“Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.”
“A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible,” Libresco writes. “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/statistician-rethinks-gun-control-after-digging-into-the-data
Firearm User Network 
John Daub
Oct 05, 2021 @ 14:45:22
Very similar to the work by Howard Nemerov. He wrote a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Four-Hundred-Years-Gun-Control/dp/0981738222
What I appreciated about his approach was that he used all of the sources that those who promote gun control use – so it’s not “pro-gun biased” sources, but the very same sources as gun control proponents use, just looking deeper into the data.
Disclosure: Howard’s a friend of mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Buol
Oct 05, 2021 @ 16:51:17
>> What I appreciated about his approach was that he used all of the sources that those who promote gun control use – so it’s not “pro-gun biased”
Thanks for sharing this! This is ideal as any data from an advocacy group is inherently biased (as we all are.)
LikeLike