In article , "John M. Wildenthal"
 wrote:

> Jim McCulloch wrote:
> 
> > In article , "Jerry Peacock"
> >  wrote:

> >
> > I figured it would sound about right to you. Inasmuch as Kleck's figures
> > are wrong by a factor of 30, if we take the NCVS statistics as our guide,
> > we can assign you the full NRA credulity ranking of 30.  Most of the
> > readers of tx.guns, at least, will probably score higher than that.
> 
> But Jim, the NCVS wasn't designed to properly estimate defensive firearm use.

Really? That would be news to the NCVS's statisticians. They need to know
this. Perhaps you should write and tell them.

>The NCVS is a useful tool for several things, but
> it wasn't designed to estimate the number of defensive firearm uses.

Again, this would be news to the NCVS. 
 
Not only do Kleck's figures diverge wildly from the NCVS's figures, but
they diverge wildly from each other.  Kleck has actually done a number of
studies of this problem, and his methodology, which Dr. Wolfgang (who I
would guess is getting along in years) admires so much, gives him vastly
different results each time.  

One of the more amusing improbabilities of Kleck's recent figures, is that
the logically required body count of criminals killed or wounded by the
defensive uses he reports exceeds the known number of persons wounded by
guns from all causes every year.

Leaving aside the question of where the bodies of the killed have been
hidden, the question of where wounded got treatment is an interesting one
indeed.  Kleck, I have read, believes they got treatment secretly.  

Kleck could perhaps do another survey of imaginary things, and give us a
hard count of emergency rooms and physicians who treat gunshot wounds
without reporting them.  

Best regards,

--Jim McCulloch