Yes, people kill people, but guns make a huge difference in how many people get killed.

This map was produced from a scholarly study by researchers from Boston Children's Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine.  It shows a correlation between strong gun laws and firearms fatalities

States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide.

Direct causation could not be determined, but at the very least, such a strong correlation should make it clear that existing public policy in many states with lax gun laws comes at a high price: more dead mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and others.

In addition, higher firearm ownership rates were also heavily correlated with higher firearm fatalities, and lower ownership rates were correlated with stronger gun control legislation.

And if you are going to say "Well, that's just one study..." remember that the reason that government funding has been cut for ANYTHING which can provide this type of data has been cut on the basis that it could be used to "promote gun control".

Why cut the research funding if the truth is on your side?

Yet another reason to fear accurate gun use research.

It seems that there was a study published in the Western Journal of Medicine back in 2001 that came up with these results:

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Even after many of the firearm victimization reports were excluded, the data show that more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun for self-protection. Most judges rated the reported self-defense gun uses as probably illegal in most cases, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

Guns are used to threaten and intimidate more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may be illegal and against the interests of society.

Results like that don't look too good for the "pro-gun" side.  That might also be a reason for the "Get Away with Murder" laws since it doesn't look too good to have a legal inquiry into these matters if most cases of "self-defence" may be illegal and against the interests of society.

Much better to say "I wuz actin' in sef-deefence" and end the inquiry in that case.

See:

Are guns used more by US civilians for self-defense or for intimidation? West J Med. Jun 2001; 174(6): 396.

A John Lott Study Says there has Never Been Frozen Firearms Research

via ssgmarkcr

 Gun control advocates often bemoan the restriction on using federal funds for research on firearms issues and gun violence.  I had recently posted a comment on one of your threads in this regard and then today, I read this article on the dreaded Fox News website.

   

"Study aims to shoot down media narrative on frozen firearms research"

   

"The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 -- when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.

Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote. 

The study, though, acknowledges that “firearms research in medical journals did fall as a percentage of all research.” In the relevant period, the total number of published medical journal pieces has climbed from about 450,000 to 1.1 million a year – gun-related articles did not increase nearly as much."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/study-aims-to-shoot-down-media-narrative-on-firearms-research/?intcmp=latestnews

    One possible area where I might differ is that if this affects research conducted by governmental agencies, When studies are released by a governmental agency, there is at least an initial presumption of accuracy, though that might be wishful thinking on my part.  For example, we tend to male a presumption of accuracy when looking at FBI crime statistics, or injury reports from the CDC.  Though we have had some discussions based on inaccuracies on the part of the CDC.  I'm guessing there are similar errors in the FBI's numbers since all of their data is sent by other agencies which can lead to those errors.  But there is at least an initial assumption that the government doesn't necessarily have an ax to grind.

    So in the case of gun research, this restriction might have been a good thing because it addressed the perception that the research was starting to take on the appearance of a bias in the direction of one side of the debate.

    I will give you a heads up that the Crime Prevention Research Center is headed by John Lott, and therefor can be inferred to have at least some bias as does The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.  I actually believe that the preconceived assumption of bias can be a good thing, because if the data can survive such a confrontational review process, then it makes the study much more credible.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Did_Federal_Fund_Cuts_Really_Stop_Gun_Control_Research_Final.pdf

Can we really compare an organization associated with John Lott with one associated with one of the most prestigious universities in the world? I don't think so. Can we really say they are both equally biased in opposite directions?  No.

John Lott's research reminded me of what our own TS can do when faced with uncomfortable reports. In the end you have to still ask yourself if the original proposition was really addressed.