When More Research Funding Isn’t the Answer to ‘Gun Violence’ in America

Centers for Disease Control CDC

(AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

By Larry Keane

In the aftermath of impeachment, and with Coronavirus apparently under control in the U.S., it appears the mainstream media is out of things to talk about. There’s no other explanation for a recent article in USA Today titled, “Congress approved $25M in funding for gun safety research. Now what?”

This piece rehashes the tired, inaccurate argument made by gun control advocates that if the government only spent more time issuing papers on their pet policies, our communities would be safer.

Of course, research on the criminal misuse of firearms isn’t prohibited – only funding politically-motivated projects. And the policies these groups call for would have no impact on crime or accidents with firearms.

But that doesn’t stop the same small group of anti-gun researchers from publishing deeply biased “studies” in the pursuit of their political goals.

Root Causes

This piece also lumps together the fortunately declining trend of homicide by firearm, and the tragically increasing trend of suicides. These are two distinct problems that merit separate policy discussions and solutions. As suicides are about two-thirds of all firearms-related deaths, it is ridiculous to argue that targeting the guns themselves will solve the mental health crisis.

As we have said here numerous times, firearms and their law-abiding owners are not a public health issue. The criminal misuse of firearms must be addressed – and the fields of criminal justice and criminology are better suited than the public health arena to pursue solutions.

The USA Today article’s flaws don’t end there, however. The authors also attempt to draw a comparison between firearms-related deaths (homicides, suicides and accidents) and those due to car crashes. As we have said here before, it’s apples to oranges to compare deliberate actions with unintentional accidents.

Real Solutions

The firearms and ammunition industry knows that there is more work to be done to make our communities safer. We’ve proven that with our leadership in getting our FixNICS program signed into law in Congress and 16 states, increasing the disqualifying background checks from 1.7 million to 5.3 million since 2012, a 241-percent increase.

It is the firearms industry that leads with Project ChildSafe, passing out 38 million free gun locks. We’ve partnered with the largest suicide prevention group in the country to provide gun ranges and retailers the resources to intervene before a moment of crisis. We’ve led on preventing straw purchases with our Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaign.

And we know that increasing suicide trends is a major crisis in the U.S. today. We are working to reduce these tragedies through partnerships with groups like the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know the answer isn’t more government spending on ineffective proposals, but is in coming up with Real Solutions for safer communities.

 

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

 

comments

  1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So…when they find out that most gun deaths are by old white men (suicides) and young black men (crimes)…who are they going to blame? Asian women?
    800,000 by abortion
    250-400,000 by medical mistakes
    just for some reference numbers

    1. avatar DN says:

      Suicide rates don’t change one iota when guns are removed. We know this from Australia where the number of individuals with access to firearms halved in the space of about 6 months, and where self caused deaths didn’t drop. The entire reduction in firearms suicide was made up for in a) increase in suicide properly recorded as suicide by other means and b) a sudden and sharp increase in “accidental self caused death” by means” associated with suicide by now known to have been suicides incorrectly ruled as accident..

  2. avatar GS650G says:

    Forget guns, reaearch why the left supports criminals.

    1. avatar Waylon says:

      The CDC aught to focus its time on Corona virus rather then silly studies about inanimate objects.

    2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      That is an easy one, to keep lawyers in business. Can’t be putting their reliable repeat clients away; that’d be bad for business.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Where do I collect my research grant?

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Where do I collect my research grant?”

          Just think up a spiffy name for your ‘Foundation’…

  3. avatar Hush says:

    Until the Left et al., begin listening to, not just hearing, facts and truth, the money and time spent on further research, surveys etc is a total wasted effort. The gun owning law abiding citizen is an easy target. The recent lobby day in Virginia on January 20th was an excellent and outstanding example of the good character and conduct of gun owners. Hearing and listening are not the same things.

  4. avatar RGP says:

    The Democrats have been demonstrating step one of their plan in Virginia, and to accomplish step one, they’ll gladly use force if able. If they succeed at step one, step two will probably be worse. They’ll start the test model for step two while engaging in step one throughout the rest of the country.

    They do not care anything about “research” or about facts or about the constitution or the will of the people.

