The authors of the bibliography are quite correct when they state that a
case-control study could measure a net protective effect of firearms.

EdgarSuter writes:

“could” if death were the only legitimate measurement of the protective
benefits of guns.

Wrong. “could” if protection from death is a legitimate use of a

Mr. Lambert’s quibbling about the definition of “only rarely” bypasses the
main point of the letter.

Since an indisputable majority of Kellermann’s homicides were not
committed using those scary “guns in the home,” one must invoke magical
thinking to explain how these unused “guns in the home” were risk factors for
the majority [non-gun] of homicides.

For the fourth time: THEY WERE NOT.

I would ask Mr. Lambert to address this
fundamental problem, rather than a diversion indulging in hair-splitting over
how small a minority of cases involved the “gun in the home.” [shivers in
fright at the mere mention of "gun in the home"] Please address the
fundamental problem.

Addressed. Yet again.