First, the quoted WSJ data is stated on an absolute basis (inflating/sensationalizing the numbers, obviously), while the graph in this article is stated on a relative basis. This still leaves an apparent discrepancy. Other real causes for the discrepancy could be improvements in emergency response in areas with gun violence. This could cause in increase in hospitalizations based on people not dying before getting to the hospital, but this doesn't seem like a large factor. This leaves quality of data as the more likely culprit. The article goes on to say after the portion tokenadult quoted:

> Criminologists say they are cautious about using such medical statistics to draw conclusions because of year-to-year inconsistencies in the number of medical institutions reporting data. The FBI collects annual homicide and aggravated assault statistics but doesn't have reliable numbers for gun and knife attacks.

> Jens Ludwig, a law professor and the director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said he was leery of any number beyond reported homicides.

> "Homicide is the one thing we're measuring well," he said. "Everything else is subject to much more uncertainty," including varying numbers of emergency departments contributing data, as well as differences in how injuries are classified.

So basically, take your pre-existing political biases and use that as a guide to choose which data you believe, just like everyone else does.

The one you really want is the third one: "All non-fatal violent crime".

Basically, all crime is down from its 1993 peak, and it so happens that firearm-related crimes are a subset of that. I don't have the time to run numbers to see what the percentage change is, but it'd probably be enlightening.