The study that started the modern academic discussion about gun control is the famous 1995 Garry Kleck study. It was a telephone survey that interviewed 5'000 arbitrarily chosen people and estimated that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) in the USA each year. This study has been replicated dozens of times, each time with similar results: there are on the order of magnitude of a million defensive gun uses per year in the USA.
However, there is another methodology for determining how many DGUs there are per year: ask non-anonymously people who reported being victimized what they did in order to protect themselves. That's what the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) study is doing, and it estimated that there are around 100'000 defensive gun uses per year.
Today, most social scientists believe the NCVS study is telling the truth. I am having trouble understanding why. It's obvious how the NCVS study could be a giant underestimate: perhaps most defensive gun uses don't get reported to the police, perhaps most people who used a gun to protect themselves don't want to admit that in a non-anonymous survey (out of fear they've done something illegal)... But it's not at all obvious how could the Gary-Kleck-like studies be a giant overestimate. How could they be?
Do most social scientists today believe that Gary-Kleck-like studies suffer from massive telescoping? That people are misremembering events that occurred 8 years ago as if they occurred less than a year ago? Or do most social scientists today perhaps believe that many people are dreaming that they used a gun defensively and are mistaking those dreams for reality? Or something else?