you didn't read it? it outlines pretty precisely how they got their numbers? is there something you don't like?
I skimmed the article, then read it in its entirety, and then skimmed it a little more. There are things in it that I don't like, yes. No serious bones to pick about the numbers, but still... I wouldn't call it accurate either.
The Washington Post is looking at numbers from between 2000-Sep 2010. They refer to it as a "comprehensive study" in their own article. They state that it took a year to compile. They claim their data comes from "documents" and "interviews" which is the first thing that makes my ears perk up. Closely following that, they actually cite the Tiahrt Amendment. Absolute genius. Oh, but it's cool, because the Washington Post can easily get around it via interviews with "more than 350 police officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, gun dealers, gun buyers, suspects and survivors" and give you the truth behind the scenes. Possible? Yes. Likely? Naaahhh.
Moving on, we find out that the article, the comprehensive study they spent a year on, is actually a "review" now.
Then you can look at their numbers and see that they're hit-or-miss. Then you can look at who they went to when obtaining some of their numbers and see that they're all heavily anti-gun organizations who haven been proven to be liars a countless number of times (Violence Policy Center, Mayors Against Illegal Handguns headline the show). Then you can see their odd lump-ins for some of their numbers. Then you can see they're better at being the ATF than the ATF. Then you can see them purposely leave out vital info, perhaps best illustrated when they touch on misdemeanors vs. felonies and make it sound like there is nothing short of a felony that dq's a person from gun ownership.
Yeah, I saw a lot I didn't like. Their
numbers are the least of the problems I see.