    They intend to take over via any means necessary.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      “……..They intend to take over via any means necessary.”
      The dems may want to stop and ponder for a moment what their “golden boy” JFK meant when he said “those who rule on the back of a tiger usually end up inside one”.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        According to a large portion of the modern Democratic Party JFK was a Right Wing nutbar.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          With John and Bobby going after organized crime in the US, I can understand the “modern” dem view of the Kennedy clan.

      2. avatar Clit Commander says:

        Rumor has it you end up ‘inside’ your boyfriend MaddMaxx on the regular.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Hey TurdUs4Life, you were supposed to use Douchbag Splatters when you lost all cred with the old name.
          Homophobic much you loser?
          Enjoy that Taurus TurdUs.

        2. avatar Red Flag Alert says:

          Well you’re clearly unstable, James (if that is in fact your real name).

        3. avatar James Campbell says:

          Keep trolling anonomous loser, eventually you will be posting with the REAL name your mom and dad gave you, DouchbagSplatter.

        4. avatar DN says:

          @ james, noting homosexual rapes in prison is not homophobia. And your posts are all trolling

      3. avatar James Campbell says:

        Well, news flash, I’m not in prison and never have been dimwit. So making those comments IS homophobic.
        Also explain how my first post ““……..They intend to take over via any means necessary.”
        The dems may want to stop and ponder for a moment what their “golden boy” JFK meant when he said “those who rule on the back of a tiger usually end up inside one”” is considered “trolling” by your pea sized brain.

        Reply

  5. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    “But that doesn’t stop the same small group of anti-gun researchers from publishing deeply biased “studies” in the pursuit of their political goals”
    This statement says it all. It is NOT about firearm safety or decreasing crime, it is about controlling the civilian population by the leftists.

  6. avatar Charlie says:

    Pseudo scientists always holler “Research Money!” so they can fund nebulous studies of questionable worth, and line their pockets. Same as it ever was.

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    No kidding. That’s about all this article deserves. Yes they’re rehashing everything. And we’ve heard it. More than once.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    They’ve run out of things that are “acceptable” to talk about.

    Talking about Coronavirus the way my wife’s colleagues do would frighten people. Especially once they realized how much of the world-wide medical market is controlled by China.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Talking about Coronavirus the way my wife’s colleagues do would frighten people.”

      Besides the suspected new incubation times of over a month?

      Does she have any recommendations on what to stock up on?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        To stock up on? I asked directly: “Common sense. Wash your hands, don’t touch your face. Act like what it really is: flu season. If you believe you may have been exposed and this bothers you then go get tested, the CDC has sent out rapid test kits to large hospitals.” is what she said.

        Simply put this disease isn’t really much to worry about… at least not at this time. It’s the implications of 2019-nCoV that bother them.

        The folks at my wife’s lab believe, as does my wife, for more reasons than I’m going to type out here (I’ve done it elsewhere, it’s essentially a TL:DR essay) that this disease was manufactured. Yes, that means what you think: made in a lab by people.

        There are simply way, way too many extremely unlikely events that would have all had to occur simultaneously for this to be natural. It’s possible but we’re talking five iterations of odds that are likely in the Trillions:1 area multiplied together.

        It’s also interesting to note that this outbreak also happened in the same city which houses China’s only official BSL4 lab. As my wife so eloquently put it “It’s like you have two cats, they fuck and the female gives birth to raccoons instead of kittens. Yeah, the raccoons are similar to the cats in certain ways, and even related actually, but you know right off the bat that something hinky is going on here. You’re starting to wonder if the cats really did the nasty or if something else, which you didn’t see, happened behind your back.”

        Essentially what they believe is this: This disease was made by people and released. It could be an accident but more likely it’s a bioweapons test. Not of a weapon but of a delivery system for a weapon.

        Which sorta makes sense considering that China essentially took control of the world’s medical supply in the last 20-30 years. Shit, we can’t even make Vitamin C in the US any more without China. Where they haven’t outright taken over the medicines themselves they control the precursor chemicals required to make the drugs. Even India is dependant on China to supply the stuff Indian companies need to make generic drugs.

        https://prospect.org/world/coronavirus-outbreak-china-economic-red-flag/ (Breitbart has covered this issue of the Chinese “chokehold” on medicine, supplements, OTCs and medical equipment too. Even our entire military is essentially dependant on China because if we go to war with them then the enemy controls the medical gear we need for injured and sick soldier/Marines/airmen.

