The lamestream media told you:
Science News — Erika Engelhaupt — “Despite a public debate that grows more fractious with every school shooting, Americans actually agree on gun policy to a surprising extent. According to a survey of more than 2,100 people, majorities of both gun owners and nonowners support 15 potential gun restrictions or regulations, researchers report online May 17 in the American Journal of Public Health.”
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Science News, a once respectable digest of important developments in scientific discovery, has abandoned even the pretense of neutrality or science, with a new report on firearms based solely on the nation’s leading gun-control advocates. “Americans Agree on 15 Gun Policies” cites David Hemenway, described as “an expert on violence prevention who was not involved in the study.” This individual is widely recognized as one of the leading anti-gun-rights proponents in the nation, supported and quoted by gun-control groups, whose work finds no redeeming values to gun ownership.
The study itself comes from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, an agenda-driven organization created in 1995 and funded primarily with a $50 million endowment from Michael Bloomberg (and joined by other left-leaning funders) for the expressed purpose of developing gun-control policy positions. Asking this source for data, and Hemenway to provide credibility is like asking the Flat Earth Society for maps.
The Hopkins Center, since its creation, has issued a steady flood of papers discovering a single finding — guns are bad, cause harm, serve no valid purpose, and should be regulated, banned, controlled, and gun owners are basically a detriment to society. No valuable purpose to firearms or their role in society appears in any output from the Center, which dominates page after page in Google searches. Its single-minded results alone should prompt any reasonable scientist to question its findings, since firearms are clearly involved in peace-keeping internationally, stopping crime domestically, saving lives, and even if only in police hands, they serve a valuable civic function. Three consecutive years of credible research from the federal Centers for Disease Control shows private firearms prevent 2.5 million crimes annually.
While the Science News report claims gun owners and non-owners alike overwhelmingly support background checks, the actual survey was not described. As readers of Page Nine are aware, background checks have no effect on the main areas of mass murder that motivate the ill-informed public to seek them — sociopathic children who seek to mass murder their classmates, Muslim jihadis waging war on Americans, inner-city gangs fully armed and committing 6,000 unsolved murders annually after two decades of background checks, and the recording of 12 million innocent Americans names yearly, in the false name of stopping crime.
Perhaps worst is the little-known fact that, after vicious criminals are identified during checks, trying to buy guns at known locations with the FBI on the phone, and having provided their names and contact info on signed forms (which itself is felony perjury), they are simply sent away, with their money. Whether Americans actually agree on that, as Hemenway, the Hopkins Center and Science News report is true, was unclear at press time, like the other highly controversial facts about background checks.
Setting the denied persons free might not be too terribly bad, since the denials are conducted by low-level computer clerks sitting in offices in West Virginia. The checks remove fundamental constitutional rights people should have without trials, due process or representation, and according to expert Dr. John Lott, false positives in the system exceed 90%. That’s proven out by the almost total lack of convictions, or even court cases, for the supposed criminals denied their rights in stores, another point Americans might not agree upon in the high numbers Science News unequivocally declares. No effort to reach Science News was made, since they have been unresponsive in the past, and the story is so hopelessly prejudicial.
Editor Nancy Shute, writer Erika Engelhaupt and Science News are of course welcome to respond, answer any of the claims made in this article and provide any evidence refuting this piece, or run an article in their publication addressing these points, which would be standard in similar cases. According to leading experts, that will not occur.