I'm confused by this because it seems to be a response to me, but only incidentally mentions me, and uses the precise claims that my post was intended to disprove.

My post argues:

- We know that modern medicine can't be reclassifying murders to assaults, because when using constant data (NCVS), there is no rise in assaults. Since assaults and murders have similar generators (violence), we conclude there shouldn't be a rise in murder either.

- We only have good lethality data for one period (1999-present). But that was both the period of greatest murder decline, and a period when medical care was improving as fast as ever, and we know that during that period, lethality rose rather than fell. So it seems plausible that during other periods of murder decline and improving medical care, lethality could rise rather than fall.

- Abdominal gunshot data (where did you get this table from?) can't disprove this, because the mechanism would be killers shooting somewhere other than the abdomen, or shooting multiple regions.