Studying “gun violence”

CNN is no friend to the Second Amendment so it comes as no surprise they published such a biased piece on gun control. But I continue to be amazed at how widespread the prejudice and bigotry extends into so many aspect of our culture.

Even if you were to concede they had some sort of constitutional authority to exist how can the National Institute of Health think it has any business studying criminal use of firearms?

NIH has and will continue to fund research to inform prevention programs related to firearm violence,” agency spokeswoman Renate Myles said. “Studies designed to develop and evaluate firearm injury prevention activities are part of larger efforts to develop more effective public health education programs.

Would it be appropriate for the NIH to be fund research on Muslim/Christian/name-a-religion violence and develop religion injury prevention activities? Or how about developing free speech injury (such as inciting to riot) prevention activities?

Why can’t these people understand? Government has no business preventing crimes in this sense. You don’t prevent people from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater by gagging them as then enter the theater. You punish those that cause injury after the injury has occurred. Anything else is prior restraint and has been clearly decided as unconstitutional.


5 thoughts on “Studying “gun violence”

  1. This all makes perfect sense if you believe that the desire to be free is a disease. The workers of the Serbsky institute understand that. So do the workers at other socialist government agencies flying the false flag of science or medicine.
    As Neil Smith points out, what is needed here is Separation of State and Science — as important to freedom, and for much the same reasons, as separation of state and church.
    For that matter, the latter implies much of the former, since much of what today calls itself science is actually a 21st century kind of religion.

  2. Gun ownership as a “public health” issue is a concoction that’s been around for a very long time. The German National Socialists’ concept of “racial health” is not much different. It looks upon humans as cattle, or if it is deemed that there are too many of them, as vermin. Once you know what you’re dealing with is isn’t hard to understand. George Bernard Shaw was, and is, a darling of the Progressive movement;

  3. This is good news – it obviously means that all real health issues have been solved. Time to eliminate the NIH!

    • True even if they had not been.
      The best way to ensure that X is never solved is to make X the subject of a government program.
      It may be possible to find an exception to that statement if you search really hard, but it clearly is the rule.

  4. One aspect that the anti’s keep missing….

    Every single time that a pro-gun control site does these things, the majority of comments are PRO-GUN. On LIBERAL sites.

    And they miss that completely while pushing the idea that gun control is a majority idea.

    So…I just sit back and let them continue with their delusions. It makes the pain on their face when they lose all that more enjoyable.

Comments are closed.