Overall, they did the same 3 things all anti-gun study’s do:

1. They left out confounding variables where they should have been included.

2. They used incorrect or flawed ‘assumptions’ and used it to define the underlying structure of the study.

3. They curated data in a manner such that it would only fit one conclusion.

This is what they all do.

So a father’s discipline is missing. His imposed limits on his children’s behavior are missing. That is why more children die from gunfire in these big fat welfare states.

“Content creators will tell you this, but most platforms are hellbent on suppressing pro 2A content, and pretty much any content with a conservative tone to it. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses a recent investigation launched by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey into what he believes is intentional suppression of content, which would constitute an unfair trade practice under Missouri law. He has not sent a demand letter to several social media platforms requesting information related to this improper practice. What does this mean? A lot more than you may think.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQp2hWTRrGU

ATF vs Rare Breed Triggers: Inside the Legal War Over Forced Reset Triggers | Part 3 (final): 11 Anti-Gun States Are Now Suing You … That’s What Rare Breed Triggers Face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP8ySEM0lVw

ATF vs Rare Breed Triggers: Inside the Legal War Over Forced Reset Triggers | Part 2: ATF Weaponized The IRS Against THIS 2A Company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM9bW3QcnLs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBgNZGBKQjU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-LLQksALY

My all time favorite anti-gun study was about 3 -4 years ago in JAMA. dacian was going on and on about it over at TTAG back then and praising it as some kind of proof of something, I took a look at it. Basically, these doctor researchers used a set of data coming to a conclusion for one section in their study, then in the next section instead of using a different data set they used the same data they did in the first section to reach a different conclusion that directly contradicted the first conclusion which used the same data and math and methodology – then they said both conclusions were correct – until it was discovered they made up the data when one of their own fellow researchers on the study had the study pulled because the data was faked. These anti-gun researchers even lie to each other. I did a post on this one over at TTAG, sadly when TTAG more recently changed hands and updated a lot of posts over there were lost.