Democrats using real facts or paid for bias facts

2 Likes

The real facts can be twisted or cherry picked to show one side of the argument. :frowning:

4 Likes

Well 25 million dollars is a lot of cherry’s. Democrats would not have wanted this unless it’s used to further their cause. We constantly use facts to stand our ground. They have none and make up stuff as they go.
Not worried about China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. I’m honestly worried about our own government and what they are willing to do to destroy it.

1 Like

They need to update their ‘BS’ research files so they can use healthcare as vehicle for gun control. If this was a legit effort groups that provide training and safety education like the NRA would be getting some of that money to do a study.

1 Like

You will be able to tell if it is legitimate research by

  1. Looking at the qualifications of the researchers and any biases they may have.
  2. Looking at their Citations.
  3. Looking at the quality of peer review.

Most gun research does not pass the “sniff” test when you take into account the above 3 mentioned items. It’s one of the reasons I often cite the " Concealed Carry: Facts vs Fiction" report that the USCCA has on its web site. It was created and researched by academics with no bias, it used multiple Governmental databases as sources, and was vigorously peer reviewed.

That’s what it takes for “good” research. Anything less is just propaganda.

2 Likes

Time will tell. Anti-gunners wailed for years about the CDC not being able to provide research. Then Obama made an executive order for (IIRC) $10M to do research in 2012/2013. The CDC provided the report in 2013, and it is the one that says defensive gun uses range between (IIRC) 500k and 5M per year. Note that the clamor for “research” has subsided quite a bit.

I have no fear about unbiased research. In fact, anything we can do to shed light on the causes and possible fixes for gun-violence I’d greet with open-arms.

I also don’t think the CDC should be doing all the research (its not a “disease”, but it is a method of death), and I’d rather something like the FBI (who already collects tons of data) and don’t have an established bias doing more research.

Now, if the only people who are getting paid for this research is the “Bloomberg School of Public Health” (actual name of dept at Johns Hopkins), then I will throw furniture.

The report that I cited used the FBI, CDC, multiple national databases for Sheriff and Police Department’s and was then vigorously peer reviewed. As someone who has been academically published, and presented at a national conference of my peers.

I can assure you that what I listed is the gold standard for responsible, respected, and academically acceptable research. I was the secondary author, my mentor was primary, and a colleague of hers in California was tertiary.