You do not defend, you deny and hide from matters pertaining to the truth. Matters such as how the academic system of the united states is failing miserably.
As to be expected when dealing with one who is the product of the modern education and academic system in the united states.
I know you find education problematic. Let's hope the gun research becomes more idiotic to keep you happy.
The individuals being cited by yourself cannot claim to exercise intellectual honesty in referring to themselves as researchers. They are nothing more than political advocates.
And yet even in the early days of the exchanges between yourself and myself, no efforts were actually made on the part of yourself to demonstrate how the claims being leveled against them and their work were factually incorrect. Rather than address the supposed shortcomings, and demonstrating why the accusations were flawed from the start, the only thing exercised by yourself was instinctive denial of the accusations. Even to this day nothing beyond instinctive denial has been presented on the part of yourself when it comes to the credibility of those who claim to be researchers.
All the preceding self-righteous screed proves nothing but that you're yet another arrogant ideologue utterly disinterested in reality. I'm alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it. Yes, I protected myself with a gun, so for you to say "protection=stupid argument" shows that you will say and do anything to not have to even think about the possibility you might be wrong about this issue. You can sputter and rage about that which you know nothing all you want, but it doesn't change things. You ask me how many "enemies" I have. Well, I've sent a few people to prison who swore they'd kill me and my whole family if they ever got the chance and some have been members of groups such as MS-13, so there's that. Am I "constantly scanning my windows with a loaded gun"? No, of course not. Yes, I'm always armed; I've carried a gun personally and professionally for over a quarter century now, and I'll admit it feels odd to not have one on my hip. I have motion sensors around my house; if one of them sounds an alert I do look out the window to see what I'm dealing with. I'm fortunate to be married to a woman who is capable and well trained, so I have a very effective partner with me if we were faced with a crisis situation; we've even taken small-unit tactics classes together. Yes, there is a nifty little spot in the bathroom where a pistol sits and is within arm's reach when I shower. On top of all that, I am heavily involved with martial studies and I train myself in physical fitness daily. Being stronger and fitter makes you harder to kill; but I'll be honest and say that I do that not because of any sort of incipient paranoia but because I enjoy it. Exercise is cathartic to me; even meditative. Training with weapons - not just firearms, but knives and escrima sticks - is part of it as well. Being confident in my own ability to rely upon myself and not have to quiver and shake trying to dial 911 and hoping the cops might get there in time to protect me is great for my peace of mind as well. I know, I know; you're going to sneer and denigrate me for it... and, well, at this point I really don't give a flying fornication. You asked me what a "protection rifle" looks like. That's a hard question to answer, because even within the tactical community there are different opinions about what is superior for personal security. My take would be something along these lines: As for John Wayne... well, I think he's one of a kind... and good defensive work can be done with his rifle of choice too; so long as you know how to utilize its strengths.
It is not myself that the so-called "evidence" disagrees with. Rather it disagrees with reality itself. Over the course of several decades, data released by the FBI has proven that cities and even states with strict firearm-related restrictions codified into law are also host to some of the highest levels of recorded violence, including firearm-related violence, in the entire united states. This runs directly counter to the message being presented by these so-called "researchers" who operate on the belief that firearm-related restrictions have the potential to greatly reduce the incidents of firearm-related violence from occurring. The city of Chicago is just one prime example of how such is simply not the case. The city has so many firearm-related incidents being committed by prohibited individuals, it does not even bother trying to prosecute them anymore.
The findings of law enforcement disagree with the so-called "evidence" being supported by yourself, and by those who try to hide behind their academic credentials. The findings of law enforcement supersede whatever academia has to say about how things should be, as opposed to how things actually are.
Scholarly research is required, else you have raw data and spurious conclusion. Your position continues to have no merit.
Yet again with the statement that data must be subject to interpretation by economists so that they can present their findings in a manner that the public will be able to understand.
