Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case By Gary…

Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case

                      By Gary Mauser


    There is a vigorous debate over the frequency with which
private citizens resort to the use of firearms for self defense.
No information has been previously available about how
often firearms are used defensively outside of the United
States. This paper estimates the frequency with which
firearms are used for self protection by analyzing three
telephone surveys of the general public in Canada and a
fourth survey of the general public in the United States.
Canadians report using firearms to protect themselves
between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous
people or animals. Between 19,000 and 37,500 of these
incidents involve defense against human threats. The results
of the American survey confirm estimates about the
frequency firearms are used for self protection in the United
States (Kleck 1988, 1991). In comparison with the number of
households with firearms, the frequency with which
Canadians use firearms to defend themselves against human
threats is somewhat less than that of Americans. Policy
makers in both the United States and in Canada should be
aware the private ownership of firearms has benefits as well
as costs for society. Firearms bans may cost more lives than
they save.
    Dr. Gary A. Mauser is a scholar with the Institute of
Canadian Urban Research Studies and a member of the
Faculty of Business Administration, at Simon Fraser
University, in Burnaby, British Columbia. This article was
originally published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol
24, No 5, pp 393-406, Copyright (1996), and is reprinted
with permission from Elsevier Science. A few typographic
Mauser                                          The Canadian Case

and other changes have been made in the version published
here.

     Self defense is a troublesome right. On the one hand, it would
seem obvious that all people have--or should have--the inherent
right to use physical force to defend themselves from assault.
Not surprisingly, the criminal codes of many countries includes
self defense as a legitimate justification for the use of deadly
force. On the other hand, the right of self defense threatens our
faith in the rule of law. It is too easy for revenge or even
aggression to be confused with legitimate self defense. The
intensity of this debate increases when the use of firearms in self
defense is considered.
     Self defense can be distinguished from all other reasons for
using force, such as revenge. Self defense entails those acts
intended to protect one's physical safety or property, or to protect
the safety or property of others. Clearly, one is morally and
legally justified to use force to protect oneself, or one's family,
from dangerous animals, such as grizzly bears. As well, it is
morally and legally proper to use physical force, even deadly
force under certain conditions, in order to protect oneself, one's
family, or one's property from criminal aggression.
     Revenge, however, involves retribution, or an attempt to
punish an offender. The desire to punish, or to revenge oneself
against a criminal, is not a legal reason for the use of force, of
any degree, especially not deadly force. Certainly in a given
incident, elements of vengeance might be mixed with a concern
with self defense, but logically, retribution is not necessarily
involved in self defense.
     Criminologists have tended to ignore self defense, possibly
because of its ethical ambiguity, and have preferred to view
victims as either sharing culpability or as being passive targets for
criminal aggression. Many scholars view victims as involved in
"mutual combat" and therefore as blameworthy as the offender
(Wolfgang 1958).

48
Journal on Firearms                               Volume Eleven

     Other scholars reject the "mutual combat" model, at least for
family violence, rape, or violence against children (Berk et al
1983). In this perspective, a women being attacked by a rapist is
seen as a passive target for the rapist, but most male -on-male
violence would be viewed as "mutual combat." Despite the
ethical ambiguity of self defense, it is not difficult to find
exceptions to the "mutual combat" model. For example, women
may legitimately use violence to resist becoming a rape victim,
store owners (men or women) may legitimately use violence to
avoid being robbed or killed by an armed robber, or anyone may
use force to resist attack by a stranger.
     As a consequence, criminologists have begun to expand the
model of moral inequality to include situations where the victim is
not passive, but instead takes forceful actions that are largely
defensive (Kleck 1988).
     The question of the defensive use of firearms has recently
attracted the interest of criminologists. A hot debate has arisen
over the frequency with which citizens use firearms to defend
themselves or their families. Kleck (1988, 1991) estimated that
between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people in the United States use a
firearm in self protection each year. After a number of
methodological improvements were made, this estimate was later
increased to between 2.1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun
uses annually (Kleck and Gertz 1995). An alternative estimate is
that there are about 80,000 to 82,000 uses annually (Cook 1991).
Differences in methodology account for this enormous
discrepancy. Cook's estimate is based upon the prestigious
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which involved
interviews with 59,000 households, while Kleck's earlier analysis
was based upon a collection of thirteen representative surveys of
the general public. The surveys used by Kleck were conducted
by a variety of professional survey organizations for diverse
clients. These clients include media, pro-gun and anti-gun groups
and independent academics.


                                                                49
Mauser                                         The Canadian Case

     Kleck and Gertz (1995) argue that the NCVS is unsuited to
estimate defensive gun use because it is a non-anonymous survey
conducted by a branch of the federal government and was not
designed to sample people who use firearms to resist criminal
violence. First, it is easy to withhold information about a
defensive gun use in the NCVS. Not only are R's screened for
victimhood before they are asked if they did anything to protect
themselves, but R's are never directly asked if they used a
firearm to defend themselves.
     Second, because a defensive gun use is legally controversial,
even under the best circumstances, many respondents would be
expected to be afraid of admitting to an employee of the U.S.
government that they may have committed an illegal act, or that
they may be in possession of an illegal gun.
     The debate over the use of firearms in self protection has
been almost entirely restricted to the United States. In Canada,
for example, the prevailing attitude appears to be that there is no
need for self defense (Friedland 1984). Not only do the police
actively discourage self defense in general, but armed self
defense is widely considered to be illegal.
     Exceptionally few Canadian organizations argue that citizens
have the right to defend themselves with weapons.1 The most
dramatic illustration of the official discouragement of armed self
defense is the recent passage of an omnibus bill by the Canadian
Parliament that, among other provisions, prohibits and confiscates
without compensation, over half of all legally owned handguns in
Canada on the grounds that they are small and so might be used
for self defense.2
     This lack of debate is particularly surprising because Canada
and the United States "... probably resemble each other more
than any other two countries on earth" (Lipset 1985, p 109). Both
countries were former British colonies; both have had a "frontier
experience," and both have shared similar waves of immigration
(Lipset 1985; Tonso 1982). Almost a third of Canadian
households (30 percent) have firearms as compared with half of

