Moreover, the stat in question, if you look at the actual quotation by the critic, is in fact just as Lott claimed. The critic was trying to say that "brandishing" a gun did not include firing, or firing and missing. I think that counts as "brandishing."
I can assure you that there are few, if any, historians who could have a major article (let alone a book) completely citation-checked and not blow several. You accidentally flip dates, drop page numbers, interpolate years and months. Most of the time, by most scholars, it is certainly NOT on purpose. But as careful as anyone is, it slips in. I have had a book read by myself, several dozen students (whom I rewarded with cash prizes for finding typos or other errors), at least five colleagues, a general editor, a specific editor, a copy editor, and a proofreader, and I STILL find minor errors involving citations where I had the right citation, but a number got flipped in printing.
The ONLY history journal I am aware of that even checks citations is the Journal of Southern History, which checks every secondary citation and all primary citations they have access to. It used to be that referees for publishers did this, but no longer. That was the crime with Bellesiles' book: KNOWING they had a controversial book that "challenged" traditional understandings, the publisher had an obligation to double check those citations.
Lott, on the other hand, is in exactly the opposite position: he KNOWS that people like the critic lurk everywhere to discredit him.
And there is a difference between a lie and a mistake or genuine lost survey results.