Quoted:
I like it but...
You do a great professional job of presenting the data in an intelligent manner replete with great referencing then every few paragraphs you lapse into a more comfortable paradigm that takes a slap at individuals or sections of the public overall. This ends up cheapening your argument in my opinion as you stoop down to a more "base" position versus keeping it neutral and professional like scientific research should be (it also displays a certain emtional context that you lambast at the very beginning).
An example would be something like this line:
"...but it starts to make some of these politicians look like they took one too many huffs from the nearest spray paint can."
The above is an emotional and derogatory argument against a segment of people who, while we may disagree with, never the less do have their own valid internal reasoning on this subject. What you are writing is basically attempting to sway someone from a progressive mindset versus someone who already agrees with what you say. If I were even a neutral person reading this and trying to keep an open mind like you ask in the beginning then little cheap shots sprinkled through out cheapen the argument and may even make me decide you have an intensely biased agenda and your arguments are worthless.
You cannot have it both ways- either be as neutral and professional as possible when presenting the data or be the pro-gun version of a Brady shill study which is chock full of emotional buttons.
Sorry if I am harsh but you asked for constructive criticism and the above is what really popped out at me.
No, that's exactly the type of constructive criticism I was looking for, but no one responded to my post haha.
You make a good point. I was probably venting a little bit, as the whole situation and attempted laws have made me sick to my stomach.
*ETA: Updated thanks to great input from Blackhawk 101