50
Journal on Firearms                                Volume Eleven

households in the United States; and the violent crime rate in
Canada (1,132 per 100,000) is apparently higher than that in the
United States (746 per 100,000) in 1993 (Mauser and Margolis
1992; StatisticsCanada 1994; FBI, 1994).3
     Despite the strong similarities, Canada differs in many ways
from the United States. Some scholars have even argued that the
United States is unique in the world, particularly with respect to
its gun culture (Hofstadter 1970; Friedland 1984). Canada has
long had much stricter firearms laws than the United States.
Handguns have been registered since 1934, and a police permit
has been required to purchase a firearm since 1978 (Hawley
1988). Unfortunately, little is known about how often Canadians
use weapons to defend themselves from criminal violence.
Although a few studies have investigated the carrying of
weapons by Canadians (Sacco 1995; Kong 1994), and others
have examined attitudes towards the use of firearms in self
defense (Mauser 1990; Mauser and Margolis 1992), there are
virtually no published studies that estimate the frequency with
which firearms are used in self defense in Canada.4 It is possible
that Canada's "gun culture" resembles the United States more
than has been assumed.
     This article examines the extent to which firearms are used
in self defense in Canada, and compares these estimates with the
available estimates of how often Americans use firearms to
protect themselves. In view of the similarities between the two
countries, it is argued here that Canadians do not differ from
Americans as much as has been thought with respect to the
defensive use of firearms.
     The first section of the article briefly compares the two
countries, the legal situation, the nature of violent crime, and the
sociology of firearms ownership. The main section of the article
estimates the frequency with which Canadians use firearms in
self defense and compares these rates with those in the United
States. The approach taken is based upon questions that have
been asked by other researchers so that the results are

                                                                 51
Mauser                                         The Canadian Case

comparable with similar studies in the United States (Kleck, 1988,
1991).

The Canadian situation
     Unlike the United States Constitution, the Canadian
Constitution, in Section 92(14), mandates that the federal
government is responsible for enacting criminal law and that the
provinces are principally responsible for enforcement (Hogg
1992). Some variability inevitably arises across the country, but
there is a high degree of national uniformity because there are
frequent conferences among the provincial attorneys general, and
most provinces rely upon the RCMP to act as the local police
force. Despite disavowals by police officials, the Canadian
criminal code does include the right o citizens to use deadly
                                          f
force to protect themselves (sections 34, 35, and 37). The key
provision in the Canadian criminal code (§34) is that, no one may
use "more force than is necessary" and then only when "he
believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise
preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm." In section
35, the code goes on to require that one must show that "he
declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the
assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of
preserving himself ... arose." Moreover, the right to use physical
force to defend non-family members is more limited than it is in
many American states, as are the Canadians' rights to repulse
trespassers on their own property, or to use force to stop the
commission of serious or violent crimes (Viz. sections 24, 40, and
41).
     Self defense is also circumscribed in Canada by more
conditions than are typically found in the United States. A wide
range of self defensive weapons (e.g., Mace, pepper spray, small
handguns) are prohibited. 5 Ownership of any of these weapons is
punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. For all practical
purposes, it has been impossible to own a handgun for self
protection since 1977. 6 Recent firearms legislation now requires

52
Journal on Firearms                                Volume Eleven

firearms to not only be unloaded when stored in one's residence
but must also be put under lock and key (Section 86(3) of the
Canadian Criminal Code).7
     Another important difference between the United States and
Canada is enforcement. Judging from newspaper reports, anyone
who uses a weapon in self defense is much more likely to be
charged in Canada than would be the case in the United States.
Even if the attacker is not injured seriously. The charges may be
"possession of a prohibited weapon," "careless use," or "unsafe
storage of a firearm," rather than "assault" or "attempted
murder." Apparently, the Crown is determined to discourage
people from using "violence" to defend themselves.8 Anyone
who uses a firearm to defend him or herself must be financially
able to prove in court that he or she acted in self defense.
     The murder rate is typically much higher in the United States
than in Canada. In Canada, the murder rate in 1993 was two per
100,000 residents; this is only one-fifth of the murder rate in the
United States that year, where it was almost ten per 100,000.
Despite the existence of "violent crime rate" indices, the murder
rate is perhaps the best way to compare the two countries. This
is due to the exceptional reliability of homicide statistics as well
as the ambiguity of indices of "violent crime."
     A few crime rates are higher in Canada than in the United
States. In 1993, the burglary rate in Canada, at 1,414 per 100,000,
was almost 50 percent higher than the US rate of 1,099 per
100,000. Even more striking is the comparison between the two
countries in sexual assault. The Canadian "forcible rape" rate, at
121 per 100,000, is much higher than the rate in the United
States, forty-one per 100,000. However, this may be artificially
high due to the difficulty of estimating "forcible rape" from
Canadian crime data. There is no category identical to "forcible
rape" in the Canadian criminal code, so it has had to be
approximated, and therefore the comparison may be too
inclusive.9


                                                                 53
Mauser                                          The Canadian Case

     The burglary comparison is more trustworthy than rape, as
burglary is defined the virtually same way in both countries.
Nevertheless, international comparisons are always problematic
as there may be differences in the reliability of the police reports.
     Despite the generally lower crime rate in Canada, intensive
media coverage of brutal crimes has frightened the general
public. This concern is reflected in the results of various surveys.
The 1993 General Social Survey found that 25 percent of
Canadians age fifteen years or older say that they feel somewhat
or very unsafe walking alone in their neighborhood after dark. 10
Women are four times as likely as men to say that they feel
somewhat or very unsafe walking alone in their neighborhood
after dark (Sacco 1995). A related question generated a similar
response: One in four Canadians reported feeling very or
somewhat worried when alone in their homes at night. Again,
women said they were more worried than did men (Sacco 1995).
     Self defense courses for women are available at many
Canadian universities and community centers. Many women's
groups encourage women to learn how to protect themselves
against rapists. The market for self defense items (e.g., dogs,
martial arts courses, bear spray and personal alarms) is estimated
to be $11-15 million just in British Columbia, Canada's
westernmost province (Lai 1994). Although it is a prohibited
weapon, "bear spray" is widely sold by women's groups.11
Surprisingly, a nationally recognized columnist recently called for
women to arm for self defense (Amiel 1995).
     Before examining firearms use in Canada and the United
States, it is important to compare the ownership and use of
firearms in the two countries. Substantially fewer Canadians
have firearms than Americans. Between 28 percent and one-
third of Canadian households have one or more firearms, while
between 45 and 50 percent of households in the United States do
so. Canadians have almost as many rifles (29%) as Americans
(32%), but they have far fewer handguns. Estimates range
between 3 percent and 7 percent of Canadian households have

