An Anti-Gun Study So Bad, Even Anti-Gunners Attack It

posted on March 14, 2016

A study published in the UK medical journal The Lancet that claims the nationwide implementation of just three laws would reduce U.S. gun homicides by 90 percent is so bad that even anti-gunners are disowning it.

"That’s too big—I don’t believe that,” David Hemenway, a professor of health policy, and gun-control advocate, at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told the Washington Post.

The Boston University study claims that of the 25 gun-control laws examined, nine decreased gun deaths and nine actually increased gun deaths. The rest had no effect. One of the three they claimed would be most effective was ballistic fingerprinting, which is not currently implemented in any state. 

“Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it, emailed Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research—at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Latest

shooting accessories

A Fact Check of Gov. Newsom and Gov. DeSantis on Crime and Guns

To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Montana’s AG Explains Why NRA v. Vullo is a Critical Supreme Court Case

“Government should not be able to come in and act like the mafia,” says Montana Attorney General Knudsen.

The Armed Citizen® December 1, 2023

True stories of the right to keep and bear arms.

A Gun-Control Amendment?

Gavin Newsom is openly trying to amend the U.S. Constitution to include what he calls “common-sense” gun-control regulations. It seems he doesn’t understand what’s already plainly written in the Constitution.

A Win for Freedom in Maryland

Maryland’s Draconian requirements for purchasing a handgun were recently deemed unconstitutional in yet another post-Bruen win for the Second Amendment.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.