Reply #65: Yes, it's very easy to guess the criteria correctly when you already know what they are

[Euromutt]

Not really what you'd call "guessing," though, is it? You appear to be assuming that the interviewers asked the respondents whether the criteria applied. They didn't; the respondents had to volunteer that information of their own accord. And in over 10% of claimed DGUs, the respondents failed to do so, and their claims were therefore discarded.

Easy. I mean this goes without saying. If you're claiming a DGU, of course you're going to reference a gun.

Not to the interviewer, to the alleged assailant. The respondent had to describe, of his own initiative, that he, for example, told the alleged assailant (henceforth simply "assailant" because I don't feel like typing "alleged" a couple of dozen times) "get away--I've got a gun," or showed it to the assailant, or pointed it at the assailant, etc. Thus, an incident in which the respondent claimed to have told the assailant/intruder to go away, and had a gun on his person but did not inform the assailant about the presence of the gun would not have been counted as a DGU.

A margin of error that's over 1/3 of the total number claimed? A margin of error OVER A MILLION?

No. Read again what I wrote. This time, try reading what I actually said, not what you'd like me to have said.

And while I enjoyed The Big Lebowski (it's been a while since I've seen it, though), I fail to see what a work of fiction has to with this discussion.