Scientific Studies Gun Control and Global Warming

While working on Masters and a Doctorate degree I learned a little about scientific investigation. One of the cardinal rules of any scientific study is to start it with no prejudices and no expected outcomes. The purpose of a truly scientific study is to find accurate information, not to try to prove your prejudices.

That basic fact of doing any kind of accurate research seems to be lost on many so-called researchers now. Anyone that really knows about research knows you can prove anything you set out to prove. You may have to adjust the data a little or ignore some that doesn’t fit your goals as “outliers,” but you can get to your preconceived conclusions if you want to.

One of the big pushes of the gun ban fanatics right now is a “universal background check,” requiring all gun purchases, not just those from licensed dealers, to go through the database of those prohibited from legally buying a gun. Right now if you go to Berry’s Sporting Good to buy a gun, you have to show a valid ID and have your name run through this check unless you have a valid Georgia Firearms License. It is an inconvenience and usually takes just a few minutes, but most of the time it returns accurate data.

There are exceptions. If your name happens to be the same as a convicted felon you can be turned down. If you don’t think you have to worry about that, do a Google search on your name. You might be surprised how many people have the same first and last name.

For example, I know Ronnie Garrison died suddenly on September 28, 2010 in Knoxville, Tennessee and Ronnie Garrison was arrested on felony drug, burglary and grand larceny charges in Oklahoma on January 2, 2014. I have a firearms license so I have never had a problem, but I’m not sure if I could instantly pass the background check.

The gun banners crow that background checks have stopped 1.2 million gun sales since started. There is no follow up. How many of those were mistakes later corrected or how many of those people got guns illegally anyway.

A supposedly “study” at Duke University of the current background check found the following: ““If these handgun denials were successful in preventing violence-prone people from arming themselves, we would expect to see a larger reduction in gun crimes committed in the 32 Brady states compared with the non-Brady states. Disappointingly, our study did not find significant trend differences between the Brady and non-Brady states in the most reliably measured gun crime – homicide. Thus the direct effect on gun crime that advocates expected from denying disqualified adults in the Brady states does not reveal itself in our data.”

Notice the key word “Disappointingly” in that report. The so-called researches were not happy with their results. They set out with an agenda to prove their prejudice that background checks make a difference. But even with their goals, at least they admit they could not prove what they set out to prove.

So why make the system of background checks that does not work “universal?” That is like saying drinking water doesn’t cure cancer so drink more of it. It is not rational.

And what would the effects of these universal checks on law-abiding citizens? If I wanted to sell you one of my guns, not that I would ever sell one, we would have to go down to Berry’s, pay to have the check run and only then would the government allow me to sell you my property. In states that have universal checks it cost from $50 to $150 to have one run, adding to the cost of the sale.

What if you want to give one of your children one of your guns? You are still required to have the check run. If you wanted to leave a child a gun in your will? Could a universal background make that impossible?

Gun banners will grasp at anything they can to achieve their goals of making it impossible to own a gun. Gun control laws affect only the law-abidiing. They do not affect criminals in any way.

Which brings me to another of my pet peeves about scientific studies. In 1975, while working on a Masters Degree at West Georgia College, I took a course titled “Environmental Science’ and was assigned to write a paper on the coming Ice Age due to air pollution.

Forty years go the science was settled. The earth was cooling and half of North America would be covered with glaciers within one hundred years. Governments, especially the US government must take immediate steps and spend lots of tax payers’ money to keep the earth warm.

Sound familiar? Some of the same people and same groups that made those claims 40 years ago are now saying exactly the same thing about global warming or global climate change as they call it now. Its just weather – of course the climate changes. Always has, always will.

Don’t forget at one time the science was settled that the universe revolved around the earth and that you would fall off the edge of the earth if you sailed too far on the ocean.

Anytime you are told “the science is settled” you can be sure that is being used to stop others from trying to get the truth. Anytime a study sets out to prove something, rather than find facts, it is suspect. Anytime some in the government want to spend your money on the latest fad, be very skeptical!