Previous Post
Next Post

 President Obama signs Executive Orders funding anti-gun research (courtesy

“In more than 50 years of research, no study has focused on firearm violence as a specific outcome of violence in media,” according to a report from an “ad-hoc” committee trying to drum-up federal funding for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). “As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and will require additional research.” I’m no Nick Leghorn, but aren’t studies supposed to investigate the possibility of a link between variables before attempting to document and quantify it? In other words, is this an anti-gun agenda or what?‘s report on the report upon which the ad hoc committee based their report leaves little doubt in that regard. That would be Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence with the intro asserting . . .

Firearm-Related Violence as a Public Health Issue

The complexity and frequency of firearm violence, combined with its impact on the health and safety of Americans, suggest that a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. The public health approach involves three elements: a focus on prevention, a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and multidisciplinary collaboration to address the problem. This approach has seen success in reducing tobacco use, unintentional poisonings, and motor vehicle fatalities.

If you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail, especially if you make a living hammering nails with taxpayer money. This approach—“gun violence” as a “health epidemic”—is the latest ploy from civilian disarmament advocates to disarm civilians by placing public policy in the hands of “health professionals.”

As suicides account for over half of all firearms-related death in the U.S. and gang-bangers account for the majority of the rest, how does equating guns with tobacco or automobile safety (neither of which is protected by the Constitution) and tying that to cultural norms accomplish anything other than furthering the agenda of gun control?

The proposal focuses on “gun safety” (i.e. gun locks and such), the effects of violent electronic media and a proto gun registry.

High-quality data that are usable, credible, and accessible are fundamental to both the advancement of research and the development of sound policies. Basic data about gun possession, distribution, ownership, acquisition, and storage are lacking. Additionally, no single database captures the number, locations, and types of firearms and firearm owners in the United States. Data that do exist are weak, making it virtually impossible to answer fundamental questions about occurrence and risk factors, or to effectively evaluate programs intended to reduce violence and harm.

This is why the NRA has consistently and effectively pushed Congress critters to cut off funding for gun research. And why the Obama Administration used the Newtown spree killing as an excuse to fund this “research” by Executive Order.

No good will come of this. The only positive thing that can be said is that the CDC is talking about a three-to-five-year study. With a bit of luck, by that time the gun grabbers will no longer be in power and the study’s recommendations will fail to find fertile ground. Here’s hoping.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It’s all about knowing who has what.

    “See, it would be impossible to do this research without a good database so we need access to all the different information to be able to collate it into a single data set; oh, did I mention it’s for the children.”

  2. Any and every time you make funding contingent on the delivery of certain outcomes or finding, those ARE always the outcomes or findings you get.

    It’s bad science – science starting off on the wrong foot.

    • Even THEY don’t think it’s science, you know…

      Any ruse to disarm Amer… I mean, the world. Very well written, Robert.
      GAWD, when they trot out innocent children for their evil schemes, I get worked-up and angry in unmentionable ways! And the thing is, they’d consider it aberrant behavior to be so angry, when it’s actually the correct and rational HUMAN response.

      And that indeed IS what I’m suggesting: THESE EVIL F*CKS ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS. They behave like an invading alien force.

  3. Looks like an answer in search of a question to me. They could disarm LEOs using the same logic and methodology.

    • Answer in search of funds for maintaining the lifestyle to which have become accustomed. You can get grant $ without knowing what you want to determine/find/prove.

      Science? CDC? yeah right.

    • Cops are going to be surprised when, one day, they’re informed they have to leave their guns in a locker at the station when off-duty!

      I KNOW this is coming, and you cops need to realize it, before it’s too late. You need to fight WITH us for 2E rights, NOT against us.

      When we’re all disarmed, nobody’s got anybody else’s back. JOIN OR DIE!!!

      • I don’t need any convincing – that’s why I have guns for private use on private property.

    • That’s a intriguing proposition.
      If it was decided that the most harmful group between LEO’s and Non-LEO’s was going to be disarmed, depending on the results of a study, I would be surprised if the data didn’t indicate the LEO’s should be disarmed. This of coarse would assume the methodologies were sound and the right questions were being asked.

    • Gawd! If Cops are disarmed eventually can you imagine how much money the Mexican Drug Cartels will make smuggling in guns for the Criminals? It will be a sad say for the druggies, though, because the Mexicans will need to use all their transport resources for shipping guns and ammo into the US, so they’ll be cut-off from their dope supplies.

  4. It’s call tax and spend = Government run amok = more control = less Liberty!

  5. Don’t just study “firearms-related violence”! Study VIOLENCE! Study edged weapon violence! Study blunt weapon violence! Study hand-to-hand violence!

    Specifying “gun violence” is a great sign of imminent, biased bullshit.

    • You hit the nail on the head. If they were to suggest a study on how to implement programs which would help prevent violence as a whole rather than just gun violence, gun rights groups would not be vehemently against the proposals, and MAYBE just maybe the CDC could do some good research not related to vaccines or weaponizing biological agents.

    • Unfortunately, the ultimate cause is economic and cultural and those are two areas politicians would never touch. They need peons otherwise there are no lords. The “epidemic of violence” is just a symptom of the pseudo-caste system.

    • The precise equation behind this is: GUNS = VIOLENCE. VIOLENCE = BAD.

      Of course, neither is necessarily true. They know that; they’re NOT stupid. The aim is to disarm us so the offshore criminal banking cartel can proceed to confiscate and own everything they don’t presently own.

      They want it ALL, and they want it NOW. And they’re so sick that they see nothing wrong with destroying it all, if they can’t own it.

      Equating guns to disease is a cynical ploy. They’re just throwing everything at the wall in hopes that enough of them will stick.

