Defensive gun use is rare, and “it does not appear that self-defense gun use is more effective at preventing injury than many other methods of resistance,â€
Well that sounds like a product of the north end of a southbound horse to me.
First, the professor is summarizing other research, without testing that research or data for bias or error.
Second, if my defensive use of a firearm is successful and I do not have to discharge my weapon (preferred because of the lack of paperwork involved), there may be no official record of the event.
Third, if I have to discharge my firearm, then someone is going to be injured, at the very least. With a noted tendency for researchers to include perpetrators as "victims" of "gun violence", I wonder that the numbers are skewed.
Fourth, What "other means of defense" is the writer talking about? Not all of us are masters of some other martial art, nor does everyone stand an even chance against one or more younger, stronger perpetrators. Sam Colt's equalizer evens those odds whether you are an NFL Linebacker, Black Belt, or a little old lady. Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away, if the perpetrators even let you dial 911. (The time needed to bludgeon someone to death is well under 1 minute, and 672 people were murdered with fists and feet in 2018, alone --more than twice the number who were killed with those mean looking "assault weapons" (rifles)).
I'll keep my guns, thanks.