Here's all you need:
"Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership."
View Quote
Huh?
QUESTION: Exactly HOW does a gun in the home cause people to be killed with OTHER weapons at a higher rate????
ANSWER: It doesn't. Guns in the home simply indicate that the owner may live in an area where they feel more threatened - so they acquire a gun for protection (if they can).
"It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition," they write."
View Quote
No duh!
Basic Research 101: [b]CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.[/B]
This study is nothing more than junkscience.
Their biased motiviation is obvious:
The study findings imply "that guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans," lead study author Dr. Matthew Miller of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health.
"This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often adduced, notion that guns are a public good," he added."
View Quote
So how come they don't do a correlation between gun ownership and use of guns to STOP crimes???
[b]2,000,000 times a year guns are used for personal protection against rapes, assaults, robbery, burglaries and attempted murders.[/b]
States with higher gun-owner rates have GREATER rates of using of guns in self-defense.
Where's THAT mentioned in this study. They ASSUME that guns are ONLY used for criminal uses. They backhandedly try to refute the "notion that guns are a public good" with this pile of flawed, half-assed junkscience "study".