        Essentially if China decides to fuck us within a few months there’s nothing left in the pharmacies. How ’bout dem apples?

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “This disease was made by people and released. It could be an accident but more likely it’s a bioweapons test. Not of a weapon but of a delivery system for a weapon.”

          That has the distinct odor of plausibility to it, but with one big unknown – Future mutations.

          Welp, we’re long been due a lethal 1918-ish pandemic…

        2. avatar SoBe says:

          Our last US supplier of US made pharmaceuticals was located in PR, was wiped out by Hurricane Maria and has not been rebuilt since. Ever since then we have had numerous shortages of drugs. And coincidentally, as China has stepped in to fill the gap, several different antihypertensive drugs now supplied by China have been found carcinogenic because of “less than spectacular quality control,” or was it intentional?

        3. avatar Southern Cross says:

          And Bloomberg is so deep in China’s pocket he is the literal “Manchurian Candidate”.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Buy? ANYTHING that comes from China that you expect to need/want to buy from Mar-Oct. Or that has components or parts in it that come from chicomland. So everything. IF the chicom flu doesn’t get out and to the US/West. Which is improbably.

        They are already unable to unload ships arriving with routine shipments of food, containers, and LNG. Oil tankers from Iran to China are not moving as airline and auto traffic is stopped nationwide. They are not able to load export containers and ships are sailing partly loaded. Many port calls are being cancelled. Most of China is shut down and residents confined to their homes. There is no way you do such at the infection and fatality levels that the chicoms, lie about everything, are reporting. And as parroted by the swampies at CDC (and WHO). China get much of it’s food and most of its liquid fuel as imports. Their economy is ENTIRELY dependent on export sales to the West.

        This could well result in the fall of the CCP. Other good is that their expansionist plans in the S China sea are on hold. And likely will bankrupt Iran as they loose oil export $. And the price of gas is already down.

        What look to be reliable reports from a week ago are that, at that time, 1.5m infected (not 50k) and dead of 50000+ (not 1000). China tried to hush this up with “messaging” no problem from Late Nov -Mid Jan when it they had to quarantine Wuhan (to late).

        CDC has been releasing a low trickle of controlled info. There in no way that this is not going to get into the US. Reliable stats do not exist as the chicom don’t know or have lied. Mortality looks like as high as the Spanish Flu (the US got off easy). Speculation of 2-20% range. 20-30% will get it, 20-30% will need care up to a mechanical ventilator. Incubation period (to showing symptoms) averages 3days but can be up to to TWENTY FOUR (24) days. During which you not showing symptoms but are spreading the virus. CDC never even bought a towel to throw in the ring. They are trying to control/prevent panic. Read up on the Spanish Flu scary stuff.

        (I’m not a doc or play one on TV, But have been following this closely since mid Jan). Modern medicine has kept Darwin at bay for 90years may be payback time.

        Your big conundrum is if/when to self quarantine, for how long, do you have food on hand to do so. And would that even matter in an attempt of stay clean until it burns out. CDC doesn’t think so. That you can’t avoid it. A prog attitude of kumbaya. We control the global climate but can’t solve a problem. They waited too long.

        1. avatar Ad Astra says:

          Your math fails to add up. This reminds me of the “this is the end” freak outs over bird flu and sars.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Self-quarantine is not likely to be needed.

          2019-nCoV isn’t a particularly hardy virus. It can’t live on surfaces the way the flu often does. It’s susceptible to a number of normal cleaning procedures and UV light kills it quite rapidly.

          This is one of the factors that has my wife and her colleagues convinced that this was manufactured. The parent lines of this virus are not likely to survive in nature in a way that would have allowed them to mix and become 2019-nCoV, and even if they did the jump to people would be unlikely without help. As I said above, it’s possible but very unlikely as most natural mutations would have led to something part way between the original viruses and 2019-nCoV but which wasn’t transmissible in the manner 2019-nCoV is.

