I have no doubt defensive firearm use is vastly underreported and under covered by the media but I keep running into questions on how the surveys are measuring whether a firearm had a role in an incident.
Some could be very clear, like a robber walks up demanding money and the victim points a gun at the robber and he runs away or gets shot but are all so clear? Are the surveys merely asking people if they used a gun defensively or are they evaluating the reports? If a survey question leaves too much open for interpretation then you can end up with skewed results because of subjective answers. So for example if I worked in a convenience store and a sketchy looking guy walked in eyeballing me but then saw the gun on my waiste and left. Would that count as a defensive firearm use?
I also wonder whether people are answering accurately, since this is a hot button issue, a firearm rights advocate might lie and say they used a firearm defensively just to make a better argument for their position on the issue.
From the CDC:
Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a
firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime
or victimization.
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations
studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a
range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htmlThis has been reported many times by the CDC in many ways, including to say, "The use of firearms defensively occurs at least as often as does the criminal use of guns."
I think most people understand the plain language description when deciding if they defended themselves or others with a gun whether or not it resulted in discharging the gun.
It's useless to further dissect individual events in hopes of gaining some hidden insight into causes and effects. We don't do that for criminal stats, so pretending there's something more to learn from DGU stats would be treating the two data differently.
If a firearm had a "role"? Firearms are inanimate objects. The only "role" it plays is the one the person holding it decides. The gun has no choice in the matter.
You don't need defending from someone "eyeballing" you, so no, that's not a case of self defense at all.
However, if you're walking alone in a deserted parking lot toward your car, and you turn to see 3 young men walking in your direction, you can tell them to not come any closer -- they can wait until you leave to keep walking that way if they need to. If they continue, and you draw your weapon repeating the demand they not come closer and they stop/turn to leave, it's pretty clear the firearm made the difference.
If you believe you were at risk of injury, rape, or death, or another person may be, you can draw a gun. If doing so scares away the threat, then you were prudent to hold your fire.
If no rounds are fired, you really don't have to justify your actions. If the threat was real, it's doubtful they will file a report for you pointing a gun at them, which is why most of these situations go unreported. Basically nothing happened as the situation was diffused. That's the way it SHOULD be viewed, but there are some prosecutors who argue that if you didn't fire, then you really weren't in fear for your life. It becomes a Catch-22. if you fire, you're a killer. If you don't fire, you were not actually afraid enough to draw a gun.
The legal system often overrides common sense by playing Monday morning quarterback.
Maybe they should devise a poll of how many people with Concealed Carry rights don't carry because the laws threaten to destroy their lives if they ever unholster it.