Edited sentence: Advocates on both sides are often accused of manipulating or misrepresenting the figures.Along with the above examples of alleged misuse of statistics, each side has accused the opposition of fabricating their statistics or applying an arbitrary factor to numerical data.Conversely, gun-control advocates claim that gun-rights groups inappropriately removes types of crimes that are easier because of the presence of firearms, or are more deadly, such as domestic violence.Disputes also spring up about the ability to compare statistics across large time spans, and between different cities.For instance, many statistics provided by gun-control groups will include suicides in with all other forms of gun deaths.For instance, when gun-rights advocates assert that areas with less restrictive gun laws have lower crime rates, opponents often point out that they tend to be areas with lower population density and less poverty.Governmental sources such as law enforcement agencies are meant to avoid changing their definitions to allow patterns in statistics  to be seen, even when the definition is not completely accurate.Gun-rights advocates argue the suicide would happen even without the gun.Likewise, gun-rights advocates often claim that gun-control advocates lump deaths unrelated to the presence of guns into their statistics.Nonetheless, it's difficult to be sure all factors are accounted for, leaving the need for due diligence and room for interpretation.On the other hand, gun-rights advocates will often try to compare cities that change their laws, and give a before and after comparison, or try to compare cities with similar demographics.The use of statistics in resolving the gun debate can be very difficult in practice.While this is not always the case, the charge often gains at least the appearance of validity for many reasons, including honest disagreement about the meaning of certain statistics