Previous Post
Next Post

The line between non-biased data-based research and agenda-driven advocacy is getting blurrier. A new announcement from a renowned research university in Baltimore, Maryland, is continuing the trend.

The Johns Hopkins University announced a new partnership with an affiliate of the gun control advocacy group Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to create the Center for Gun Violence Solutions. The university’s web of “non-biased” gun control research now becomes even more tangled as they are already home to the Michael Bloomberg School of Public Health and Center for Gun Policy and Research.

It’s a playbook the gun control industry uses to cloak opportunities to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans under the cover of “science” and study criminal gun misuse through a lens of “public health.”

Brand Dilution

Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins is America’s first research university and has achieved world-renown for cancer research, the development of CPR, discovery of numerous vaccines and health protocols and even the supersonic ramjet engine. That brand, though, is being diluted by naked partisan gun control groups pushing an agenda.

Baltimore’s WJZ news announced, “A center at Johns Hopkins studying gun violence and another organization have merged, forming the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, which will look at shootings in the U.S. through a public health lens.”

The Bloomberg School is, of course, named for billionaire, failed presidential candidate, and perennial gun control backer Michael Bloomberg. Uncoincidentally, Bloomberg is also behind the gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He funds The Trace, an agitprop generator and mouthpiece for gun control efforts which has also infiltrated newsrooms at USA Today under the guise of “collaboration.”

Daniel Webster, the new co-leader of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, said, “With our new colleagues, we will now have even more capacity to bring meaningful policy change through evidence-based advocacy.” Research topics will include violence intervention programs, licensing for firearms, political violence and so-called “ghost guns.”

Daniel Webster Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
Daniel Webster

The last word of Webster’s comment – advocacy – is what’s problematic here, particularly when coupled with the fact that several of the items listed, like firearms licensing and so-called “ghost guns” are matters of regulatory policy and laws set by Congress. Pushing research as advocacy doesn’t make the Johns Hopkins gun control project a research institution, it makes them a special-interest group.

‘Public Health’ Ruse

The gun control mission of the partnership isn’t the only problem. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions will look at the problem through, “a public health lens.” That has significant implications on the American public if that biased advocacy then leads to public policy and infringes on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

“While we all might share the goals of a safer society, this new merger between the private university and a longtime anti-gun group is going to be pushing for ‘solutions’ that make us less safe by depriving us of our ability to protect ourselves,” noted Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards.

Lumping criminal firearm misuse into “public health” is a scheme used by national gun control groups and policy makers pushing restrictions. An analogy by physician Dr. Paul Hsieh makes the case.

“Which of these things is not like the other? Measles; Influenza; Tuberculosis; Murder. If you picked #4, “murder,” you’re right. The first three are medical diseases. In contrast “murder” is not a medical problem, although it is a tragic cause of death.”

Tom Knighton, also of Bearing Arms, makes a succinct and appropriate response when gun control advocates argue, as they often do, that “public health” issues are sometimes more important than protecting “gun rights,” or any rights for that matter.

Knighton countered this flawed approach, writing, “When you try to say that so-called gun violence is a public health issue and somehow arguments about rights no longer matter, then you’ve crossed a line. Rights always matter.”

Bottom line, there is no inoculation to prevent crime.

Johns Hopkins University and the Bloomberg-funded Center for Gun Violence Solutions are no doubt aware of these realities and are comfortable with the tarnish it brings to any of the research and solutions it promulgates.

Empowerment Vs. ‘Crisis’

During the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, and leading up to the 2020 presidential election, Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action and Everytown hosted a series of Veepstakes virtual town hall meetings hosted by Shannon Watts. One theme repeated by Watts again and again was that “gun violence” was not just a “public heath” crisis, but also a “women’s health crisis.” She claimed more gun control was needed to ensure the public health and safety of women.

kamala everytown veepstakes

The reality is that more women than ever exercised the Second Amendment rights of self-protection and purchased a firearm during those same months. As much as 40 percent of all first-time gun buyers over the past two years have been women.

If it were up to Watts, Bloomberg’s gun control groups and universities like Johns Hopkins pushing “gun violence” advocacy under the umbrella of “public health,” the rights of millions of those gun-owning women would likely be restricted and their lives in greater danger – not less. Don’t expect Johns Hopkins to research that, though.


Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. We need more information on gun deaths in this country. The more surveys we have the more the Far Right will be unable to spin their propaganda that everyone should be armed at all times.

    To date studies prove that if you become a casualty to firearms most likely it will be by someone you know and someone who lives in the house with you. This is why the article was correct when it said guns are not only a national health issue but a Woman’s health issue as well as they are most often the victims of violent husbands. Cops are notorious for abusing their wives because they are used to abusing people on the street and getting away with it and the abuse does not stop when they get home.

    • We need more information about child sexual abuse perpetrators living in Ohio. Oh, hello Dacian!

    • dacian, the Dunderhead. Your “surveys” are horse pucky. You start out with a predetermined conclusion and then go out to find something to verify that conclusion.

      Your allegations that police officers routinely abuse their wives is a lie of the first order. You have no shame, YOU are just a liar.

  2. My father-in-law worked for many years at the School of Public Health before his retirement. I think that he would be appalled by what Mr. Webster calls statistical “research,” as he is guilty of using questionable or curiously selective data sets, ignoring contrary evidence, and publishing studies that are clearly agenda driven. I guess that’s what happens when Mr. Bloomberg donates $1 billion to the school.