          OTOH, if some intermediate virus was that transmissible it’s something we’d very likely have noticed before. The fact that we didn’t combined with this huge jump makes it really pretty unlikely that this arose naturally.

          However, that also means it’s not super dangerous provided we’re not silly and we treat it like the flu.

  9. avatar Ragnar says:

    I’m still baffled why the Center for Disease Control is involved in the study of guns. Maybe the National Institute of Health, but not the CDC.

    Not that I support any government infringement study on civilian owned firearms.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I’m still baffled why the Center for Disease Control is involved in the study of guns.”

      Simple – It implies credibility of the results of the ‘study’.

      In the future, when Leftists regain control of SCOTUS, it will pop up as ‘proof’ guns are simply too dangerous for the little people to own…

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        They’re also looking to silently reframe guns, violence, and more as diseases.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        The CDC was discredited long ago on firearms research. They are not a credible source to begin with.

      3. avatar Mad Max says:

        I think the Left won’t get substantial control of the SCOTUS for a generation. Another one or two Originalist appointments by Trump and it won’t just be me thinking. It will be an irrefutable fact.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Don’t be silly. Guns are an epidemic in America. I was eating in a diner, sitting next to some millenial with the sniffles. Next day, I had a fever, and five days later started coughing and belching up handguns. My bedroom and bathroom are littered with unwanted handguns now.

      I just hope I don’t catch the long gun variant of whatever is going around! Imagine a case of diarrhea which produces Remington 700’s.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        With problems like that, who needs good days?

    3. avatar RedFlagRising says:

      Because the latest bloated deficit spending budget Trump signed authorized 25 million to the CDC and NIHC for the first time to include firearm studies, after the Democrats inserted it.

      In other words, a bipartisan agreement.

      “It’s discovering what science can do for a problem like this. If you look at what science can do for heart disease, for cancer. It’s saved tens of thousands of lives,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of CDC research on firearm violence. “This is going to unlock a vein of pure gold that people on both sides of the aisle will appreciate.”

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        As long as they think firearms crime is a “public health” issue and not a “public safety” issue, they will only clutter the arena with more misleading statistics and outright lies.

        It’s a criminal problem, not a health problem.

        1. avatar RedFlagRising says:

          A Rosenberg said so. That makes it settled science.

          Argue with the Rosenbergs end up in a re training center.

          Rosenbergs Know Best.

        2. avatar DN says:

          Even worse it is no longer framed as public health but ‘population health” whihc is even more of a leverage into policy.

          to illustrate the hypocrisy, what the the CDC will never do is study the public health or population health impact of release criminals on parole, reduced sentences for violent crime etc.

    4. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      It is simple. The NIH does real research even if they are leftists. A lot of the “medical marijuana” research was done there The CDC advises policy so they are experts at this twisting research results to fit a political agenda, like the did with HIV. The left trusts the CDC more to toe the party line. NIH might actually publish some truth.
      Now if only the CDC would find a vaccine for this dreaded “epidemic,” no silly, not for the novel coronavirus, for “gun violence,” I would vaccinate my gun to keep it from getting infected.

  10. avatar possum tracks says:

    They are going to spend 25 million on gun safety research???? JMB”s 1911 has about as many saftey’s as a gunm needs. Glock

    1. avatar Clit Commander says:

      Sober up

  11. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Gun violence? I’ve had my shots. I’m immune.

  12. avatar Mad Max says:

    We don’t need “gun safety”. Deaths and injuries from firearms accidents are minimal and don’t need government assistance to reduce them further.

    What we do need is “public safety” as in incarcerating the criminals that use firearms in the commission of their crimes.

    We need standards of performance for law enforcement and prosecuteors to measure their success in arresting, prosecuting, and getting jail time for perpretrators. Plea bargains for lesser charges should count against them and long sentences without parole should be to their benefit. Underperforming officials should be dismissed from their positions.

  13. avatar neiowa says:

    Anyone have the text of the budget bill section with this funding (I could not locate it when looked in Dec)? Depending on the detail, as written by the progs, could spend it on things like expanding Eddie Eagle in schools.

