Any I way I add it up from any reputable scource it comes up the same for me.
It's not your arithmetic I have trouble with. I think I have hinted enough that I have no sympathy for anyone who receives rough justice as a result of his misdeeds. What I am beating my particular drum about is, firearms are so dangerous they should only be allowed to be handled by specific people: the armed forces, the police in incidents where firearms are being/may be used, and private citizens who can satisfy stringent licensing rules.

I do not doubt any of the figures you have quoted (and I saw the ones you have included in your last message while I was looking for the Southwark article). It confirms that there is a lot of gun crime in USA, but I'm not so sure it justifies the habitual carrying of guns for self-protection, nor even private ownership of guns. My eye was caught by the footnote which indicates that in 65% of the incidents where victims of crime defended themselves with a gun, the offender was unarmed or not armed with a gun. That's almost exactly two out of every three times where excessive force was apparently used, and that could - should - turn the "victim" into the criminal.

I've never understood what a boolean search is - I can't even pronounce the word! - and I've never challenged the veracity of the statistics you quoted: I can't, and I have to assumed they were rigorously checked before publication. It's not what the statistics said, but the interpretation of those figures that worries me, because I believe the research might have been limited, and that some of the facts you quoted mght have been interpreted differently from the way they were presented if the whole article was available.

For example, the article appears to conclude that people who defend themselves with guns are likely to escape an attack with little or no injury. If that's what the research proves, then so be it, but if it is then presented to support suggestions that all attackers should be repelled by armed force, I believe the information is being misapplied, and is in fact encouraging the excessive, and therefore illegal, use of firearms as a means of defence.

Criminals get the vast majority of their firearms from illegal scources (80%).
I know ... it's an even higher proportion over here. But that's no reason to abandon gun control: it's a reason to tighten it.

People that defend themselves with a fire arm have a much larger chance of survival compared to those that do not.
I think that is self-evident, but it does not mean an unarmed victim does not have a good chance of survival anyway.

IMHO the reliability of an objective scource (especially a .gov or .edu scource from a boolean search of acredited rescources) isnt in question nor is thier "selective and meaningless statistics".

Of course I can understand why gun control advocates wish to say ( given the wieght of those statistics that didnt support thier argument) that the numbers are meaningless or selective..
" ... selective and meaningless without further information ..."

Perhaps my comments above explain why I said it