Informative. Appears to be written from the Fair Witness perspective. The author, Brian Doherty, has a history of libertarianism (Cato Institute and a book on Ron Paul). It is refreshing to read a piece that is not an opinionated screed which purports to be factual, but unlike Jack Webb, presents only the convenient facts supporting the author's position. Doherty's probing questions can be devastating to a one-sided argument: what was the trend (gun violence up/down) before the cited data and what was the trend after the data period (researcher picked a momemtary dip)? He, as many others, points out that gun death statistics typically include suicides (in gun control countries, they just hang themselves).
Another cogent point is the typical argument that Right-To-Carry laws haven't reduced crime but failing to prove that RTC has increased crime. Also, just because you have a law, e.g., background checks, is the law effective? Doherty -> Webster: "If people continued to blithely sell weapons without background checks or permits, that would blunt the notion the law would have such a strong effect on gun murder rates." Webster's emailed reply: "Virtually no studies of gun control law take enforcement into account because data are lacking and we don't really know the degree to which deterrence (people not wanting to violate the law) is a function of levels of enforcement.". In short, "we don't know but we will assert our opinion anyway".
Whch leads to this intuitively obvious conclusion: Professor POTUS issues executive orders because they "feel" right and those orders "appear" to be doing something good.
