Reply #3: One thing that you have to understand...

[spin]

is that left wing newspapers and organizations do not often publish pro-gun articles or editorials.

Therefore, I have no problem with using a Washington Times editorial. The editorial is interesting on several levels. First it points out the inconsistencies in the study by the CDC. It also makes several interesting points:

"The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws."

"Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren't affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

"People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one."

But the editorial also is interesting as it also shows that the right wing media believes or is promoting the fear that Obama plans to ban firearms.

"The CDC's brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.

First we'll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they've always wanted were spurred by the new government research. "

I present the editorial for discussion. If you disagree with the editorial, then debate what it says.

If all we were allowed to post in the Gungeon were articles from liberal sanctioned sites, this would be a very boring place, far from the Wild West of Du that it is today.