A Critique of Findings on Gun Ownership, Use, and Imagined Use From the 2021 National Firearms

For a paper that has not yet been through peer review or even been formally published, William English’s “2021 National Firearms Survey” has been remarkably prominent in gun rights advocacy and scholarship. As of December 2024, it has been cited in roughly sixty-five briefs, invoked at oral argument in the Supreme Court and multiple courts of appeals, and regularly cited in public writings and published academic work. This response is offered in the spirit of a peer review. Our focus is on methodological issues, questionable statistical results, and problematic conclusions. Because of serious methodological issues, English’s draft fails to provide a reliable estimate of the number of annual defensive gun uses, the stock of AR-15s, or the actual protective value of or frequency with which AR-15 type firearms have been used. The paper should not be used as an authoritative source. This version of our paper has been updated to account for the response that Prof. English posted on October 23, 2024.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
SMU Law Review
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25172/smulr.78.2.3
Primary Topic
Gun Ownership and Violence Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Critique of Findings on Gun Ownership, Use, and Imagined Use From the 2021 National Firearms

Joseph Blocher, David Hemenway, Matthew Miller, Philip J. Cook et al.
SMU Law Review
Gun Ownership and Violence Research
article

A Critique of Findings on Gun Ownership, Use, and Imagined Use From the 2021 National Firearms

Joseph Blocher, David Hemenway, Matthew Miller, Philip J. Cook, Deborah Azrael
article en

Abstract

For a paper that has not yet been through peer review or even been formally published, William English’s “2021 National Firearms Survey” has been remarkably prominent in gun rights advocacy and scholarship. As of December 2024, it has been cited in roughly sixty-five briefs, invoked at oral argument in the Supreme Court and multiple courts of appeals, and regularly cited in public writings and published academic work. This response is offered in the spirit of a peer review. Our focus is on methodological issues, questionable statistical results, and problematic conclusions. Because of serious methodological issues, English’s draft fails to provide a reliable estimate of the number of annual defensive gun uses, the stock of AR-15s, or the actual protective value of or frequency with which AR-15 type firearms have been used. The paper should not be used as an authoritative source. This version of our paper has been updated to account for the response that Prof. English posted on October 23, 2024.

SMU Law ReviewVol. 78(2)
Duke University (US), Harvard University Press (US), Universidad del Noreste (MX)
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Gun Ownership and Violence Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.