Are these your proposals for research, or are they hypotheses that you claim the author was examining and that I somehow missed? If the former and you're looking for a critique, I would start by saying that I don't think hypothesis #1 is well posed. Do you mean any society, or the USA? And do you mean by any means at all, or only using legal, constitutional means?
In examining hypothesis #2, do we have available a sample of societies where guns were removed and nothing else changed, so we can perform a statistical analysis of the change in "death" rate following the sudden removal of guns? I think that's extremely unlikely, and therefore I don't see how we can reach reliable conclusions. Also, I'm confused about what you're proposing to look at: by "death", do you mean murder by gun? All murders? Suicides? Accidents, illness, etc.?
Of course we can be confident of tautologies: if all guns were made to disappear, including those in the hands of the government, there would not be any gun murders. But this does not seem very illuminating. Even in that case, how do we know that murders by other means, and other violent crimes, would not increase?
Your question is "whether there is a study that would be acceptable". I think the answer is clearly yes, and there are studies on this subject in the literature, of varying quality. My point was that the author seems not to know or care much one way or the other, and prefers to sling "hunches".
I'm not sure I understand anything that follows "acceptable", but I think you're wondering whether some people would be against a gun control measure even if it could be known that said measure would lead to a net decrease in murders. The answer to that (and I'm sorry if that's not what you were asking) is obviously "yes" in some cases. As an analogy, many people are harmed, even driven to suicide, by speech. This harm could possibly be reduced by enacting speech controls. But there are people who, even if they agree that a particular speech control measure would reduce harm caused by speech, would nevertheless be against it.
In examining hypothesis #2, do we have available a sample of societies where guns were removed and nothing else changed, so we can perform a statistical analysis of the change in "death" rate following the sudden removal of guns? I think that's extremely unlikely, and therefore I don't see how we can reach reliable conclusions. Also, I'm confused about what you're proposing to look at: by "death", do you mean murder by gun? All murders? Suicides? Accidents, illness, etc.?
Of course we can be confident of tautologies: if all guns were made to disappear, including those in the hands of the government, there would not be any gun murders. But this does not seem very illuminating. Even in that case, how do we know that murders by other means, and other violent crimes, would not increase?
Your question is "whether there is a study that would be acceptable". I think the answer is clearly yes, and there are studies on this subject in the literature, of varying quality. My point was that the author seems not to know or care much one way or the other, and prefers to sling "hunches".
I'm not sure I understand anything that follows "acceptable", but I think you're wondering whether some people would be against a gun control measure even if it could be known that said measure would lead to a net decrease in murders. The answer to that (and I'm sorry if that's not what you were asking) is obviously "yes" in some cases. As an analogy, many people are harmed, even driven to suicide, by speech. This harm could possibly be reduced by enacting speech controls. But there are people who, even if they agree that a particular speech control measure would reduce harm caused by speech, would nevertheless be against it.