54
Journal on Firearms                              Volume Eleven

one or more handguns, while between 22 percent and 27 percent
of households in the US do so (Mauser and Margolis 1992;
Mauser and Buckner 1997).
    For the most part, Canadians own firearms for the same
reasons that Americans do. The principal reason given for
owning firearms in either country is "hunting." Between 5
percent and 10 percent of Canadians as well as Americans cite
"target shooting" or "part of a gun collection" as their primary
reason for firearms ownership. The principal difference has to do
with self defense. Canadians are much less likely (5 percent)
than Americans (22 percent) to volunteer "self defense" as their
main reason for owning a firearm.

Methods
     This article is based upon three tele phone surveys of the
general public in Canada and a fourth survey of the general
public in the United States, all of which have been conducted
under the direction of the author during the past decade (See
Table 1). All four surveys involved professional survey firms and
random digit dialing methods to generate representative samples
of the general public. All R's were interviewed over the
telephone by professional interviewers. The most recent survey
was conducted by Canadian Facts (CF), between January 18 and
23, 1995 and used stratified random sampling methods to
interview 1,505 R's, eighteen years of age or older, in all ten
provinces, but not in either of the territories (Mauser and
Buckner 1997).12 Canadian Facts is one of the largest private
survey companies in Canada.

Table 1. The telephone surveys which asked about frequency of
defensive use of firearms

Survey              Sowden   CSUR        CSUR        Canadian
research                                              Facts
firm
Year of interview    1988    1990         1990         1995

                                                                55
Mauser                                                        The Canadian Case

Target Population        BC           Canada        United States      Canada
Population            Residents      Residents       Residents        Residents
covered
Telephone                Yes            Yes             Yes              Yes
interview
Sample Size              403            393             344            1,505
Stratified Random        Yes            Yes             Yes             Yes
Sampling
Random Digit             Yes            Yes             Yes              Yes
Dialing
Professional             Yes            Yes             Yes              Yes
interviewers
Gun type covered      All firearms   All firearms   All firearms     All firearms
Distinguished uses         Yes            Yes            Yes              Yes
against persons
vs. against animals
Excluded military,       Yes            Yes             Yes              Yes
& police uses
Defensive               All Rs         All Rs          All Rs           All Rs
questions asked
of:
Defensive question    Household      Household      Household        Household
refers to:
Time frame of            Ever        Five years      Five years      1 & 5 years
question about
defensive use of
firearms.
Percent who used        4.0%           3.1%            4.1%             2.1%
a firearm against
animals or humans
Implied total          80,000         62,500         754,000          66,000
annual number of
defensive uses of
firearms
 Percent who used       1.9%           1.6%            3.8%             0.6%
a firearm against
human threat




56
Journal on Firearms                                 Volume Eleven

Implied annual      37,500    32,000      700,000        19,000
number of
defensive uses of
firearms against
human threats

     Early in 1990, a survey of the general public in the United
States was undertaken simultaneously with a survey of the
Canadian general public (Mauser & Margolis 1992). Both of
these surveys were conducted by the Center for Social and
Urban Research (CSUR) at the University of Pittsburgh. 13
Representative samples of adult residents, eighteen years of age
or older, were drawn using stratified random sampling methods to
ensure adequate representation from both countries. Professional
interviewers completed 393 telephone interviews in all Canadian
provinces (including ninety-three interviews of residents in
Quebec conducted in French), but not in either of the territories,
and 344 in the United States during the period of March 20
through April 10, 1990. The target population in the United States
included all states, except Hawaii and Alaska, and the District of
Columbia.
     A third survey of the general public in Canada was
conducted by Sowden Research between April 5-9, 1988
(Mauser 1990). Sowden Research is a professional survey
research firm in British Columbia.14 In this study, a representative
sample of adult residents, eighteen years of age or older, was
drawn using stratified random sampling methods to ensure
adequate representation of all households in British Columbia.
Professional interviewers completed 403 interviews over the
telephone with throughout BC.
     Although none of these studies had self defense as its
principal focus, each study included a short series of questions
about the use of firearms for self protection. These questions
were based upon Kleck's analysis of a similar series of questions
originally used in the 1981 Hart Poll (Kleck 1988, 1991). Nearly
identical questions were asked in both the CSUR and CF studies.

                                                                  57
Mauser                                         The Canadian Case

In the CF study, respondents were first asked: "Within the past
five years, have you yourself, or another member of your
household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection,
or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere?
Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a
security guard." If the respondent answered, "yes," he or she
was then asked, "Was this to protect against an animal or a
person (or both)." The questions used in the CSUR study were
almost identical. Respondents in both Canada and the US were
first asked: "Aside from military service or police work, in the
past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your
household, used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of
property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired?"
If the respondent answered, "yes," he or she was then asked,
"Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both)."
     Despite the small differences among these questions, the
formulation used in these surveys is superior to the original 1981
Hart question. First, this version asks about the defensive use of
all types of guns, not just handguns. Second, it is more precise
because it asks about a specific time period rather than the vague
"have you ever used a gun." Third, it asks about the self defense
of people as well as the protection of property. Fourth, it excludes
the defensive uses of firearms as part of military and police
duties. Finally, it distinguishes between defensive uses against
animal threats and human threats. However, both the Hart and
the Mauser questions ask about firearms use by anyone in the
family, not just those of the respondent. As others have shown,
this leads to substantial underreporting of the defensive firearms
uses of other household members (Kleck and Gertz 1995). It is
preferable to rely upon the experiences of the Rs themselves.
     The CF study also included two further follow-up questions,
"Did this incident or any of these incidents happen in the past
twelve months?" and, "Was it you who used a gun defensively or
did someone else in your household do this?" The first question
facilitates annual estimates of firearms use, and the second

