This is not necessarily a study, but more of an aggregation of past studies, including the one you referred to earlier. In that sense, it suffers in some repsects from those same similar weaknesses, as well as others from various other studies it included. Some of the more prominent studies included in this analysis was the 1986 and 1993 Kellerman studies which concluded that varying rates of increased risk of homicide and other bad events ranging from 43 times to 2.7 times, with each of these figures laughable when the study methodology is examined, like having a control group dissimilar to the test group, not controling for guns brought into the home from another source, and finding that many other factors presented greater risk factors than firearm existence.
Ultimately I don’t think anyone disputed that firearms present a risk - of course they do. As I said before, a more meaningful question is whether those risks are outweighed by the benefits. This study also makes no attempt to address that question.
Cite? Define used, if I have a gun in every single room of the house 24 hours a day for decades but none are fired in the house, have they been used? Are you distinguishing between use by the resident non-prohibited person vs. others?
What argument of mine do you think isn’t being supported? I’d be glad to oblige.
This analogy doesn’t really work and here is why: When gun control advocates call something reasonable, the argument then becomes whether it is reasonable or not. When a person proposes regulation, the argument is not whether it is in fact regulation.