It is disingenous for Kleck to take a quotation of Kellerman’s out of
context to make it appear that Kellermann was asserting that only 2%
of of homicides were lawful defensive homicides.
Dan Day wrote:
Well, your own summary isn’t entirely accurate either. Here’s the
passage in question:
Less than 2 percent of homicides nationally are considered legally
justifiable. [11,13] Although justifiable homicides do not
include homicides committed in self-defense, the combined total
in our study was still less than one fourth the number of criminal
homicides involving a gun kept in the home.
I’ve reread that a number of times and still can’t figure out
exactly what Kellermann is trying to say. The best I can make out
is that Kellermann is claiming that self-defense homicides are not
legally justifiable (?)
You missed the bit where he defined the meaning of those terms:
“Self-protection homicides were considered “justifiable” if they
involved the killing of a felon during the commision of a crime; they
were considered “self-defense” if that was the determination of the
investigating police department anf the King County prosecutor’s
office.” Reference 11 is the FBI definition of “justifiable
Given how Kellermann contrasts “legally justifiable” homicides with
“self-defense” homicides, and the passage as written, the point that
Kellermann underplayed the number of “lawful defensive” homicides
seems a valid one, since it appears he tried to imply that the
defensive homicides which fall outside the 2% “legally justifiable”
category weren’t in fact lawful.
No, he was pointing out that were lawful homicides that fall outside the
2% legally justifiable.