My humblest apology to those unknown 1800’s English statesmen or journalist... but I personally have grown extremely weary with both sides of the firearm fracas either making up or misuse the self defence/ownership/crime/shooting/ad nauseam stats to proof their specific ‘for or against’ point in the discussion. This stated, it brings up a flaming question of whose study/research/ad nauseam stats can any side trust as viable/repeatable/usable for our discussions? Further, who should root out the data in the first place initially, e.g.,academicians/government/special interest/ad nauseam? Finally, who ‘blesses’ the data to assure it was collected properly from wide ranging areas and sufficent participants as well as assure appropriate study methodology were used? An interesting read from REASON about firearm SD stats shows the quandary, How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns Group’s rampant hyperbole runs throughout the article and would be quite humorous if their arugment didn’t have some semblance of truth associated with the accusations. Comments?