  14. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    They just want to make fake stats to quote like the “17 intelligence agencies concur…”

    When you gotta dig to find out what 17, “concur” how hard, says who, and on what … the number just hangs out there.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      “17 intelligence agencies”? As in government agencies? I don’t think there are 17 intelligent people who work for the government.

  15. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I, myself, am for violence prevention research.

    I’d be glad to know of anything else that has DGU’s 500,000 to 2,000,000 violent incidents stopped per year. That we know of. Per the CDC. Without a govt program or public funding — it’s “free.”

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I, myself, am for violence prevention research.

    Really, we should get some good numbers on policies like reg fees of $1,000 (Maryland), registries leaking public, slow-walking permits n outright bans. How many people get hurt because they can’t stick up for themselves? Because they were denied the means?

  17. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    How does the “violence” at the VA “No lobbying for you!” day compare to other day-long, open-air gatherings of >22,000 people with an agenda?

    Say a football game? I don’t wanna be rude n cherry pick, say, first term Obama rallies(*), or Anti-fuh-fuh-fuh in Portland. (*)They do seem to like braining people otherwise just hanging around.

    How about some research on that?

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis
    People who do violence with guns … who are they?

  19. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis
    Where does volence using guns occurr? What else tends to go on there?

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    What’s the difference between the conservatively estimated 300,000,000 guns circulating among the people in the US and the guns used to do violence, any given day, week, month, year, decade or lifetime?.

  21. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    What’s the pathogen transmitting “gun violence?” To be open minded, I’ll accept an identified marker in anatomy, physiology, or genetics, to.

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    If you never eat spinach, you’ll never e coli from a bad batch. (Also if you never eat at all.) You can also eat all the spinach you want without getting e coli from it, if the spinach is clean.

    What’s the analogous agent that goes with gun violence appearing (rarely), vs guns, using guns, and people who use guns having no gun violence without it?

  23. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    The (in)famous CDC “research” into gun violence under the Clinton administration was memory-holed for something like a decade. (One presumes because it came up with the wrong results, but whatever.)

    How’d that happen? If we’re gonna fund “research” on gun violence how do we make sure the results get out there immediately, transparently, universally?

  24. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    Clearly, this CDC research has not been compelling, given that it found “gun violence” to be limited, localized, and statistically overwhelmed by *reported* DGUs, stopping violence before it happened.

    How do we do research that’ll influence policy proposals (and dare I hope, babbling and ranting about same?) I mean “influence” when the results didn’t track with the agenda of the people who sponsored it?

  25. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    How do evil guns doing no harm in Indiana flood into Illinois, especially Chicago, to do mayhem there. It must be true; the bosses of Chiraq have said so. (Similar whines from Governor Soprano of NY, and various NJ hacks.)

    Is it the Chicago boss’s policies? Something in the water? There’s a mystical anti-Shangri La barrier: when things *enter* the area, they get close to death?

  26. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    How does a gun harm soembody it’s not pointed at by a human? We really need to get on this. All those guns spontaenously doing violence to people are a real problem.

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    If guns are so violent, why aren’t we all dead already?

  28. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #researchthis

    What is the airspeed velocity of an open-carrying swallow?

  29. avatar MrMax says:

    Confuses the hell out of me about millions spent for “gun safety” when criminals don’t give a damn about your safety when they wield a gun, or knife, etc. Same with the suicides; you take away one method of taking their life and they’ll find another. I totally agree with Larry in this article that real mental health solutions need to be found to prevent suicides – going after guns in this regard is not a viable solution.

  30. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I don’t expect the sexually liberated, homosexuals, people who promoted drug use, and promoted promiscuity, to understand the conditions they helped create in the greater society. And these same people all support a large government Welfare Industrial Complex. They totally support replacing the father from the family unit. Of course the poor were affected the most. Which is why we now have War Zones in certain neighborhoods in the USA.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      btw
      If the three L’s would stop promoting single motherhood as a “Lifestyle Choice”, a woman having 5 kids from 5 different men for example. That would be a great start in the right direction. But those folks are non judgemental. They are incapable of saying something involve consensual sex is wrong.
      But they do support government intervention into the traditional family.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email