Another hoax shooting to fool the sheeple in order to bring in more gun control

The article appears in a publication, described as a "student law review for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” It does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal, or one that is searching for truth as opposed to presenting a certain world view. The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims.
(...)
The Kates and Mauser article is simply a one-sided polemic, usually misleading, and does not deserve much attention.

The paper in question was not peer-reviewed, it didn't constitute a study, and it misrepresented separate research to draw shaky, unsupported conclusions.

For starters, the phrase “Harvard study” is a misnomer, as the paper was not written by researchers at all affiliated with Harvard. Kates is a prominent, NRA-backed Second Amendment activist, while Mauser is a well-known Canadian gun advocate. Their paper appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, a journal that, unlike most academic publications, does not have peer review. The publication describes itself as a “student-edited” law review that provides a forum for “conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” The journal’s past contents include a thoroughly repudiated article, “What is Marriage?,” which argued that gay marriage was morally wrong. One function that publications like the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy serve is to provide a home for papers that wouldn’t survive vetting by other academics; research that can pass peer review is almost always sent to publications whose more stringent standards also come with greater reach.

What’s more, the report by Kates and Mauser does not meet even the loosest criteria of an academic study, which requires either new analysis of an old dataset or boilerplate analysis of a new dataset. Kates and Mauser’s paper offers neither of these, instead relying on highly subjective eyeball comparisons of suspect data, without constructing a single statistical model.

I guess a thread about a 'hoax' shooting should expect to see questionable 'research' as well.

For starters, the phrase “Harvard study” is a misnomer, as the paper was not written by researchers at all affiliated with Harvard.

Hand guns are for losers.

But moreover, tell me why I shouldn't own a handgun.

If you're a US citizen affiliated with a well-regulated militia I can think of no reason.

If you can't pass a proficiency test, have a psychological disability, can't control your temper, or play an accordion, you probably shouldn't own a handgun.

Pearls kept away from swines

If you can't pass a proficiency test, have a psychological disability, can't control your temper, or play an accordion, you probably shouldn't own a handgun.