I think justifiable homicide numbers are a poor measure of defensive gun use. Most DGUs don't kill the attacker.
Of course not. It is only a gauge. The idea that defensive gun use leads to the death of the felon
only one time ten thousand does not sound credible. Thus, 250 or so deaths is not consistent with 2.5 million uses. Even with my numbers, the rate is something like one-third of one percent of all defensive uses end in the death of a felon.
It would be interesting to see how many of them end in the death of the defender.
I will agree that it's not clear, but it's certainly worth consideration. If the low end result estimate is 100,000 per year
By the numbers I've already presented, the low end is no higher than about 68,000, two-thirds of what you suggest there.
Another item for consideration: if crime in the US was only differentiated from other countries by guns, then our non-gun homicide rate should be equal to or in fact lower than other countries (since people that would otherwise kill with a knife or other implement will instead gravitate towards guns). But if you compare the homicide rates in the US and the UK, after you adjust our rate to remove the number of gun-related homicides, we still have a higher homicide rate than the UK.
That assumes that the firearm-homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rates are independent. I am not convinced that is a safe assumption. You'd have to provide some support for that before it can be a major part of an analysis.
In both countries, "violent crime" does not include homicides. Violent crime rates are typically gotten from survey data, as many crimes are not reported to police. Victims of homicide, however, rarely respond to surveys
In 2010, the NCVS had the US violent crime rate at 10.8 per 100,000, about a 1.15 chance of a person being the victim of a violent crime.
The British Crime Survey had the rate in Britain and Wales at 3.1%! Wow! Lots of gun control, but more violent crime!
But, the homicide rates are different:
There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2010. With a population about 55 million, that makes the rate one in 88,000
There were 14,022 homicides in the US in that same year. With a population of 308 million, on in 22,000, four times higher.
11,101 of those homicides were committed with firearms. That's one in 28,000 or so. Our firearms homicide rate alone is higher than their total homicide rate.
A couple things we could say that are consistent with the data:
We could say, "People in England and wales like to beat each other up, but they *don't* kill each other," This may be a cultural difference, meaning that you really cannot compare across countries at all.
Or, we could say, "Yes, guns seem to deter violent crime. However, they *enhance* homicide." If so, I am not sure it is necessarily a win for us.