Plus giving people guns who do not want them is bordering on unethical since if the study shows as is already implied it means that person may be hurt or killed.
How is the NRA stopping anyone from funding studies?
>study shows as is already implied it means that person may be hurt or killed
Your arguments are epistemologically broken. Would giving, low-blood-pressure people, blood-pressure regulating medication suddenly make them have high blood pressure? No. Wet streets do not cause rain
My arguments are not broken at all. To do the type of control you suggested above would mean putting guns in homes of people who would otherwise not have one. Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun. Putting subjects at that sort of risk for a perfect control study absolutely has ethical implications.
>Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun
No they haven't. The studies show that people who own guns have higher likelihood of being injured. It does not show that owning a gun /increases/ odds of injury.
Places that have wet streets have a higher likelihood of it raining recently. Does that mean that wet streets cause rain?
You are assuming that the non-gun-owning population and the gun-owning population are the same. This is illogical. Perhaps it's the case that people who buy guys are just generally risk takers/more reckless than the general population (which is reasonable given that they're purchasing a gun in the first place). The problem with your logic is that its vulnerable to Simpson's Paradox[1]
Correlation does not equal causation. Wet streets do not cause rain. Until you provide a study that shows a baseline population and another who are given a treatment (say "here's a free gun that you weren't going to buy on your own") and compare the results, the null hypothesis is not broken.