, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Firearm fatalities increase; black felons/gangbangers hardest hit.

D/S/Cs are desperate to ban guns by any means necessary. They know their plans for a socialist/communist utopia can never come to fruition unless Normal Americans are disarmed. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has dared to accurately interpret the Constitution, relying on the writings of the Founders, history in general, and the history of the Second Amendment in particular. The Bruen decision was a terrible blow to anti-liberty/gun cracktivists, but D/S/C ruled states like Oregon, New York and soon, Illinois, aren’t bothered by trifles like the Constitution, and are blatantly violating it. Their unconstitutional anti-liberty/gun laws will surely, eventually, be struck down, but they’ll just write more and go through the years-long process again.

In the meantime, our D/S/C medical establishment, having already lost much, if not all, of its credibility over Covid is determined to do its part. Perhaps, they believe, if they can succeed in labeling “gun violence” a public health matter–as medicine–they can circumvent the Constitution—It’s an emergency or something, a PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, so we can ignore the Constitution and every law flowing from it! It’s an old tactic, but like D/S/C politicians, they never stop trying to destroy the Constitution:  

Senator Chris Murphy believes that the tide is finally turning in favor of the gun safety movement in America.[skip]

‘We’ve built a movement in this country in the last 10 years that today, I would argue, is more powerful than the gun lobby,’ Murphy said in an interview for a special episode of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly America podcast.

‘I think we are now poised to rack up victory after victory for gun safety,’ he said.

They’re hoping their “movement” is more powerful than the Constitution, and “gun safety” is not at all their goal. Disarming normal, law-abiding Americans is. Other cracktivists are not so confident in the efficacy of this reality:

A majority of the public favors the June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which established a right to possess a gun outside the home, with 64% in favor of that decision and 35% opposed.

Support for this ruling, among those with an opinion, was consistently high prior to the decision in June, as shown in Table 11. As with the abortion decision above, the question wording in the November poll does not invite respondents to say if they haven’t heard enough, while previous polls included that invitation.

— Charles Franklin in New Marquette Law School Poll National Survey 

Uh-oh. Where’s that movement about which Murphy spoke? Because D/S/Cs always deny real reality and create their own, they’re dusting off this serially failed tactic:

Firearm-related violence and suicides have been on the rise since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but a new study published in JAMA Network Open is the first analysis to show both the sheer magnitude of firearm fatalities in the U.S. over the past 32 years and the growing disparities by race/ethnicity, age, and geographic location.

Why any of this would be the business of Journal Of The American Medical Association is anyone’s guess, but let’s play along:

Using multiple data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a team of researchers from Emory University and Boston Children’s Hospital extracted the national number of firearm deaths and firearm fatality rates per 100,000 persons per year from 1990 to 2021 and examined the trends over time. There were 1,110,421 firearm fatalities in the U.S. during this time period. While fatalities began a steady increase in 2005, the upward trajectory has accelerated in recent years with a 20% increase from 2019-2021.

To better understand the contributing factors leading to the staggering number of firearm fatalities since 1990, researchers dissected the numbers further by analyzing trends among specific populations in the U.S. The findings paint a bleak picture of a public health crisis that appears to be hitting certain demographics especially hard.

“Multiple data sets” from the CDC.  Oh yeah, that’s credible.  They’re only now admitting no one ever tested Covid vaccines to see if they were actually vaccines that do what vaccines are supposed to do (they don’t) and were safe (they aren’t).  Here comes the inspiration for the title of this article:

In 2021, we have reached the highest number of gun fatalities that have ever occurred in the U.S.,’ says Chris A. Rees, MD, MPH, assistant professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and attending physician at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. ‘That alone is cause for concern but when we look deeper into the data, the differences in firearm fatalities by demographic group and by intent (homicide vs. suicide) become more evident.’

Maximum rates of fatalities by homicide among Black non-Hispanic men (141.8 fatalities/100,000 persons) significantly outpaced rates of fatalities among white non-Hispanic men (6.3 fatalities/100,000) and Hispanic men of the same age (22.8 fatalities/100,000 persons). The data does show there are also differences in fatalities by intent. Suicides were most common among white non-Hispanic men 80-84 years (45.2 fatalities/100,000 persons).

‘Firearm fatalities accelerated dramatically during the COVID pandemic. Multiple potential factors have likely contributed to this including severe economic distress, an erupting mental health crisis, and a significant uptick in the sale of firearms,’ says Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School and emergency medicine physician at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Take the link the read the rest. The article ends with this:

As fatalities from firearms rapidly moves up the list of the leading causes of death in the U.S., multiple interventions at various levels are needed to effectively curb these increases.

And what, pray tell, would these “interventions” be? They’re certainly not going to address the real issues, such as defunding and hamstringing the police, gross understaffing of police agencies in the D/S/C ruled cities where most of these crimes and suicides take place, Soros district attorneys who refuse to prosecute criminals, state legislatures that decriminalize crime, and D/S/C support, on local, state and national levels, for anarchic BLM and Antifa violence. Oddly enough, when criminals pay no price for committing crimes, they tend to commit more, and more deadly, crimes. Who coulda thunk it?

And what could be the cause of the “significant uptick in the sale of firearms?” The aforementioned coddling of criminals, the abandonment of public safety, and the crime and social upheaval accompanying wide open borders, all pushed by the political classes, as well as general public distrust of government. This distrust manifests, for now, primarily as the realization government is purposely not protecting the public they are sworn to serve and protect. Some farther-thinking Americans also realize the inevitable result of this kind of willful abandonment of the American people by the self-imagined elite could very well lead to open conflict. For a bit of perspective, note this graph: 

As Chicago demonstrates every day, only some black lives matter, and white lives matter not at all.  None of this has to do with disease and/or public health. These are political choices. There is no immunization against suicide, or a treatment that will prevent homicidal criminals from killing innocents—or each other. The Truth About Guns has some thoughts on the “study:”

The study’s lead author, Dr. Eric W. Fleegler of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics, has written numerous anti-gun studies and editorials in the past. Gun rights experts were quick to point out there was a lot missing from his most recent work. 