58
Journal on Firearms                                 Volume Eleven

question, by identifying how many (if any) of the incidents
involved the R, helps to increase confidence in the analysis.
     The question used in the 1988 Sowden study differed the
most from the other studies in that it asked if respondents had
"ever" used a firearm for self protection, rather than asking if
they had used a firearm for self protection "in the past five
years." (See Table 1 for a comparison of the question wordings).
It is preferable to ask about a fixed time period rather than
leaving it open because problems with memory loss have been
found to increase with the use of longer periods of recall
(Sudman and Bradburn 1973). Since relatively few people use
their firearms in self protection, it was felt that a relatively long
time period was required. Therefore, it was decided to use a five-
year period. In hindsight, a one-year time period would have been
better.
     In all surveys, R's were asked these questions without
screening for gun ownership or for prior victimization. This point
is important because some R's may not have firearms now, but
may have used firearms defensively when they did have access
to firearms. Similarly with screening for victimhood: R's may not
report being a victim because they do not consider themselves a
victim, having successfully frightened off the attacker with a
firearm.
     The similarity of the questions used in these Canadian
surveys permits greater confidence in comparing the Canadian
results with those conducted in the United States. The CSUR
study is particularly important in this regard. In this study, surveys
were conducted simultaneously of the general publics in both the
US and in Canada. A number of surveys of the general adult
population in the United States have used basically similar
questions.15

The Use of Firearms in Self Defense
    This section estimates how often Canadians use firearms to
defend themselves, and compares these estimates with how often

                                                                   59
Mauser                                        The Canadian Case

Americans are estimated to use firearms to protect themselves.
For purposes of estimation, the two best surveys were the CSUR
and CF studies because they were based upon nationwide
samples and the question was limited to a five-year period. Table
2 presents the percentages from each of the four surveys and
estimates the numbers of people who used firearms to protect
themselves against human or animal threats or both. In the CF
survey, 2.1 percent of R's report that someone in their household
had used a firearm for self protection during the past five years,
and in the CSUR survey, 3.1 percent of R's report having done
so. The Sowden survey estimated that 4.0 percent of R's
reported that someone in their household had used a firearm for
self protection during the past five years. These are very small
percentages, but, when it is realized that there were 10,079,442
households in Canada in 1991, they translate into surprisingly
large numbers of Canadians.




Table 2. Estimating the annual frequency of defensive gun use.

                 Sowden(a     CSUR        CSUR          US (c)
                 )            Facts       Canada(c)
                              (b)
 Percentages:
 Animal             2.1%        1.5%         1.5%         0.3%
 Person             1.4%        0.5%         1.3%         3.5%
 Both               0.5%        0.1%         0.3%         0.3%
 Total              4.0%        2.1%         3.1%         4.1%
 Number, in
 past 5
 years:
 Animal             211,700     147,000       151,200      275,800


60
Journal on Firearms                                         Volume Eleven

 Person                  141,100        52,000          131,000      3,218,200
 Both                     50,400         8,600           30,200        275,800
 Total                   403,200       207,600          312,400      3,769,800
  Number, per
        year:
 Animal                   42,500        47,100           30,200         55,200
 Person                   27,500        16,600           26,300        643,600
 Both                     10,000         2,700            6,000         55,200
 Total                    80,000        66,400           62,500        754,000

Source: Survey of BC general public conducted in 1988 (Mauser 1990); survey
of Canadian general public conducted in 1995 (Mauser and Buckner 1997);
surveys of general publics in the United States and Canada conducted in 1990
(Mauser and Margolis 1992).

a - The wording of the question asked by Sowden was, "Aside from military
service or police work, have you yourself, or a member of your household, ever
used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of property at home, at work,
or elsewhere, even if it wasn't fired?" A follow-up question asked, "Was this to
protect against an animal or a person (or both)."

b - The wording of the question asked by Canadian Facts was, "Within the past
five years, have you yourself, or another member of your household used a gun,
even if it was not fired, for self-protection, or for protection of property at
home, at work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police
work, or work as a security guard." Then the R was asked, "Was this to protect
against an animal or a person (or both)." A follow-up question was, "Did this
incident or any of these incidents happen in the past 12 months?"

c - The wording of the question asked by CSUR in both the US and in Canada
was, "Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have
you yourself, or a member of your household, used a gun for self-protection, or
for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn't
fired?" A follow-up question asked, "Was this to protect against an animal or a
person (or both)."

NB #1: There were 10,079,442 households in Canada in 1991. (Statistics
Canada 1993).

NB #2: There were 91,947,410 households in the US in 1990. (US Bureau of
the Census 1991).


                                                                             61
Mauser                                                The Canadian Case

NB#3: The US population age eighteen or over was 186,532,400 in 1990.

NB#4: The annual estimate for the Sowden and CSUR surveys are based upon
the assumption of equal probability during the past five years.

NB#5: The annual estimate for the Canadian Facts survey is based upon R's
statements that 32 percent of these incidents occurred in the past 12 months.

     The three Canadian survey results are quite similar and
mutually reinforcing. The Canadian Facts survey, with a sample
size of 1,505, has the smallest random sampling error. The 95%
confidence interval estimate for the CF survey is plus or minus
0.7 percentage points for the five-year estimate. The confidence
interval estimates for the other two surveys are larger because
the sample sizes are smaller. The 95% confidence interval
estimate for the CSUR survey is 1.7 percentage points for the
five-year estimate, and it is 1.9 percentage points for the Sowden
survey.
     In order to estimate annual frequencies, three simple and
logical steps were taken. First, it was conservatively assumed
that only one person in the household had used a firearm for self
protection during this time period, and had done so only once.
This is very conservative because it has been found that more
than one member of a household have used a firearm in s           elf
defense and that household members typically have used a
firearm in self defense more than once (Kleck and Gertz 1995).
Second, it was assumed, when other information was lacking,
that the probability of use was the same for each of the years
during this time period, thus, the total was simply divided by five.
Given that there is a greater likelihood of forgetting incidents the
earlier the event occurred, this probably underestimates the
frequency with which firearms were used during the past twelve
months. Third, this percentage was multiplied by the number of
households in the 1991 Canadian census.
     In the 1995 CF survey, it was not necessary to divide the
five-year reports by five, because 32 percent of R's reported that
some of these incidents had occurred during the past twelve

