others calling it a miscarriage of justice. Texas Governor Greg Abbott quickly seized on the news, and in an unprecedented move, announced he would pardon Daniel Perry, before the verdict even had a chance to be appealed.
The incident is one of countless tragic examples of how the prevailing and false narrative that “guns make us safer” leads to death.
For decades, the gun lobby has pushed the narrative that defensive gun use is widespread, beneficial for society, and the most effective means of self-defense. As we will explore, none of these claims are true. It is long past time for defensive gun use to be put under the spotlight and rigorously analyzed.
Indeed, looking at each of these claims will reveal the following:
Defensive gun use is not widespread. Pro-gun proponents claim that there are millions of defensive gun uses (hereinafter “DGUs”) annually. However, Gun Violence Archive data finds between 1,195 and 2,119 verified DGUs annually.
Defensive gun use is not beneficial for society. Every type of data source finds vastly more offensive than defensive gun uses. Looking closer at the data also reveals that most DGUs are criminal and societally harmful actions in which a gun owner attacks someone, as the case of Daniel Perry demonstrates.
Guns are not the most effective means of self-defense. Despite claims that DGUs are “by far the most effective way for people to protect themselves,” in reality, research consistently shows no statistically significant difference in injury rates between using a gun or a different means of self-defense.
As it would turn out, Governor Abbott’s announcement on April 8th would be just the first in a recent string of high-profile cases of dubious defensive gun use claims.
On April 13th, 16-year old Ralph Yarl was headed to pick up his two younger brothers from a friend’s home when he unintentionally walked up to the wrong front door in northern Kansas City, Missouri. The 84-year old who answered the door instantly shot him in the head, and then again in the arm.
On April 15th, two teenagers were delivering groceries for Instacart in south Florida when they unintentionally arrived at the wrong address. They realized their mistake, but were confronted by the homeowner who tried to block them with his truck, and then opened fire as the two teenagers fled.
Again on April 15th, this time in Fort Edward, New York, 20-year old Kaylin Gillis and a group of her friends were searching for a friend’s house late at night when they pulled into the wrong driveway. While none of them exited the car, the 65-year old homeowner approached and opened fire, killing Kaylin.
The very next day, a man living in Orlando, FL, shot his girlfriend in the back, killing her, during an argument after a birthday party for their son. He claimed that his girlfriend kept “coming at'' him. He produced a firearm during the altercation, and later, when she was walking away, he shot her. He has claimed self-defense.
On April 18th, two cheerleaders in Elgin, TX, were shot when they tried to enter the wrong car in a parking lot after practice. They realized their mistake when the car owner produced a firearm.They got into the correct car and tried to drive away, but the car owner pursued and opened fire.
All of these cases highlight the risks of the defensive gun use narrative, but are also merely the tip of the DGU iceberg that we will explore in much greater detail.
Selling the Defensive Gun Use Narrative
The National Rifle Association (NRA) convention held in April of each year — which, in 2023, ironically overlapped with many of the incidents documented above — serves as a shining beacon of the defensive gun use mythos. Rows upon rows of firearms and firearm accessories dominate the convention space, replete with salesmen eager to sell you on the most lethal innovations in ammunition, emphasize the necessity of bra holsters, gush over .50-caliber sniper rifles that can take out small vehicles, and articulate why two-shot derringers designed to look like cell phones are in fact a great idea.
While segments of the floor are still dedicated to hunting and recreation, the overall message is that the world is a dangerous place, and the only way to stay safe is to arm yourself with a gun.
The narrative that firearms are necessary for self-defense and reducing crime more broadly has been around since their invention.
American culture is replete with stories of self-defense and “good guys with guns” stopping the “bad guys.” However, the increase in firearm ownership for self-defense and the weakening of firearm laws at the state level as a crime prevention strategy didn’t take off until the 1980s.
The NRA itself has not been shy about its strategy. Internal NRA documents, unearthed by The Trace, highlight the shift in the marketing strategy to a self-defense narrative, with the NRA’s Information Division director bluntly stating, “This is why no matter the policy, our messaging continues to focus on self-defense.”
This shift in the conversation — from hunting to self-defense — is highlighted in a pair of studies led by Dr. David Yamane. In this work, the authors analyze advertisements in The American Rifleman (the NRA’s flagship publication) and the popular magazine, Guns. They sampled publications throughout each magazine's lifetime for advertisements that fell into four broad categories: hunting, sport/recreation, self-defense, and concealed carry — categorizing them as “Gun Culture 1.0” and “Gun Culture 2.0.” Gun Culture 1.0 is about sporting and hunting, whereas Gun Culture 2.0 is about self-defense, both in public and at home.
1959
While the number and size of ads fluctuate substantially from year to year, there is a clear downward trend in Gun Culture 1.0 ads after the 1960s and a substantial increase in Gun Culture 2.0 ads during the late 1980s and 1990s. Although Gun Culture 1.0 ads still maintain more of an absolute presence during the upswing of Gun Culture 2.0 ads in the ‘80s and ‘90s, eventually the two trend lines cross in the early 2010s when self-defense and concealed carry ads take a decisive lead.
2010
It is hard to overstate how important the widespread and effective defensive gun use narrative is to the gun lobby. Without this narrative, there is no serious affirmative case to be made in favor of widespread gun ownership and weakening gun laws.
The theories that more guns mean less crime, that mass shooters target gun-free zones, and that stricter gun laws actually harm people all collapse if it is disproven that DGUs are widespread and effective. Yet, despite its central and overwhelming importance, relatively little attention has been paid to DGUs outside a handful of scholars pushing back on the myth.
Defining Defensive Gun Use
Before diving into the DGU debate in full, it is important to clarify what precisely a defensive gun use is.
A DGU occurs when a citizen either fires, brandishes, or reveals a firearm in an attempt to stop an assailant from committing or completing a crime. This action can be in defense of oneself, others, or even property. Law enforcement shootings are not considered defensive gun uses for the purposes of this paper.
However, even this straightforward definition has substantial gray areas, as it can be unclear what kind of behaviors are sufficient to constitute a genuine defensive gun use. For example, all of the cases in April of 2023 listed above are ones in which the person firing the gun likely felt their actions were completely justified for their own defense, yet from an outside perspective are hard (if not impossible) to justify. At the other end of the spectrum, the guard who stopped an active shooting in a Texas church on December 29, 2019, was a textbook case of legal defensive gun use.
The most straightforward version of a DGU is when someone is attacked, fears for their life or safety, and fires a gun at the assailant in self-defense. Unless the person being attacked is already in the act of committing a separate crime, that is a clearly justified DGU. The same holds true if someone else is being attacked and that person’s life or safety is clearly in danger. Further, the defendant doesn’t need to actually fire a gun at the assailant for it to be classified as a DGU; merely drawing and pointing the weapon is sufficient.
Tomorrow, Part 2 will look at the academic origins of the DGU myth, and why claims of widespread DGUs are not feasible.
Devin Hughes is the President and Founder of GVPedia, a non-profit that provides access to gun violence prevention research, and data.
Toy image by ErikaWittlieb from Pixabay; vintage American Rifleman cover from Etsy; Guns cover from FMG Publications.