“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? polygon.com‘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.