Yeah-- this "study" is utter dogwaste. What are they pushing, that women shouldn't even try to use guns at all? One can derive NO suggestion about how often a firearm is used by a woman in deterrance-- all the data are about cases with corpses.
Also, I assume their basic message is "it's no use to go out and get a gun, chicks, because you're more likely to get shot anyway." Is there, above, any data on whether or not the women in the "killed by acquaintance" categories were holding weapons or not? If not, what the hell is the significance of citing those stats? Maybe the takehome message is, guys are more likely to shoot chicks than vice versa. Who wrote this report? They should take their sociology degree and go flip burgers somewhere. This is a prime example of shoddy "research"-- a bullsh!t report and a waste of somebody's money. Probably yours and mine.
To make sense, they should be comparing the number of women who kill in self defense with their own handgun with the number of women who are killed with their own handgun while trying to defend themselves. The control group should strictly be those women who own handguns, in order to determine whether the use of them has been successful or unsuccessful in their own protection. Throwing ALL women in there, including those who have own firearms at all, simply because a gun was involved regardless of whose gun it was, completely creates an apples to oranges situation.
Totally misleading. The question is, as you already stated, how effective are handguns in the defense of women WHO ACTUALLY OWN THEM.
Bingo! The logical inconsistency of their arguments just shines through. It also excludes all the women whose lives were saved by displaying a handgun, all the women who were not assaulted for fear thereof. It also assumes that all the women killed by handguns would not have been killed otherwise. Many would have died from beatings and stabbings otherwise.