Anti-Gun 'Research'

In a previous post, I noted that almost every single one of the 'reports' listed by the Brady Campaign were paid for by the Joyce Foundation and mostly written by Hemenway. Let's take a look at the quality of this 'research' (Note that is from an except cited by a gun control advocate to support his cause):

44. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by adolescents
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people.
Major Findings: These young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.  Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  "Gun Threats Against and Self-Defense Gun Use by California Adolescents." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

 First off, adolescents aged 12-17 are not legally able to purchase/own firearms by federal and state laws, plus this is California where all firearms are licensed and registered which makes this statement really stupid:

These young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense

 Then this:

most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents

 Which would be criminal uses of firearms initially and on both sides (iow gangbangers). Not mentioned.

Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Binge drinking, smoking and threats are all criminal offenses by adolescents and then throw negligent parents into the mix.  Again, no highlighting of these pertinent facts but it will all be used to claim that self-defense w/ a firearm by law abiding citizens is a myth.

This one however is priceless:

 43. The wounding of criminals.
Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
Major Findings: One in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."
Publication: May, John P; Hemenway, David; Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. "When Criminals are Shot: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees" Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 Criminals were wounded by other criminals but "Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."" In DC. In 2000.Where handguns were banned and longguns were required to be kept disabled.

Go check out some of the others.  The statements just get stupider and stupider. Like:

 All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

 Recent gun owners were 8 times more likely to have threatened their partners with a gun than non-gun owners.

And they wonder why we don't take their reports seriously.