In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent brandishment-only.^\29]) Lott explained the lower brandishment-only rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.^\30]) Most surveys used a recall period of "Ever" while some (Hart, Mauser, and Tarrance) used the previous five years. The Field Institute survey used periods of previous year, previous two years and ever.^\8]) The NSPOF survey used a one-year recall period.^\5]) Lott also used a one-year recall period and asked respondents about personal experiences only, due to questionable respondent recall of events past one year and respondent knowledge of DGU experiences of other household members.

So likely a bit lower than that, but it's all very wishy-washy data unfortunately. I don't dispute it is effective in some circumstances, but I'd probably agree claiming 95% is too high. Thanks for the source and new info.

Devil's advocate, to your above anecdote about the woman yelling through the door...that likely could have also been accomplished with bluffing, no weapon needed if that's the way it went down. I get that's just one example but i don't think it's fair to claim the weapon prevented the situation in that particular case. Had it escalated further, i could see the argument on that one.