Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
= new reply since forum marked as read
...researchers have stated the results of this study are practically worthless and should not be taken out of context, which you are already doing 
Oh, and peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean bad data doesn't get published. Another topic you should research.
was it appeared that they wanted pro-gun control research and were funding studies to achieve that result.
I have no issue with neutral studies. If a causation can be found and a solution proposed it should be supported by both sides.
This study does appear to look at the data from a neutral stand point and acknowledge its own shortcomings. A good start; more research without bias should follow. 
"State level".
Measuring firearm violence within a state, and adding in those places where it generally isn't, in addition to where it generally is, to get a "rate". One that dilutes and misleads. Measure Chicago versus most other comparable cities instead, and it paints a starkly different picture, which, of course, is why that wasn't done.
As we've all heard from them, "just one is too many" - The gun control side of the issue is keenly focused on firearm fatalities, right up to the point where comparing places with strict gun control versus places without is done. At that point, it becomes more important to add to places like chicago where gun violence is rampant, places like outstate Illinois where it isn't rampant, to paint a picture unrepresentative of reality.
No stats for DC.
Gee, I wonder why.
Like I said, when one distills it down rather than diluting it, and looks at chicago versus most other comparable cities, quite a different picture than the one being painted by the piece linked in the OP begins to emerge.
Cue the "its other states faults" arguments...
RATES.
I live near a small town we'll just call bumfuck, for sake of discussion.
"Bumfuck" (though thats not its real name) has a real, factual and true population of 34 people.
If someone commits suicide in "Bumfuck" with a gun, thats 1 in 34.
Thats a RATE of 2941 per 100k. If one were to look ONLY at that rate, it would seem bumfuck has a suicide epidemic of monumental proportions on their hands, wouldn't it? Gee, is there something in their water or what?
What the "rate" bunch do, is to note places like Montana and other states/places with a small population, and then use a rate based on that small population.
On the other side of the coin, a larger population example of say 20 million, with the same rate, would have 1188200 hypothetical suicides. For sake of discussion, well call it "megaville".
So say this hypothetical city of megaville DOES have a gun suicide epidemic. Say 100000 commit suicide with guns. Thats 200 per 100k. A rate roughly 14.5 times Roughly lower that Bumfuck. Without looking at the exact numbers, it sure looks like bumfuck has a huge problem on their hands, compared to megaville, doesnt it?
Of course, its misleading beyond the pale, but then, coming from the same crowd that more or less invented "the choice of criminals and gangbangers", and "a danger to airliners", is anyone really going to be all that surprised by this?
What really IS the surprise in all of this, is that you seem to actually, really, and truly believe, that everyone is so so dumb as a post, not to see whats actually being said here, and NOT being said here. And that you think this particular song and dance hasn't been had before.
Yeah, you go ahead and keep it up. The rest of us with any sensibility at all know that a city of 100k with 15.9 gun homicides has a FAR smaller problem than a city like chicago with a rate of 15.9 per 100k.
And we'll feel quite free to keep pointing it out.
Oh, and 520, last time I checked, is higher than 420. While its handgun ban is still effectively in effect.
I'm just dieing to hear your explanation for that.
"Who said 520 wasn't higher than 420? Chicago's handgun ban has not been in effect for going on 3 years now, the handgun ban was lifted & now you blame the murder increase still on the gun ban?"
The handgun ban has not technically been in effect, but it has been effectively in effect until very recently - far more recently than 4 years ago - or did you think chicago was just handing out checks to SAF because they wanted to.
"Are you afraid of the truth? states which are pro gun tend to have higher gundeath rates, even when they are lesser populated. If your challenge had merit, looking at gundeaths from other years would show those 7 or 8 states with less gundeaths per capita, but they don't. The list is a list of what it says it is, firearm fatalities per capita."
Fucking Duh. That was my entire point. This is the reason you guys like to talk about rates, why you use that framing - because if you talk about the problem for what it is, where it is, you lose the argument on its face. Everyone here on either sides knows this, because we've danced this little dance before. Several times. Before you ever joined DU - at least under your current username.
Chicago LEADS the nation in firearm homicides. They have several times, along with DC which *this is my shocked face* doesn't get tabulated in this "study" and which the brady bunch seems to have stopped giving grades, in spite of its "grade A" gun laws. Gee, I wonder why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
That chicago leads and has led the nation in gun deaths, more than once annually, are facts that are not in dispute. So since they can't be disputed, rather than deal with gun death numbers, like gun controllers regularly do when it comes to incidents, you change the medium to "rates", and point their misleading fingers at states with higher "rates". "Hey, look over there!". How do they get higher "rates"? Well, gee, is it because they have MORE gun homicides? You know, the thing that IS the actual problem? Nope. Its because their number of gun homicides gets diluted into a smaller population, to come up with the rate.
And by the way, where does Vermont fall in there, eh?