    • Exactly! To trot out our old favorite, the car analogy – imagine if some subset of our society had declared cars dangerous and was proposing a ban on them. What do you think a study, that only looked at drunk-driving, would conclude?

      • Don’t worry the already put extra tax on petro in the U.K. and Obama and fans want the same here NO PRIVATE auto’s and no private home ownership , These people are FULL OUT MARXIST…………WAKE UP AMERIKA!!!!!!!!

  6. The CDC always started with an anti-gun bias. They always assumed guns were the problem and even labeled and treated gun ownership as a disease, that if a gun being proximate causes violence to erupt. Research the CDC’s “research” to see why their funding was ended. The CDC didn’t really care what the data showed or if there was any bias, they even concluded the exact opposite of what the data and author clearly showed in their materials.
    Here’s a quick run-down.

    There was also no prohibition on gun research, the CDC just stopped because the government (anti-gun) funding was ended, which really shows their motivation. In fact, the CDC was only barred from explicitly “manufacturing” research to push an anti-gun agenda. If the anti-gun crowd really cared about the issues why didn’t they fund real research (especially considering the dough Bloomberg throws around)? Because unbiased research always discredited their cause, especially in areas they have high control (like Chicago).

    What’s also interesting is the CDC’s preliminary National Vital Statistics Reports released in October 2011 showed 80% of total “gun homicides” were gang-related. In the officially reviewed NVSR released January 2012 the word “gang” did not even appear. Seems they still want to play their old games.

    I’m all for unbiased research because it only credits us. Look at the criticism of Lott’s work vs the criticism of the CDC’s “research”. The anti-gun crowd nitpick numbers against Lott’s research and ignore obvious bias and outright lying by the CDC during the same period. I’m just not the target market for the CDC, low information voters that only read simple pamphlets with many colorful pictures. Some people understand how statistics work and they don’t like us.

    • +100

      The CDC has a terrible reputation with criminologists. Many years ago, they refused to break down their data by race because they were concerned about how it might cast some groups in a bad light.

    • According to the CDC gun violence is always on the rise. According to the FBI, DOJ, and independent studies, yes, gun violence, as with nearly all categories of crime, have been steadily declining.

    • It’s a really tricky “disease”. When everything gets better, it’s a sign the “disease” has gotten “worse”!

  7. 1. CDC, Center for Disease Control, I’m sorry but firearms are not a disease. This has got to rank high on the list of “Top examples of mission creep”.
    2. It looks lik they are going after not only guns, but hollywood as well. Can you say opposition from both sides of the isle?
    3. I know I had another point but it eludes me at the moment. Oh yeah, “…shall not be infringed” unless some hack ‘scientist’ determines by some bizarre statisical voodoo study that guns bad? I don’t think so.

    • If guns are a disease, then cars are a far worse disease. Actually, one could make a tepid case that cars ARE a disease.

      NOT SO with guns.

  8. I remember how much everyone freaked out when Wayne la Pierre made that remark about violence in video games; people shrieked that he was trampling the 1st amendment to save the 2nd… I will patiently await the sequel to that outrage, since the CDC has pretty much echoed his remarks.

    I have the feeling I’ll be waiting a while…

  9. This looks like a federal gun registration under the guise of “public health research” for the children.

  10. Violence is the problem. A gun, knife, pipe, baseball bat, rock, even your bare hands are just tools. Study the problem, not the tool.

  11. The kicker is that to the extent that suicide factors into gun-related deaths, the CDC might have a legitimate role. Suicide is a widespread problem and — unlike “gun death” — mental health factors leading to suicide are a real public health problem.

    They could actually do some good here. But instead of doing honest research on a tough health-related problem, it seems they’d rather go through the motions and reach whatever conclusion the gov’t is willing to pay for.

    • As said above, guns are just tools, even with suicide. Studies have consistently shown guns do not make suicide any more appealing, other methods are either preferred or otherwise used. Again, study (and blame) the motivators not the tools used.

  12. The Center for Disease Control are pushers of agenda driven pseudoscience and have always been about targeting legal gunowners doubtless of the weight of unbiased evidence stacked against their retarded “policy recommendations.” Baldfaced politics have no place in the scientific method, the CDC doesn’t deserve a cent of the funding it gets.

  13. Evil, libtard (democrat) turds. Nobody on this forum better vote democrat ever again.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    • Want to see what they want ? READ George Orwell’s 1984.. ( NEW WORLD ORDER) GOP style it is called a thousand points of lights ,, WE are sold out 100 %…………..

  14. The CDC wants to declare guns a menace to Public Health. They know full-well guns are not a disease, but they can cross the line by “proving” how dangerous guns are to the public with “research’, then hand the findings over to the appropriate agency to deal with the details. It is all part of the sinister sub-plots in Obama Care.
    Eventually, they will declare Big Macs, French Fries and Chocolate Shakes “a Danger to Public Health” and hand that information over to the FDA or Agriculture Department to outlaw, or control. I bet they’ll get funding for that one from Michael Bloomberg.

  15. Gee, I wonder what kind of conclusion(s) they “discover” from their “research”. No don’t tell me. Headlines, “GUNS ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL OF THE EVIL IN THIS WORLD. WE MUST BAN ALL GUNS, EXCEPT FOR THE ONLY ONE’S”. I could write their headlines for them. They ought to pay me.

  16. What the hell does the CDC have to do with guns or violence anyway? Isn’t there a disease that needs curing?

  17. Seriously, why do they even need to do any research? They’ve already reached their conclusion, all they have to do now is publish. There are plenty of “legit” academic centers that will conduct the peer review (Bloomberg School of Public Health for one) and proclaim the findings not only “valid” but also “groundbreaking, a real eye-opener to the problem that is guns.”

Comments are closed.