The authors argue that Kleck fails to confront the issue of misspecification and misidentification of his models for the relationships between the crime rate and the gun supply. He does not explain why the exogenous variables that predict the gun supply are so inconsistent from one model to another. Kleck admits to an error in his interpretation of the coefficients in the modeling of homicide; there appear to be large differences in the risk of homicide between incidents in which guns are involved and others, and these are not much diminished by the controls in Kleck's models. Kleck, however, dismisses the significance of his error, claiming that the authors' conclusions -- that guns make incidents more lethal -- is a non sequitur because offender motivation is not controlled. Further, the authors take issue with Kleck's dismissal of the proposition that guns may affect criminal motivations. He states, "guns allow weaker individuals to successfully attack, or defend against, stronger individuals, thereby facilitating both aggressive and defensive attacks." Kleck fails, however, to see this argument as supportive of gun ownership as a contributor to criminal motivation. Although Kleck views the authors as biased in their view of gun issues, the authors continue to affirm that the key issues remain unresolved on both sides of the gun-control debate. They echo Kleck's call for better research based on technically stronger methods.