It is not actually necessary to read the whole "study" to know it is flawed, and likely dishonest. The synopsis in the news article clearly shows some major, disqualifying problems:
There is no comparison. Data about group A tell us virtually nothing without a comparison group. Is 44 a high number? Or a low number? There is no way to tell.
Insanely small sample size. 44 + 7 = 51 murders. Out of tens of thousands. These data, even if accurate, cannot possible be generalized with any reliability at all.
I believe that anecdotal, isolated, emotionally charged data about a category of persons, with no perspective offered, is a very reliable sign of bigotry, even if the data happen to be real.
Imagine a "study" called
"Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Blacks"
or
"Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Jews"
It would be immediately clear what the "study" was intended to accomplish.
(The definition of Concealed Permit in the study may also be distorted. In the one New York case the criminal is reported as having a pistol license, but in this benighted State, that often (depending on the issuing judge) means a restricted license, good for carry while hunting or target shooting, but not valid for concealed carry.)