Previous Post
Next Post

“Private groups and foundations donate millions of dollars to fund firearm research every year. When the government gets involved, and political agendas are allowed to supersede scientific analysis, the end product is nothing but a waste of tax-payer money.” – Lars Dalseide in NIH quietly shelves gun research program [via]

IMI-Israeli Ammo

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This wouldn’t be because DJT is in office, would it?……..

    I’m sure we’ll revisit this conclusion before 2024.

  2. So when Republicans control the White House, any research government touches is tainted by a political agenda, and only private interest groups can be trusted. As opposed to when Democrats ran the Executive Branch, when government research is totally unbiased.

    • IT’S







      in an attempt to help liberal groups get by through this ‘nuclear winter’ of no / less funding so that these people have something to kick-back into the war chests of the evil POS (D) before the next election.

      How else can you explain how Planned Parenthood gets “gun research” $$$ ???

  3. Had TTAG merely copied and pasted from the article, leaving in the note on whom Mr. Dalseide represents, it might have avoided readers assuming that he’s trying to claim privately-funded research is more objective. Appears that he’s saying researchers can get all the funding they want privately, so don’t need to use tax dollars.

    –“Private groups and foundations donate millions of dollars to fund firearm research every year,” says Lars Dalseide, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action in Fairfax, Virginia. “When the government gets involved, and political agendas are allowed to supersede scientific analysis, the end product is nothing but a waste of tax-payer money.”–

    • Private money doesn’t come close to Federal and State (from Federal) money. And that’s kinda (NOT ha ha) funny, because there was an actual ban/moratorium on such funding up until the last year of the Ohole administration (again, FU to the evil POS (D)).

      • There wasn’t a ban on funding, per se. Even this article mentions a four year old, multi-million dollar federally funded firearms research program.

        Liberals regularly complain that all firearms research is banned. It isn’t. What is banned, by way of the Dickey Amendment, is this:

        “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” That’s it.

        In other words, you may not use federal funds for junk science, anti-gun propaganda. Liberals aren’t interested in any actual science. They just want to pass off their freedom infringing political agenda as having the official imprimatur of credible scientific findings. In reality, it’s just their own personal public policy preferences.

        They can’t be honest about their intentions, so they concoct lies about research restrictions.

        • I’ll call myself “standing corrected” but it’s a distinction without a difference, as there’s ZERO gun research out there whose goal is not to further gun control and gun grabbing.

          And again, it’s an evil liberal POS (D) problem we’re dealing with here people.

        • Joe, You need to look of John Lott. Every researcher on gun policy that I’ve ever heard of is cited by him at some point. Most of them come to neutral or anti gun control conclusions.

          The science is in. Gun control is harmful. The antis are science deniers.

        • Again, I’ll call myself “standing corrected” and again, I believe it to be a distinction without a difference, because, aside from possible book advances, or book rights, I don’t think [and I could be further mistaken] that (the majority of) Lott’s work came on anyone’s (much less government’s) dole.

          • I think Lott started doing gun policy research with his paper “More Guns, Less Crime.” He did that while a professor, so there probably was government money in it. He then got run out of the university.

            P.s. you didn’t say all government/government funded gun research; you said gun research.

  4. The $$$ for “gun research” is just “walking around money” [like what the POS (D) crowd hands out in the precincts and churches in SChitcago around election times to ‘get out the vote’] used to float POS liberal machination ‘players’ until the evil POS (D) can get back in power to provide more Federal graft $$$ that can be flipped back to (D) election coffers. That’s why Planned Parenthood gets ‘gun research’ money. How do they justify it??? WHO THE F KNOWS? How do lawyers, and ‘entities for higher learning [of communism]’ get it. WHAT ARE THEY HOPING TO “DETERMINE” OR “SOLVE”.

    We ALL already know the two (2) problems of gun violence:

    1) the “We’re F’d up, we need to fix you” POS (D) crowd who have made various slums with their social engineering, and where gun violence is deeply rooted, if not wholly contained and bred.

