I think it is fair to bounce any factual claim against other sources. But those sources can't be thought of as perfectly accurate or applicable in and of themselves. It is often admitted that defensive uses of guns do not end up in a police report, or the blocks that get checked by the officer for data collection are not necessarily relevant. Point a gun at 3 thugs you find threatening, they run away, you call the cops? Many people do not. Just like they don't call the police when they duck into a store when followed by people they find threatening. Regarding actual shots fired in defense, sure there should be some similarity in the numbers. But reconciling those things is what social scientists do. The nature of much of their work is asking questions in surveys that cannot be factually confirmed. They try to control for it, but someone will always stand up and cry B.S. We have all heard the studies and even read the reports and papers. Whether it is about teen sex, drug use, marital fidelity, college alcohol abuse, self-reported size of a penis, you name it. You work with what you have. It isn’t that Prof Lott’s numbers are so different from other sources; it is how well he accounts for the difference. (I have not read much of Lott’s work, just familiar with his conclusions.) I don’t know, but I find it hard to believe that there is perfect fidelity in the reported number of gun shots treated. It is true they have to be reported, but to who and in what manner? The Trauma Doc doesn’t pick up a red phone and call some guy with a green eye shade at DOJ. He doesn’t even automatically transmit anything electronically, that I can guarantee you. How the data is collected and from whom makes a lot of difference.
Since Flash went back to the school shooting thread I will as well. I made the point that arguing about the difference in defensive use of guns is nuts. With a nod to the subject of this thread, let’s just say that everyone would be fine with the proliferation of military style rifles if there were no murders caused by them, zero. I think it is safe to say the majority of Americans would not support new legislation if there were just 16 murders by rifle a year, even if they were first graders. So at what point between 16 and infinity do we find it justifiable to restrict the liberty of a law abiding citizen? I want a number. Shall we take a survey? Speaking of surveys, it is claimed that more people say they shot someone in defense than are treated by hospitals. I say so what. They also claimed their dick was 11 inches long in the previous survey. Instead, pick a number: 400,000 (approximate number of crimes committed with a gun) 30,700 (the number of gunshots the CDC says are treated a year), about 8900(number of firearm murders per year), 350 (murders by rifle per year). Is it too much to ask Sen Feinstein what her number is? Only once we know the number can we debate the relative cost and benefit to society. For me, none of those numbers are high enough to justify the government making millions of Americans more likely to be victimized or fearful.