> None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim. Ok. How do you want me to look for the data? > 1) a s

> None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim. Ok. How do you want me to look for the data? > 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use. It's not just a survey. > 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey." Oversampling doesn't invalidate studies. Are you annoyed they acknowledged it? A less rigorous study wouldn't. > 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC). What neutral groups do you think are studying this stuff? The CDC? Well, they can start now. > 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. > > 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously? Could you help me understand what you'd consider "evidence", considering you won't accept articles from peer-reviewed journals. Why does suicide or homicide have to happen "in-home" for it to be valid? I'll provide more references if you can explain exactly what evidence would satisfy you. Otherwise it seems like a waste of time on my part.