    2) the “We need to take your guns, because we can’t do tyranny and global communism until we do” POS (D) crowd.

    Both need to F themselves brutally in both eyes.

  5. I’m wondering if I could get a grant from Bloomberg to do some “gun research” of my own. I’d like to find out if a select fire FAL is better than the semi only one I have. Among other important “research”.

    • I would help you write the grant proposal.

      And the research shouldn’t be too much work. We both already know the answer.

      It’s “YES”.

      : (

  6. why would true voluntary information be given too these ass****s when the same information will be used against us with more anti freedom intolerant laws, sorta like the useless Democrat & Republicans, with their USA shattering system of illegal, and immoral laws, destroying freedom of choice, and putting a muffler on freedom of speech especially if spoken against the anointed twisted sisters, illegals, and all the worlds trash who are degrading our way of life.

  7. I would like to see more non partisan research into gun policy because from the mostly bias research (both pro and anti) that already exists, the data supports that more guns do not equal more crime.

    It would be great to see research that tries to look objectively into how to reduce suicide and even homicide (by all means, not just firearms) through non regulatory policy. That being said, most researchers seem to get their grant money by pitching a predetermined outcome. Seemingly gone are the days of testing a hypothesis and reporting on whether the hypothesis is unsupported or supported by the data.

    • The best research on this subject out there is that published by Kleck and Lott. Each man’s work has been pored over for years. Objective peer review has failed to contradict their conclusions. Even insane anti-gun zealots haven’t been able to discredit their meticulous and authoritative research.

  8. I agree with Serpent_Vision (above). Lars Dalseide is saying he thinks using Government funding and involvement in “Gun Research” is a “waste of tax-payer money”.

    In this deeply polarized country today EVERYBODY has an “agenda”. Whether research is privately or Government funded seems to make little difference. Research methodology has become perverted by agenda-driven bias whether conducted privately or by Government agencies. Generally, “researchers” decide what they want to “prove” and manipulate the construct of the “research” or cherry-pick the data they gather to support their predetermined “Results”. We Americans have lost (or discarded, take your pick) the understanding and/or strict adherence to the principles of the “scientific method” where political and social issues are concerned. In hard Science, it depends on how much money can be made.

  9. “When the government gets involved, and political agendas are allowed to supersede scientific analysis, the end product is nothing but a waste of tax-payer money garbage.”

    There, fixed that for you Lars Dalseide

    Please note that plenty of “scientists” have political agendas which supersede their scientific analysis. This problem plagues all science fields, including firearm research.

    • supersede scientific analysis is std prog code talk when someone objects to the lack of logic (and actual science)in the remake America agenda.

  10. There is a difference between research, conducted with scientific rigor. and manufacturing propaganda. Back in the 90’s the anti-civil rights bigots in the CDC were so blatantly dishonest they prompted congressional action to curb their misuse of tax payer dollars. This is why Shannon’s Sugar Daddy found it necessary to use his own money to produce and disseminate lies, intended to influence legislation, to suppress the free exercise of Second amendment rights.

    We are not presented with conflicting results produced by honest researchers. Rather, we are treated to the spectacle of “Prostisearchers” chasing after dollars, starting with conclusions and using garbage data, to put a smile on Sugar Daddy’s face.

  11. Why don’t the lefties do more research on how their catch-as-can, liberal AF, anything goes, let’s do what satan tells us, crap is hurting society???

    All the greenies out there wearing polar bear costumes to the global warming / climate change rally ought to worry more about what man is doing to himself and his future generations by allowing liberal/progressive/socialist/communist/globalist aholes to suck our air.

  12. IMI SYSTEMS should reconsider not selling us civilians new m855A1 ammo, but selling it to law enforcement, not treating them like the citizens they are and restricting its sale to us when even our own nanny goverment doesn’t. Zionism at work???

Comments are closed.