62
Journal on Firearms                                 Volume Eleven

months. Thus it is possible to know that 0.67 percent of the total
sample used a firearm for self protection at least once during the
past twelve months. If it is conservatively assumed that only one
such incident occurred during this period, to only one individual in
a household, then this implies some 66,000 individuals used a
firearm for self protection during the past twelve months. In the
1990 CSUR survey, no follow-up question was included, so it is
unknown how many of the reported incidents occurred during the
past twelve months. Thus, to estimate annual frequencies, it was
necessary to assume that R's were equally likely to have used a
firearm in self protection throughout the five-year period. If only
one such incident occurred during the past five years, then this
implies that approximately 0.62 percent or R's, or 62,500
individuals, used a firearm during the past twelve-month period.
(These calculations are shown in Table 2).
     The 1988 Sowden survey, while still useful, is less
satisfactory than either the CF or CSUR surveys. First, the target
population was the general public in British Columbia, not the
Canadian general public, so, strictly speaking, the results may
only be generalized to BC. Despite this limitation, the BC results
have been extrapolated to Canada in order to compare them with
the two national results by simply multiplying the percentage of
households that report using firearms in self defense by the
number of households in Canada. This is not unreasonable as BC
has the same percentage of households with firearms as the
Canadian national average.
     Second, the question asked R's in the BC study if they had
"ever" used a firearm for self protection, rather than asking if
they had used a firearm for self protection "within the past five
years," as in both the CSUR and CF studies. Despite these
limitations, these results are still indicative. In the Sowden survey,
8.0 percent of R's reported that at least one person in their
household had "ever" used a firearm in self protection. In order
to approximate the frequency with which firearms were used
during the previous five years, the estimates generated by the

                                                                   63
Mauser                                        The Canadian Case

Sowden study were divided in half to give 4.0 percent. Due to
memory loss, R's would be expected to have forgotten a greater
percentage of earlier events. A review of previous surveys
shows that this is a conservative correction, and it gives a
proportion more in line with the findings of the other two surveys
in this study. 16 These percentages were then projected to the
national level, as has been done with the CSUR and CF surveys,
giving an estimate of 80,000 defensive uses of firearms during the
past 12 months. Despite the limitations, this survey estimate,
while somewhat higher than the two national estimates, still falls
within the limits of sampling error.
     In summary, Canadians reported using firearms between
62,500 and 80,000 times per year to protect themselves from wild
animals or criminal violence. The best estimate is that firearms
are used defensively around 66,000 times per year. The three
surveys agree that most of these defensive uses of firearms were
to protect against wild animals. The Canadian Facts survey found
that 1.6 percent of R's reported that someone in their household
had used a firearm to protect him or herself against animal
threats during the past five years. The CSUR Canadian survey
found a nearly identical percentage (1.8%), and the Sowden
survey found that 2.6 percent of R's reported using a firearm to
protect themselves against threats from wild animals. This
contrasts starkly with the CSUR American survey which found
that only 0.6 percent of R's reporting using a firearm to protect
against animal threats during the past five years. The findings of
the CSUR American survey is consistent with other American
surveys (Kleck 1991).
     Perhaps the most controversial question is how often do
Canadians report using firearms to protect themselves against
human threats. Based upon the three representative surveys
described in this paper, the best estimate is that Canadians use
firearms against human threats about 30,000 times per year. The
two best surveys methodologically were the 1995 Canadian Facts
survey and the 1990 CSUR survey. The CF survey found that

64
Journal on Firearms                              Volume Eleven

firearms were used against human threats around 19,000
annually, and the CSUR survey estimated that over 32,000
Canadians did so. The Sowden survey, as expected, had the
highest estimate, 37,500 incidents annually.
     How do these results compare with what is known about the
frequency with which firearms are reported to have been used in
self defense in the United States? The best point of comparison
are the two CSUR surveys, because they involved identically
worded questions and were conducted simultaneously in both the
United States and Canada by the same professional interviewers.
Table 2 shows the frequency with which firearms are used in self
defense in the United States. According to the CSUR survey,
conducted in 1990, firearms are used in self defense over 750,000
times per year in the United States. The bulk of these defensive
uses of firearms, approximately 700,000 uses, are to repel human
threats. The remaining defensive uses of firearms deal with
animal threats. As reported elsewhere, these results are
consistent with Kleck's estimates that between 700,000 and
1,000,000 Americans used firearms defensively against human
threats each year during this time period (Kleck 1991, pp 104-
111).
     Kleck's estimates are based upon thirteen surveys that were
methodologically quite similar to the surveys presented in this
article. Although not directly comparable due to methodological
improvements, Kleck and Gertz (1995) sharply increased the
estimate of Americans who use firearms annually to protect
themselves from human threats to between 2.1 million and 2.5
million.
     How does Canada compare the United States in the extent to
which firearms are used to defend against human threats? As
may be seen in Table 2, 1.6 percent of the Canadian sample
reported using firearms against human threats during the past five
years, while 3.8 percent of the American sample did so. In other
words, Canadians use firearms against human threats around
30,000 times per year, while an estimated 700,000 Americans do

                                                               65
Mauser                                         The Canadian Case

so each year. Since Canada has roughly 10 percent of the adult
population of the United States, Canadians use firearms to repel
human threats less than half as often as do Americans. This
lower level may be due to the smaller percentage of Canadians
who are firearms owners, since fewer Canadian households have
firearms than do than American households, as well as to the
lower level of violent crime in Canada.
     How plausible are these estimates for Canadian using
firearms in self defense? While at first they may seem surprising,
these estimates are not out of line with the number of gun owners
in Canada. Surveys show that between 28 percent and one-third
of all households in Canada have at least one firearm (Mauser
and Margolis 1992). Thus, given that there were just over ten
million households in 1991 in Canada, an estimate of 30,000
defensive uses of firearms implies that between 0.9 percent and
1.1 percent of these households use firearms for defensive
purposes in any given year.
     In the US, in the same year there were 97.1 million
households, an estimated 49 percent, or 47.6 million, households
with firearms, and an estimated 700,000 minimum defensive uses
of firearms per year.17 This yields 1.6 percent of American
households that use firearms for defensive purposes in any given
year. Thus the Canadian rate is hardly implausible, as it is
between one-half and three-quarters of the rate in the United
States.
     But would Canadians use firearms to defend themselves?
Surveys show that over half (60 percent) of Canadians report
that, if they had a firearm, they would use it to protect themselves
or their families (Mauser and Buckner 1997). Unsurprisingly,
firearms-owners report they are more willing to use a firearm to
protect themselves or their families than are other Canadians (67
percent vs. 59 percent).
     The percentages of Canadians found to use firearms in self
protection are not out of line with the other steps Canadians are
taking to protect themselves from criminal violence. The 1993

66
Journal on Firearms                                 Volume Eleven

General Social Survey found that 12 percent Canadians reported
that they carry something routinely to protect themselves from
victimization. Women report taking greater precautions than do
men: 17 percent of women report carrying something routinely
for protection, while only 7 percent of men report doing so
(Sacco 1995).
     The GSS also found that 32 percent of Canadians fifteen
years of age or older reported they had installed new locks, 15
percent reported they had installed a burglar alarm, 12 percent
had obtained a dog, 10 percent had taken a self-defense course,
and 2 percent reported they had obtained a gun (Sacco 1995).
The finding that 2 percent of the Canadian population reported
they had ever "obtained a gun" to protect themselves or their
property from crime provides additional confirmation of the
findings of this study.
     However, the GSS offers only indirect support for the
findings of this study because the questions asked in the GSS
differ importantly from those asked here. The GSS asked if the R
"obtained a gun," while the question in this study concerned
"using a gun." Also, the GSS question was limited to human
threats, but the question asked in this study involved both animal
as well as human threats. Furthermore, the GSS question did not
include a specific time frame, while here the question focused
upon the past five years. In the light of these results, it should not
be too surprising that 3 percent of the adult population report
having actually used a firearm for self protection during the past
five years.
     How could so many Canadians use firearms in self defense
without it having become common knowledge before this? The
answer is that self defense activity is basically invisible to
government. First, there is no reason to report it, such as there is
with property crimes or with crimes involving serious
victimization.
     As well, both the defender and aggressor may have strong
reason not to report the incident, given the moral ambiguity of the

                                                                   67
Mauser                                          The Canadian Case

act. If the defender used a firearm (or any other weapon) to
defend him or herself, there is a strong possibility that s/he would
face legal charges.
     Finally, even though medical doctors are required to report
gun-shot wounds, the available statistics suggest that self defense
uses of firearms rarely result in serious physical injury to either
participant, so that in the vast bulk of the cases there is no injury
that would require reporting (Kleck, 1991).
     The survey estimates presented here of the number of people
who use firearms in self defense are, if anything, probably too
low. The underestimate is probably most severe for the defense
use of firearms against human threats. Given the sensitive nature
of defensive use of firearms, it is possible that many respondents
have concealed actual incidents so the true number is quite likely
much higher than reported here. A number of criminologists have
shown that survey estimates of criminal and defensive gun uses
have been underestimated. Cook (1985) has shown that NCVS
estimates of woundings with firearms are too low. Other
researchers have argued that survey estimates of a large range
of violent events have been under-reported. For example, Loftin
and MacKenzie (1990) have speculated that spousal violence and
rapes might be many times more than reported in NCVS.
     An unknown number of defensive gun incidents would be
expected to involve violent criminals defending themselves
against other criminals (Wright and Rossi 1986). Such incidents
would not be expected to be reported in telephone surveys. Due
to their high mobility, low income, and probable reticence to be
interviewed, criminals are among the least likely persons to be
interviewed in surveys of the general population (Cook 1985;
Kleck 1991). This implies that a sample bias exists that
underestimates the total number of people who use firearms to
protect themselves against human threats.
     Undoubtedly, some R's may have included the "carrying," or
the merely "having" the firearm available in case of an attack, as
an example of "use." However, there is ample evidence in

68
Journal on Firearms                              Volume Eleven

criminological surveys that improvements in the measurement
procedures yields higher estimates of controversial behaviors.
Kleck and Gertz (1995) found that the estimated number of
defensive uses of firearms in the US more than doubled when
they improved the measurement procedures. Contrary to what
some researchers have speculated, a large number of
respondents were not found to have invented or exaggerated
defensive gun use incidents. In their study, Kleck and Gertz
found that by using a shorter time-period (one year rather than
five years), and by interviewing the family member who had been
involved in the self-defense incident, rather than relying upon a
family informant, the problem of forgetting about incidents that
had happened years earlier was considerably reduced. As has
often been the case in criminology, better measurement
procedures has increased the estimate of the controversial
behavior (Hindelang et al 1981).

Conclusions
    The survey results reported here show that firearms are used
in Canada more often than many had believed in the defense of
people and property. Canadians were found to use firearms about
30,000 times per year against human threats, compared with
around 700,000 Americans estimated to do so each year.
Compared to the number of households with firearms, Canadians
use firearms to protect themselves against human threats
between one-half and three-quarters as often as Americans.
These findings suggest that Canada is more similar to the United
States than had been thought by some scholars. The lower
proportion of firearms owners who do so in Canada than in the
US may however reflect the lower rate of criminal violence in
Canada.
    This paper also estimated the number of Americans who
used firearms to protect themselves or their families. The CSUR
survey of the general public in the United States paper estimated
that approximately 700,000 Americans use firearms defensively

                                                              69
Mauser                                         The Canadian Case

against human threats annually. This estimate is consistent with
other survey estimates and it confirms Kleck's original estimate
in 1988 (Kleck 1988, 1991). These CSUR results constitute yet
another independent survey that differs dramatically from
estimates based upon the National Crime Victimization Survey.
     This study provides the best available estimate of the
frequency with which Canadians use firearms for self protection
and it has significant implications for public policy. These
estimates are only approximate, given the small sample sizes and
the small incidence rates. However, the high level of agreement
among the three samples of the general public provide strong
support that firearms are used in Canada to protect people
against violence. Since firearms are used in Canada around
66,000 times each year to defend against either human or animal
threats, and more importantly, approximately 30,000 times
annually to protect against criminal violence, this implies that the
private ownership of firearms contributes significantly to public
safety. It is unknown how many lives are actually saved, but if a
life were saved in only 5 percent of these incidents, then the
private ownership of firearms would save more than 3,300 lives
annually in Canada. To put this in perspective, it should be noted
that firearms are involved in the deaths of around 1,400 people
annually in Canada (about 1,100 of these are suicides). While the
exact number may be debatable, the results of these three survey
studies makes it plausible that the private ownership of firearms
saves some Canadian lives.
     The results of this study support the responsible ownership of
firearms. These findings are consistent with moderate firearms
regulations but not with efforts to prohibit the private ownership
of firearms. Given that firearms are potentially dangerous, laws
or regulations are highly desirable that encourage responsible
firearms ownership, such as background checks by the police,
safety training, or safe-storage of firearms. Moreover, it is
reasonable to pass legislation in order to keep firearms out of the
hands of children, ignorant users, or career criminals.

70
Journal on Firearms                                      Volume Eleven

     The findings of this study suggest that the private ownership
of firearms offers benefits to the community as well as costs.
Thus, laws that are intended to discourage, or have the effect of
discouraging, firearms ownership from otherwise responsible
adults might act perversely to decrease public safety rather than
to increase it. Since prospective victims without criminal records
are more likely to obey gun bans than are criminals, gun bans
would be expected to produce larger relative reductions in
defensive gun use by noncriminal victims than in criminal use of
firearms. Additional firearms legislation may not act to save lives
as claimed, but it may actually cost lives by rendering it too
difficult to obtain a firearm when one is needed.

References
Amiel, B. (1995) Pro-choice gals-for-guns make sense. Maclean's, April 3,
1995: 11.
Bellis, M. (1995) Man get probation for firing at robbers. Toronto Star, May
22, 1995: 25.
Berk, R.A, Fenstermaker Berk, S., Loeseke, D. and Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual
combat and other family violence myths. The dark side of families: current
family violence research, (eds) D. Finkelhor, R.J. Gelles, G.T. Hotaling and
M.A. Straus. Beverly Hills: Sage: 197-212.
Bureau of the Census (1991) U.S. population by age, sex, and households,
1990. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Cook, P.J. (1985) The case of the missing victims: gunshot woundings in the
National Crime Survey. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 76: 480-489.
Cook, P.J. (1991) The technology of personal violence. In Crime and justice,
a review of research. 14: 1    -71. (ed) M. Tonry. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (1994). Uniform crime reports for the
United States. 1993. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Friedland, M.L. (1984). A Century of Criminal Justice. Toronto, Canada:
Carswell.



                                                                         71
Mauser                                                The Canadian Case

Greenspan, E.L. (1994). Martin's Annual Criminal Code 1995. Aurora,
Canada: Canada Law Book.
Hawley, D.L . (1988) Canadian Firearms Law. Toronto, Canada:
Butterworths.
Hindelang, M.J., Hirschi, T. and Weis, J. G.. (1981) Measuring
Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstadter, R. (1970) America as a gun culture. American Heritage 21: 4-85.
Hogg, P.W. (1992). Constitutional law of Canada (3rd ed). Scarborough,
Canada: Carswell.
Kleck, G. (1988) Crime control through the private use of armed force. Social
Problems 35: 1-21.
Kleck, G. (1991) Point Blank: guns and violence in America. Hawthorne,
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kleck, G. and Gertz, M. (1995) Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and
nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 86: 143-186.
Kong, R. (1994) Urban/rural criminal victimization in Canada. Juristat 14 (17)
Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.
Lai, V.W. (1994) Market analysis for personal self-defense in British
Columbia. Unpublished MBA Research Project. Burnaby, Canada: Simon
Fraser University.
Lipset, S.M. (1985) Revolution and counterrevolution: the United States and
Canada. In Revolution and Counterrevolution. New Burnswick, NJ:
Transaction: 37-76.
Loftin, C. and MacKenzie, E. (1990) Building national estimates of
violent victimization. Unpublished background paper prepared for
Symposium on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior (April 1-4,
1990): 21-23.
Mauser, G. (1990) A comparison of Canadian and American attitudes towards
firearms. Canadian Journal of Criminology 32: 573-589.




72
Journal on Firearms                                        Volume Eleven

Mauser, G. (1993) Firearms and self defense: the Canadian case.
Presented to the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology.
Phoenix AZ, 27 - 30 October 1993.
Mauser, G. (1995) Commentary: Do Canadians use firearms in self-protection?
Canadian Journal of Criminology 37: 556-561.
Mauser, G. and Buckner, T. (1997) Canadian attitudes toward gun
control: the real story. Toronto, Canada: The Mackenzie Institute
Mauser, G. and Margolis, M. (1992) The politics of gun control: comparing
Canadian and American patterns. Government and Policy 10: 189-209.
Moore, D.W. and Newport, F. (1994) Public strongly favors stricter gun
control laws. The Gallup Poll Monthly 340: 18.
Sacco, V.F. (1995) Fear and personal safety. Juristat, 15 (9). Ottawa, Canada:
Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada (1993) A National Overview,
Population and Dwelling Counts. 93-301. Ottawa, Canada: Queen's
Printer.
Statistics Canada (1994) Canadian crime statistics. 1993. 85-205. Ottawa,
Canada: Queen's Printer.
Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N.M. (1973) Effects of time and memory factors on
response in surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 68:
808-815.
Tonso, W. R. (1982) Gun and society: the social and existential roots of
the American attachment to firearms. Lanham, MD: University Press.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1958) Patterns in criminal homicide. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wright, J.D. and Rossi, P.H. (1986) Armed and considered dangerous: a
survey of felons and their firearms. New York: Aldine.
Appendix
Comparison of actual violent crimes in Canada and the United States (1993)
                   U.S.  rate        U.S.             Canada      Canada
                   per               frequency        rate        frequency
                   100,000                            per
                   population                         100,00
                                                      0

                                                                             73
Mauser                                                   The Canadian Case

Murder                          10           24,526            2             630
Robbery                        255          659,757          104          29,961
Forcible rape                   41          104,806          121          34,764
Aggravated assault             440        1,135,099          201          57,655
Violent crime (US              746        1,924,188          428         123,010
definition)
Burglary (Breaking           1,099        2,834,808        1,414         406,582
& Entering)
Population (1993)                       257,908,000                   28,753,000

Sources: Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. FBI. 1993; Canadian
Crime Statistics, Cat. 85-205, Statistics Canada, 1993. These data are based on
reports by local police departments.
Note #1. As of August 1995, when this was written, 1993 was the most recent
year that all of the crime statistics were available for both countries.
Note #2: Crime rates may be compared because both Canada and the United
States use the same definitions for violent crimes, the Uniform Crime Report
system. Despite this, there are a few notable exceptions. To facilitate
comparison between the two countries, Canadian crimes have been aggregated
to fit the categories used by the FBI. Murder refers here to "murder and non-
negligent manslaughter," and, in Canada, includes all "homicides." "Burglary" in
the US is equated with "breaking and entering" in Canada. "Violent crime" in
the United States includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault but does not include "abduction," or "other
sexual offenses," as does the Canadian category of "violent crime." Thus, both
"abduction" and "other sexual offenses" have been excluded in this table from
the Canadian data. A few terms are only used in the US and are impossible to
replicate exactly with Canadian statistics. To approximate "aggravated assault,"
all categories of assaults were aggregated, except assault level 1 and sexual
assaults, with "attempted murder." To approximate the "forcible rape"
category in the US, all Canadian sexual assaults were aggregated (levels 1, 2 and
3), but "other sexual offenses" were excluded.
ENDNOTES


1 There is only one national group in Canada, the National Firearms
Association, that supports the use of firearms in self defense. Unlike in the


74
Journal on Firearms                                          Volume Eleven


United States, it is extremely rare for a women's group to support firearms
ownership for protection. However, many women's groups teach self defense
tactics and advocate (and sell) "bear spray" for women's self defense as well as
"non-violent" alternatives such as whistles and alarms.
2 The Governor General assented to Bill C-68 on December 5, 1995. This bill
will be proclaimed into law section by section over the next few years. Section
12(6) of this bill will prohibit all handguns that are .25 or .32 calibre or that
have a barrel length of 4 inches or less. Justice Minister Allan Rock testified
before the Justice Committee of the House of Commons in February 1995 that
these firearms were to be prohibited and confiscated because they were likely to
be used for self defense.
3 In general, crime rates in Canada and the United States are comparable because
both countries use the same definitions for violent crimes, the Uniform Crime
Report system. Nevertheless, there are a few important exceptions, so that
"violent crime" is defined somewhat differently in the two countries. "Violent
crime" in the United States includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault but does not include "abduction,"
or "other sexual offenses," as does the Canadian category of "violent crime."
To properly compare the violent crimes indices in the two countries, a number
of modifications are required. First, both "abduction" and "other sexual
offenses" must be excluded from the Canadian data. Second, Canadian crime
data should be re-categorized to fit the definitions used by the FBI a the nd
violent crime rate for Canada recalculated. A few terms are only used in the U.S.
and are impossible to replicate exactly with Canadian statistics. To approximate
"aggravated assault," all categories of assaults were aggregated, except assault
level 1 and sexual assaults, with "attempted murder." To approximate the
"forcible rape" category in the US, all Canadian sexual assaults were aggregated
(levels 1, 2 and 3), but "other sexual offenses" were excluded. These
adjustments reduced the Canadian Violent Crime Index in 1993 from 1,132 to
428 per 100,000 (Statistics Canada 1994).
4 The only exception is a brief outline of these studies in reply to published
criticism of my unpublished conference papers (Mauser 1995).
5 The Canadian Criminal Code prohibits the ownership of a wide variety of
weapons, e.g., Mace, pepper sprays, certain types of knives, nunchakus. As
well, it is illegal to carry anything that is intended to be used as a weapon



                                                                             75
Mauser                                                    The Canadian Case


(Sections 87, 88, 89, 90(c) and Orders-in-Council SOR/74/29774-05-07,
SOR/78-277 78-03-28, inter alia).
6 Bill C-51, passed by Parliament in 1977, removed "protection of property"
from the list of legal reasons for most people to own "restricted weapons," 98
percent of which are handguns (CC §109.3 (c)(iii)). Applicants who say they
want to own a firearm for self protection are routinely refused the appropriate
permits. Nevertheless, a very small number of people (e.g., trappers, judges,
geologists, politicians) in Canada are allowed to own handguns for self-
protection under other sections (CC §109.3 (c)(i) and (ii)).
7 Handguns require two locks: not only must a handgun be locked in a
"container" that "cannot readily be broken open," but it must also "be rendered
inoperable by a secure locking device." The criminal code defines the general
responsibility of the firearms owner (Greenspan 1994) and are augmented by
RCMP regulations, Regulations Respecting the Storage, Display, Handling and
Transportation of Certain Firearms, CC § 6, JUS-92-193-02.
8 An example will illustrate the situation: In January 1995, an 81 year old
Palmerston, Ontario, jeweler was charged with weapons and assault charges
after firing his pistol at two burglars, neither of whom were injured. The court
granted the jeweler a conditional discharge and ordered him not to possess a
firearm for one year (Bellis 1995).
9 As explained in note #3, all Canadian sexual assaults were aggregated (levels 1,
2 and 3), and "other sexual offenses" were excluded in order to approximate the
"forcible rape" category that is used by the FBI in the US.
10 The GSS is a periodic survey, conducted by Statistics Canada, of the
Canadian general population, aged 15 years or over, living in all 10 of the
Canadian provinces, but excluding the territories (N = 10,000).
11 In principle, it is illegal to own any prohibited weapons. It is passing curious
why many police departments tolerate the open sale and ownership of "bear
spray." "Bear spray" is a stronger concentration of pepper spray (capsaicin)
than "dog spray." The prohibition on the sale and ownership of Mace, due to
its ineffectiveness as protection against animals, remains strictly enforced.
12 This study was funded by the Langley Symposium, a Canadian civic group.




76
Journal on Firearms                                         Volume Eleven


13 This study was funded by the International Council for Canadian Studies, a
program of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC.
14 This study was funded by a National Rifle Association hunter services
grant.
15 See Kleck (1991) and Kleck and Gertz (1995) for an expanded analysis of
these questions.
16 A review of the surveys reported in Kleck and Gertz (1995) shows that, on
average, the percentage of R's reporting they "ever" used a firearm in self
protection is more than twice as high as it is when R's are asked if they used a
firearm during the "past five years."
17 The US Bureau of the Census reported that there were 91.9 million
households in the United States in 1990. The December 1993 Gallup Survey
reported that 49% of households in the United States own firearms (Moore and
Newport 1994).




                                                                             77