08/13/2026
I appreciate John clarifying that he wasn’t trying to call me out, and I want to return that courtesy by clearing up what appears to be a misunderstanding. I respect John’s work and have credited it in the past when I’ve drawn from it (https://gundigest.com/handguns/personal-defense/crime-and-criminals-safety-lessons).
After this came up, I went back and listened to his full two-hour presentation again from his Crime and Criminals seminar from January 6, 2026. My recent Gun Digest article (https://gundigest.com/handguns/personal-defense/self-defense-likelihood-data) was inspired by John Correia’s Active Self Protection Extra video, which I expressly credited, and was based on the sources identified in the article, principally William English’s 2021 National Fi****ms Survey, BJS data, and gun-ownership data. All of those sources are here:
[1]: John Correia, "What Are the ODDS You Will NEED Your Gun?", Active Self Protection Extra, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdaiLGvFe1o.
[2]: William English, 2021 National Fi****ms Survey, Georgetown University, SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145.
[3]: Alexandra Thompson and Susannah N. Tapp, Criminal Victimization, 2021, Bureau of Justice Statistics, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv21.pdf.
[4]: "Guns," Gallup Historical Trends, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx.
[5]: David Kopel, "Refereeing the Debate over the 2021 National Fi****ms Survey," The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason.com, September 23, 2025, https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/23/refereeing-the-debate-over-the-2021-national-firearms-survey/.
[6]: John Gramlich, "What the Data Says About Gun Deaths in the U.S.," Pew Research Center, April 28, 2026, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/.
There is an interesting similarity between one of John’s calculations and mine: both produce a figure of approximately 1.9%, But they are different calculations addressing different questions. John’s figure concerned the annual risk of violent crime generally, using BJS data and the general population. Mine concerned defensive gun use, using English’s estimated number of defensive gun uses and the population of personal gun owners. Different numerator, different denominator, different question.
Both analyses then consider what an annual probability looks like when extended over many years. That is a standard application of probability rather than an analytical method I derived from John’s presentation.
I take attribution seriously, and if John’s presentation had been a source for my article, I would gladly have credited him, just as I have when discussing his work previously. It wasn’t. I appreciate John’s clarification, and I hope this clears up any remaining misunderstanding.
