This is a recurring claim of the mainstream media: that gun
murders so far outnumber justifiable homicides that gun ownership is a net
loss. This is a statement that is
technically accurate but misleading.
This would be an interesting
argument if the FBI’s justifiable homicide statistics included all defensive
killings by civilians. But it does
not. The FBI’s manual on reporting data to the Uniform Crime
Reports system is very clear as to what deaths may be reported as
“justifiable homicides”:
Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court. [emphasis added]
So if
the police, prosecutor, judge or jury decide that a killing was legally valid
self-defense, it isn’t included in the FBI’s justifiable homicide
statistics. Also, only defensive killings
“in conjunction with other offenses” are included. Obviously if you kill someone engaged in
robbery or attempted murder it gets included, but many states allow deadly
force under circumstances that may not involve such. To use an example from California law: “committed
by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means,
with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent” or the excusable homicide category “When
committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden
and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, when no undue advantage is
taken, nor any dangerous weapon used, and when the killing is not done in a
cruel or unusual manner.”
These “sudden combat” excusable
homicide deaths are not in a technical sense “justifiable homicide” and so don’t
show up in the FBI’s statistics. Studies
of such deaths suggest that civilians
kill in self-defense far more commonly than the police of the FBI’s “justifiable
homicide” statistics sugest. The
noted criminologist Gary Kleck has concluded, based on these studies, that the
number of CLDHs with guns per year is
typically 7.1% to 12.9% of the murder rate (at least five times the FBI’s
“justifiable homicide with a gun” figures).
So the FBI’s “justifiable homicide” statistics grossly understate
civilian defensive uses of guns that cause criminal deaths.
There’s a deeper problem here as
well: many civilian defensive uses of guns cause no deaths at all. Bad guys
suddenly remember an urgent appointment elsewhere when confronted. How often?
For 2003-2011, my associates and OI gathered new media and official
agency reports of such uses. As of today, we have more than 4400
such uses that were considered important enough to report. Doubtless, there were many others never
reported.
Summary:
the FBI’s justifiable homicide statistics are a very incomplete measure of
civilians using guns for self-defense and any sort of cost/benefit analysis based
on comparing gun murders to justifiable homicides is grossly misleading. A more formal version of this will be
appearing in the University of Florida Journal
of Law & Public Policy soon. PDF of this is here.
Clayton E. Cramer teaches history
at College of Western Idaho as needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment