"Methods
Data come from two national random digit dial surveys conducted by Fact Finders, Inc in the spring of 1996 and the spring of 1999. The
samples comprise, respectively, 1905 and 2521 adults living in the 50 states. The samples were stratified by state, with the
number of interviews designated for each state determined by that state’s population relative to the total population according to the 1990
census. All households with a single telephone line, including those with unlisted numbers, had an equal probability of inclusion in the
sample. Households without a telephone were excluded from the sample. No more than one adult from each household
was interviewed. Rather than interview the adult who happened to be at home at the time of the call, the interviewers alternately
asked to speak with a man or with a woman living in the household. If there was no adult living in the household of the requested gender,
the initial respondent was interviewed.
Results show unweighted data. Once a telephone number was randomly
selected, as many as 10 repeat phone calls were made until a final disposition was assigned. In 1996, 27% of contacted households refused to
participate in the survey; in 1999, 35% refused. These response rates are comparable to other self defense gun use surveys.11 12
Respondents who answered yes to either gun use qualifying question were asked up to 30 follow up questions about the most recent
event, including an open ended question which asked them to describe the incident. All results eliminate respondents who were police officers,
security guards, or military personnel.
Results also eliminate cases in which the respondent reported that the event occurred more than five years before the survey or outside the United
States.
In the case of hostile gun displays, we also eliminated incidents in which the respondent refused to provide any detailed information
about the event at the time of the initial interview, the respondent appeared to be an observer rather a participant in the event, or
was thought to be a criminal (for example, by the police).We were more stringent about what was counted as a hostile gun display, and more
permissive about was counted as a self defense gun use.
The specific qualifying questions in both surveys were similar.13 In 1999 respondents were asked “In the past five years, has anyone
used, displayed or brought out a gun in a hostile manner against you [italics added], even if this event did not take place as part of the
commission of a crime?” The 1996 question did not include the “against you” and so obtained more instances when the respondent
was merely a witness.
The 1999 survey inadvertently omitted an open ended question about the most recent hostile gun display. Four to eight months after
the initial interview we tried to recontact all those who had reported a hostile gun display against them. We were able to gain a verbatim
description of the most recent event from half these respondents. In 6% of these instances it appeared that the respondent merely witnessed
the hostile gun display. In calculating the number of hostile gun displays, we thus excluded 6% of all non-contacted respondents
who reported a hostile gun display.
All respondents in the 1999 survey were asked “In the past five years, have you used, displayed or brought out a gun in self defense
to protect yourself from a person or people?” The 1996 survey asked “In the past five years, have you used a gun to protect yourself from a
person or people?” In order to obtain a generous estimate of self defense gun uses, we included incidents even
when the respondent refused to give any information about the event or, from the description, it appeared the other party never knew the
respondent displayed the gun. Self defense gun use incidents were summarized and sent to five criminal court judges
(from California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) who were assured anonymity. The judges were told to assume that the respondent had a
permit to own and carry the gun and had described the event honestly from his/her own perspective. The judges were then asked to give
their best guess whether, based on the respondent’s description of the incident, the respondent’s use of the gun was very likely
legal, likely legal, as likely as not legal, unlikely legal, or very unlikely legal.
