The article actually does give details on the study. It was published in the Feb issue of Pediatrics. The numbers it gives are not inconsistent with the Factcheck article, which covers only _deaths_, not injuries, from handguns, not rifles and shotguns.

We should not simply deny the facts when they're inconvenient. This is the same thing with climate change. It's a fact that the climate changes in cycles of glaciation and declaration, and the present deglaciation is partly influenced by human activities. We can't just wish that away.

The doctor they got quotes from for this article drew an analogy to cars. We made cars safer without banning them. He doesn't point out that cars cause a million injuries and 40k deaths in the US a year.

Suppose we felt compelled to *do something* about all these gun injuries. The efforts I hear about to ban guns focus on the number of bullets guns hold. The vast majority of gun injuries/deaths involve one or two victims, so limiting magazine size addresses a very rare problem. Some of these gun injuries are from rifles or shotguns, and I don't think we would ever ban all guns, so we can never eliminate those injuries by banning guns. I also suspect many of the kids hurt by guns are in families that have unsafe practices for dealing with chemicals, fire, and electricity. Banning the peril itself doesn't address the problem. Even if we did ban guns, not everyone would obey the law. I suspect the people who are careless with guns are often people who would not obey the law.

If we made guns disappear magically, not just from law-abiding citizens, we'd find out how much violence they prevent. Criminals thinking of breaking in know there might be a police officer and the resident might have gun. If we really got rid of guns, if it were even possible, criminals would only have to worry about a police officer.

There is also an intangible benefit to people having the option of defending themselves and not waiting for the gov't.

The numbers in the study ring true to me.

The real problem with these, as you say, pseudo-scientific studies, is that before they can be debunked, enough gullible people will hear of or read the highlights and will take them as gospel. People with agendas don't have a concern with actual facts and numbers - they start with a conclusion, then find or fabricate facts or numbers to get their point made knowing full well that they can get it publicized and popularized and that any real information that comes later will be too late.

You already have pseudo-engineers, i.e. environmental engineers. It's enough to make one ask, Who's John Galt.

Anti-gun studies have been around as long as the weapons themselves. Most studies are conducted by pseudo-scientific individual or groups with an agenda to further. There have been studies whose numbers defy any explanation except they are fake.
Studies have shown the crime rate in states having “Shall Issue” laws for concealed carry go down (examine the Florida rates). If the crime rate goes down, generally the death rate from gunshot foes down also. Not always, but generally. Likewise, when gun laws restrict gum ownership, the crime rate usually goes up. The criminals know their victim does not have a gun to protect themselves.
As the title of the original post indicates, this is more of a study to assist in the control of people not weapons.