Forbes: "Why I Don't Trust Government-Backed 'Gun Violence' Research"

[psh]

I am a physician and a gun owner (Glock 30). Which is I wrote this piece in today's Forbes: "Why I Don't Trust Government-Backed 'Gun Violence' Research".

Bottom line: The federal government's CDC (Centers For Disease Control) has been too biased against guns to objectively study "gun violence".

[Armorer-at-Law]

Well done. I hope this helps more people who only read "mainstream" media to understand this situation.

P.S.- I don't classify Forbes magazine as "mainstream" media in any pejorative way. Just saying it's an outlet that covers a broad spectrum of issues and is read by a broad spectrum of the public.

[g.willikers]

Thanks for speaking out.
Coming from a member of the medical profession, it should have more impact.

[BarryLee]

Yes, I too appreciate the article and would love to see it carried in more places. I often read good articles in places like the WSJ and can’t help think they are just sort of “preaching to the choir”. I would love to see this article on the Huffington Post or maybe Mother Jones.

[CowTowner]

Thank you and well done. An excellent read.

[speedrrracer]

Good article. Here in CA, we have a similar bill about to become law - they'll be giving money to the university of California system to study "gun violence".

When you label it "gun violence" you've already shown what you're going to force the conclusion to be. Any pretense of objectivity in the research was stillborn.

[Sparks1957]

Thank you for taking the time to write this article. I wish more people would speak up against the biased reporting and constant drumbeat of "gun violence" in the media. It is a concerted effort to persuade the populace that giving up their rights is best for all, and it won't stop at the 2nd amendment.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Very nice.

I wonder if more money is supplied to gun violence, would they fund a study on how to trained concealed carry civilians to deal effectively with rampage shooters?

Pro-gun research is very hard to publish. Kleck pulled it off, I wonder if he could today.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, technically CDC is just prohibited from advocating for gun control (one of well over a dozen funding restrictions concerning ethics that affect CDC). CDC can still promote gun rights all it likes. Maybe it should. If for no other reason then it might give pause to gun control groups wanting to fill their coffers with taxpayer money.

Frankly, one of my biggest peeves with the Feds is their success in reaching into the taxpayer's pocket to fund propaganda that taxpayers oppose in vast majorities and strongarm those same taxpayers with their own money.

[SHR970]

BRAVO. Very Good piece.



Besides. Gun Ownership is not a DISEASE or ILLNESS. Since it is not a disease or illness, it would not fall under the auspices of CDC and they should butt out.

[44 AMP]

I don't know what "studies" may show, but I do know it is an observed fact that, generally speaking, when you throw money at something, you get MORE of it.

they'll be giving money to the university of California system to study "gun violence".

I highly suspect any study about gun violence from the university of California would contain the principles that gun violence is caused by guns and if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence.

Pay me a few million dollars, and despite my personal beliefs and ethics, I would write an article saying the same thing!

Then, after cashing their checks, (and getting a lawyer) I would write one on my own, admitting I only did it for the money.

The CDC SHOULD be an impartial organization, doing its work with ACTUAL diseases. Political and social advocacy of ANY kind SHOULD be outside their scope, and abilities.

That, sadly, was not, and I believe still is not the case. The media has rediscovered that ONE of the legal funding restrictions on the CDC is they cannot use govt money to advocate gun control.

Of course, the media is reporting this as "cannot study gun violence". Which is, simply, a lie.

The fact that the CDC might choose not to study gun violence (because they are not permitted to ADVOCATE gun control) is NOT the same thing.

Remember that gun control isn't the ONLY thing these people lie about...

[5whiskey]

Excellent article sir. I especially like the comparison with abortion. Sometimes an anecdotal "what if" example of the same situation, yet where the sides are flipped, is a powerful argument.

The CDC has as much business getting involved in the politics of gun ownership as the department of agriculture has getting involved in alcohol regulations(for example).

[mag1911]

I saved this link and it shows clearly why the CDC can't be trusted for statistical analysis. Check out the final sentence:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-top-...84.html?ref=gs

[doofus47]

well-said

[North East Redneck]

Good article. Thanks for putting this out there.

[JWT]

Well done article. Very difficult to 'trust' almost anything the government says these days. The VA fiasco shows that. Any gun violence study would be suspect at best/

[tony pasley]

Great article I quit trusting the CDC reports when they post research on youth firearm deaths, it seems that 25 year olds are youth, and they did not separate those killed while engaged in criminal acts. Second reason for me discounting their research was I got a piece of metal in my eye from a drill and because I was a smoker it was classed a smoking related illness, and the doctor was told to report it that way.

[DaleA]

But WAIT!!!

Isn't anybody else SUSPICIOUS of this author and his article in Forbes magazine???

I listen to public radio and it seems impossible that there could be a pro-gun person that went to college. It's very unlikely that a pro-gun person could SPELL college.

Gun owners, as I understand it from over 200 'US News and World Report' political cartons:
http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-c...08&int=taboola
always weigh in at about 300 pounds and wear dirty T-shirts. The author of the article in Forbes has an actual TIE on and it doesn't even look like a clip-on.

How can this be???

[jnichols2]

I didn't read the article, as it required that I first turn off my ad blocker.

I seem to remember something about a "Free Press".

[berettaprofessor]

Thank you, Dr. I saw you had 12 posts and was going to welcome you to TFL, but see you joined in 2002. Don't be a stranger, hear?

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by jnichols2

I didn't read the article, as it required that I first turn off my ad blocker.

I use Firefox, Chrome and Opera. Ad blockers in all three. I checked and didn't have a problem reading the article in either of them.

Originally Posted by jnichols2

I seem to remember something about a "Free Press".

Freedom of the press is about government censorship. It has absolutely nothing to do about a private entity ("Forbes") choosing to receive revenue for publishing their articles.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

It won't let me view the story with my adblocker turned on either. Apparently they allow adblockers if you are a member.

"We noticed you still have your ad blocker on, please log in to continue to the site" is the message I get.

[mag1911]

I realize this is an older thread but posted to it for continuity about inflated CDC statistics:

http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/20...al-gun-deaths/

The original article I saw (Sorry, I didn't save the link for some reason.) said the CDC claimed a "coding error" was responsible. Appears even The Safe Tennessee Project couldn't believe this one.

Edit to add these links I found but neither of these the one I saw originally:

http://www.guns.com/2016/10/19/cdc-i...-dr-john-lott/

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/a...false-numbers/

[44 AMP]

If they changed 5 into 105 , no matter the cause, then I believe this to be completely true, though, not, I think in the same way the speaker meant it..

Jonathan Metzl, research director for the Safe Tennessee Project, in a Sept. 14 statement. “This data truly should be a wake-up call for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.”

Here's your wake up call boys and girls, they LIE!!!!

intentional or accidental, doesn't change the fact that they published grossly inaccurate information, and then made public policy recommendations based on that, UNTIL someone challenged their figures.

Makes one wonder how many other instances, and in how many areas they have done this kind of thing in, before???

[mag1911]

Not a comment on the validity, or not, of this study but another example case that turned up on google where it seems the CDC fudged the numbers toward some end they desired:

http://www.stats.org/the-cdc-conspiracy/