Amy Hunter, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, also pointed out that soft-on-crime policies, not guns, were responsible for the deaths, a fact missing from Fleegler’s report. 

‘Crime rates are soaring. We see that not only in news headlines, but also in neighborhoods where high crime and a lack of prosecutions has residents living in fear,’ Hunter said. ‘Furthermore, law enforcement is hamstrung by policies that favor criminals. Anyone serious about combatting violence would advocate for prosecution of criminals. Adding another Biden or Bloomberg gun control law will not decrease the violence referenced in this study.’

‘It should come as no surprise to anyone that people living in large metros that historically have been controlled by Democrats, who are legally prohibited from obtaining the best means to defend themselves are at risk for violence of any kind,’ said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. 

More detail on Fleegler:

Fleegler is a well-known and somewhat frustrated anti-gun researcher. Last month, he taught a faculty seminar at the University of Michigan titled: ‘Pediatric Firearm Injuries – The Role of Policies and Pediatricians.’

Ah! So Fleegler is admitting this is a political issue. He’s merely trying to graft what he hopes is American’s respect for the medical profession as an emotional, pseudo-scientific boost to his anti-liberty/gun desires. 

According to his bio at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention, Fleegler’s research has focused on ‘firearm injuries with a focus on epidemiology, risk factors and the role of legislation in reducing firearm fatalities.’

Let’s visit the Cambridge Dictionary for a definition of “epidemiology:”

The scientific study of diseases and how they are found, spread and controlled in groups of people.

That is the traditional, understood, and scientific/medical definition of the word. Dictionary.com has the current, woke definition:

The study, assessment, and analysis of public health concerns in a given population; the tracking of patterns and effects of diseases, environmental toxins, natural disasters, violence, terrorist attacks, etc.

Notice the difference, gentle readers? Everything following “diseases” gives license for doctors to branch out from treating disease to imposing their political will on the population under the guise of medical science. That worked so well for the infamous Dr. Fauci, and did so much to build trust in the medical profession. With Fauci soon to be gone, perhaps Fleegler is now “the science?”

‘His seminal research has been quoted by President Barack Obama and referenced by the Supreme Court as well as by numerous state legislatures. He is co-director of the Social Medicine course at Harvard Medical School and regularly lectures around the country,’ his bio states. 

Well, if Obama quoted it, it must be true.  “Social Medicine?” I’m going to take a wild guess this course is about injecting D/S/C politics into medicine. I’m certain it’s just another branch of “social justice,” but with the patina of medicine.

In 2013, Fleegler published another murky and inconclusive JAMA study titled: “Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States.” The study concluded that ‘A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.’

One need only apply basic logic to disprove that assertion. The states with the highest levels of homicide, for instance, have no fewer gun laws than those with lower levels. The give away is the assertion the study couldn’t determine cause-and-effect relationships. In other words, we can’t prove any of this, but we’re stating it as fact anyway. Here’s what really ticks off Fleegler and similar pseudo-scientists:

Time Magazine cited Fleegler in a 2018 story titled “6 Real Ways We Can Reduce Gun Violence in America.” In the story, Fleegler castigated the 1996 Dicky Act, which stopped the CDC from using taxpayer dollars to promote gun control. ‘The effect of the Dickey Amendment was beyond chilling,’ Fleegler is quoted as saying. 

‘There are thousands of studies waiting to be performed,’ Fleegler said in the Time story. ‘But you can’t do them because of the money.’

Here’s the truth about the Dickey Amendment from a 2018 article:   

To be clear, Congress did not restrict the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying firearms and violence. Instead, it restricted government funding from being used to advocate or promote gun control. In the 1990s, when this restriction was passed, that’s exactly what the CDC was doing — advocating for gun control under the auspices of ‘research.’ One CDC official was even quoted in 1994 that he envisioned a public campaign to make guns like cigarettes, ‘dirty, deadly — and banned.’

In other words, the CDC was not researching how to deal with disease, but approaching a public policy issue with a predetermined, marxist, outcome. Confirmation bias ruled, and no study they did could have possibly had any outcome other than the necessity of disarming the public. Of course, criminals would not obey such laws any more than they obey any law. Ignoring that “disease vector” would seem to be as effective as masking, social distancing and lockdowns were with Covid.

The NRA’s position at the time, which has not changed, is that tax dollars should not be used to take sides in a policy debate. This violates the most basic principle of science, in which objective research should be the goal, rather than a biased policy position against individual firearm ownership.

Government-funded research on guns and violence has been going on for years. Reports indicate that the National Institutes of Health, which is covered by the same restriction, issued over $11 million in grants for such projects between 2014 and 2017. Similar studies that focus on the underlying causes of violence would also not be prohibited.[skip]

The NRA fully supports research, both private and public, which examines the root causes of violence in our communities. What we do not support is using tax dollars to promote gun control. The problem is not funding restriction, but researchers who are unable to drop their anti-gun bias long enough to examine this issue objectively.

Final Thoughts: Taxpayer dollars should not be spent to support biased “research” aimed at depriving Americans of fundamental, unalienable liberties. The kinds of “studies” Fleegler would loose on the public would be akin to the “studies” Fauci first claimed required no masks, and suddenly, mandated multiple masks.  Oddly, Fauci has yet to produce any of those “studies.”

We can be grateful Americans are far less trusting of medical “experts” than they were only a short two years ago. That well-earned distrust may help preserve America.