The comments for this article are crazy.
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/08/ny-congressman-wants-to-take-away-hawaiis-gun-control-rights/

You forgot #5 . . . trouble

Donahue has spent his entire career attempting to prove that guns are bad. It is virtually impossible that he would ever produce any "research" that would support any other conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean that his work is bogus or his conclusions erroneous. But probably (at least according to my rigorous data analysis and model projections).

We'll have to wait for Dr. Lott to fisk the methodological flaws of the study, as very few people could knowledgeably comment on that aspect.

We could comment on the "commonsense" aspects of what was and wasn't included as data in the study, but how many of us want to pay $5 for the privilege of reading the paper? I don't want to give them any money. I'll write the authors and ask for free copy... often they send them if personally requested.

I can almost guarantee that at some point in the paper they qualify that they have not demonstrated "causality", but only an "association", meaning that RTC laws do not cause an increase in whatever violent crimes they measured. I'm sure Lott will point out that by manipulating data and "models" that one can demonstrate virtually any association one wants (e.g. there's an association between larger shoe size and increased reading ability... i.e. 8-year-olds read better than 4-year-olds, but the shoe size isn't the cause of the increased ability.).

I'm extremely suspicious when anyone claims that every single RTC state had a greater crime increase than every single state that didn't have RTC. Not that it couldn't be true, just seems statistically improbable. I'd also like to see what constitutes RTC and not RTC. Every single state has RTC and they all issue to at least some degree, except for our beloved Hawaii of course. That's gonna be some " nuanced" "defining", aka "data manipulation". How would they explain one state having a 2% population rate of CCW having the same increase in crime as a state that had a 14% rate of population CCW? That seems "counterintuitive" if the actual CCW has something to do causally with the increase in crime, which is what they "imply". Otherwise you are left with the mere fact of "passing a RTC law" as being the causal factor for increased crime, not the consequences of the law in terms of what percentage of the population then legally carries.

I'd like to see their definition of "defensive gun use", as I suspect from the statistic they cite that they 1. mean the discharge of a firearm, and/or 2. they have not included attempted or suspected violent crimes that were not initiated (i.e. the would-be attacker was stopped by the brandishing of a weapon by the potential victim prior to the actual onset of the attack (read their language to see what I'm talking about: "in 99.2 percent of the violent attacks in the United States, no gun is ever used defensively".). And what about robberies and burglaries and car theft or other crimes than "violent attacks"? There is likely a reason for the data selection.)

Perhaps the greatest unstated assumption is that a Constitutionally-guaranteed right can be "regulated" to the point of non-existence because of some data showing possible negative consequences (without really considering the full positive benefits). While that might be an assumption that some people share, not all do, especially when applied of rights other that Second Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom from unwarranted searches, right to legal representation, etc.).

...
I never felt the need to clean my firearms with anything stronger than Triflon or breakfree, WD40, bore solvent, and brushes. Maybe some compressed air. I save the carb and brake cleaner for the ammo.