    • THe undeniable fact is that if we really want to control the DRUGS TRADE the only way to do it is to target the user It’s the USER thaqt creates DEMAND and as long as the demand creates sufficient wealth from GROWERS and down through the supply chain that supply chain wilkl continue to exist. Take out the USER and you take out the demand. Take out the demand and the raison d’etre for the supply chain falls.
      I’m not sure how this can be achieved but one could see some alternatives here. First of all NOT TREATMENTS and no re-hab after a single attempt at it. Maybe the compltet loss of ALL Civic Rights after a single conviction for possession. Maybe THE PERMANENT loss of employment as in COKE HEADS being banned from involvement in the FINABNCIAL INDUSTRY or the permanent banning of firearm ownership of any description.
      It’s about bloody time that DRUG USERS, including the casual marajuana, coke and heroin heads recognised that it is they that are fuelling the Worldwide Chaos. It is that that are paying both the piper and the bloody tune. Shoot a few repeat USERS from the Middle and Upper and Professional Classes on a second positive test just might, just might have an effect

      • Murder an addict? That’s you solution? No wonder you support gun control. You make hitler look like the tooth fairy.

        Jeezus, what an angry, sick f^ck.

      • Albert , complete loss of all civil rights, permanent loss of employment.
        How does that work? No rehabilitation, no civil rights, unemployable. I think that would leave the individual no other alternative then to commit more crimes.

      • Albert Hall,

        These things are easy for you to say being from “across the pond” as you claim to be. They are easy for you because you have no real frame of reference in relation to civil/constitutional rights.

        Our rights in the U.S. are derived from the constitution as guaranteed and inherent rights. Your rights in the U.K. are derived from that granted by your monarchy and further granted by your government in a state based form of diluted tyranny and although you think these are guaranteed and inherent rights they aren’t, the U.K. was not founded on the principal of guaranteed and inherent rights and was founded on the feudal concept of subservience to the crown.

        Although your concept, remove the demand thus remove the supply, has some merit on the face of it, after all if there is no demand markets usually die, its a deeply flawed concept. Its a little bit different here in the U.S. – we can’t just go “oh, lets lock up or kill the addicts and the drug problem will go away.” – its not like in the U.K. where the government can choose at any time to violate any rights the people may have, without due process if they choose, in the name of some cause or reason.

        • correction:

          “Your rights in the U.K. are derived from that granted by your monarchy and further granted by your government…”

          should have been

          Your rights in the U.K. are derived from that granted in a constitutional monarchy and further granted by your government…

          to add to that in clarification:

          Although in the U.K. the monarchy has restriction on the ability to rule as set forth by a U.K. constitution, the U.K. constitution also allows the power to rule to be placed in the ability for legislation to determine rights and their application instead of being inherent derived from the constitution as a foundation for the country.

          All that happened when th4e U.K. adopted a ‘constitution’ was the ability to rule fully was removed from the crown and placed in the legislation. The “rights” you have in the U.K. are not inherent rights but rather granted by a ruling body through legislation. This is a form of diluted feudal tyranny. You literally live under the rule of tyranny.

          This is what Joe Biden is trying to do now via these new ATF rules that although called ATF rules are really an executive action, trying to invoke rule by a single body. He is attempting to broaden presidential power to rule by ‘decree’ by using ‘executive action’ that has no legal weight behind it. He is attempting to make ‘executive action’ the rule of law because its already been decided previously that ‘executive order’ is not legally binding on the populace – he is attempting to rule as a tyrannical government does.

          (note: ‘executive action’ and ‘executive order’ are two different things. ‘executive action’ is also not legally biding on the populace. ‘executive action’ is more like a long memo, it “directs” but only for those in the jurisdiction of the executive branch under which the ATF lies. ‘executive order’ also applies to those under the jurisdiction of the executive branch but it can’t be used to promulgate rules which would apply to the populace. An ‘executive action’ can be used to promulgate rules which would apply to the populace if such rules are already permitted by law legislated by Congress. There is serious doubt that these new ATF rules are permitted by law, Biden is attempting to challenge that by using ‘executive action’ because its never been done before. If he is successful, if these are allowed to stand completely and the precedent set, we will have moved from a constitutional republic with a democratic form of government and separation of powers to a form of tyranny in which the president can rule by ‘executive action’ bypassing congress and the constitution.)

  3. I’m sure John Hopkins has done a lot of good things. Thank you. Lying about firearms does them a disservice. I’m embarrassed for them.

  4. LONG time antigun progs. Demonstrated fully with the chicom flu their statist prog creds (and incompetence).

  5. Throw criminals and gun hating busy bodies in jail. And deal with malpractice suits and sleazy quack doctors…problems solved.

  6. How many masks will they tell us we have to wear to avoid inhaling the toxic fumes from gun fire? One, two, or maybe 3? Personally, I like the smell of the smoke. Shoot or be shot.

    Johnny Cash, “The Last Gunfighter”.

  7. Why the public health issue?
    Somebody’s gotta pay the doctor for patching up the shooted, most of the shooted ain’t got no hospitol insurance.

  8. Perhaps it is more a cultural issue than public health issue. Mostly in the “THUG LIFE” and drug user/seller groups.
    As usual, the anti gun idiots try to blame the law abiding gun owners, or the hard working folks for the actions of a small minority of the population. few gun owners have any desire to ever have to use their weapons against anyone. Could it be the anti gun folks are outright lying?

  9. Money’s fungible and a new cryo EM unit is $2.6mil for a nicer model. $1.7 on a deep discount.

  10. The AMA admits to 250,000 medical malpractice deaths per year, trial lawyers claim 450,000.
    Average the two, it works out to roughly 1,000 Medical Malpractice Deaths Per Day in the US.
    Rifles are used to kill One Person per day in the US.

    Maybe if Medical Schools spent more time on actually teaching, instead of politics, we would not have a pathetic situation where Doctors are 1,000 times more likely to kill you than a rifle.

  11. What do you call the person that graduated last in their class at Medical School?


    Why should we listen to these dotards?

Comments are closed.