The Problem With the ‘Public Health Research on Gun Violence’

“‘Public health research on gun violence,’ as distinct from research by criminologists, is anti-gun propaganda in pseudoscientific disguise, starting from the premise that firearms are disease vectors that need to be controlled by the government.”

“Why would Obama want to waste taxpayer money on this sort of tendentious, prejudice-confirming research? I bet you can figure that out—without a government grant.” [Reason]

2 thoughts on “The Problem With the ‘Public Health Research on Gun Violence’”

  1. John Lott and some others have tried to quantify the kind of incident you refer to — where a potential “health event” like being shot or stabbed has been prevented by the “intervention” of displaying a firearm but avoiding the “health event” of shooting the threat.
    Gun violence resulting in injury or robbery mostly does get reported and counted. Gun-based prevention gets reported a lot less. Makes the numbers kind of squishy.

  2. The problem with ‘studying gun violence’ is that it will always only find the same thing — gun violence. Gun violence could drop 95% and a study would still find gun violence. And call it a problem, of course.

    Note well, there is no request for studying violence *prevented* by guns. These numbers are not part of the package deal. The fix is already in.

    I personally stopped a potentially violent event with my pistol. The punk grew a new brain cell and ran away. Nothing to talk to the cops about. How’s the CDC going to count incidents like that, even if it tried to?

    People need to relax, read the 2d Amendment, notice there’s a right that ‘shall not be infringed’, and find another issue to carp about. Once you realize it’s a right, studying it can’t change it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.