Nick Hull wrote in message ...

>Just because a person stops a crime using his gun does not mean he fired
>the gun or even aimed at his assailant


No, Jim is repeating the usual mantra that Kleck's survey results projected
onto the population results in more injuries to perpetrators than have been
observed/reported by medical treatment facilities.

Perhaps Kleck stated in another forum that they may have sought secret
medical treatment (physicians are required by law to report treatment of
gunshot wounds) or perhaps treated it themselves, but he didn't say so in
the article in question (unless I missed it in my earlier reading or my
quick scan today).  Jim should really read it rather than accepting someone
else's analysis.

However, he does believe that the 8.3% wounding rate (of all defensive gun
uses) is probably too high, especially in comparison to the 15.6% that
reporting shooting at their attacker.  That's a 53% hit rate, which is
triple the 18% of criminals shooting at victims, and even exceeds the 37%
hit rate of police officers shooting at perpetrators.

While noting that the actual instances of wounding the attacker numbered 17
out of the entire sample of 222 DGUs (from about 5,000 total samples), Kleck
appears to think the real issue is that they didn't follow up and ask how
the gun owner knew they had wounded their attacker.  He says:

"We suspect that in incidents where the offender left without being
captured, some 'remembered with favor' their marksmanship and assumed they
had hit their adversaries".