[CatoRenasci]

I don't have the study, so I can't comment on your reply on the data. If he's made up a number somewhere (the 98 claim), it's unacceptable. Moreover, he's apparently admitted the misuse of the "Mary Rosh" e-mail account for the self-promoting postings. I have a problem with that. I'd like to hear his side of the story, but I can't think of anything that would excuse his falsely praising himself as a teacher or his son posting an apparently independent review of the work. I don't think even Howard Zinn would do that, even if he's a little fast and loose (well, selective, really) with his data.

[spqrzilla9]

Actually, pseudonym book reviews have a long history going back to Walt Whitman writing a review of his own book of poetry under an assumed name.

[LS]

As I say, there is only one thing at issue here: was the data he used in his ORIGINAL study, on which everything else was based, legit and reliable. It was. It is available on-line at the University of Chicago web site. They have been after him for years, and unable to touch his data.

You could gain a quick confirmation, though, of this number if you reviewed simply the listings in the "American Rifleman" NRA magazine, where they have a page at the front dedicated to use of guns in foiling robberies, self-protection, or in fending off animal attacks. I've never counted, but I'd bet that in 99% of the cases, all the people ever did was merely brandish a gun or fire it in the direction of the intruder and the intruder left.