To doctors with an agenda like Garen Wintemute, gun ownership is a public health issue that must be treated like a disease. (UC Davis Health YouTube screen capture)
“California doesn’t have money to fix roads, but drops millions on gun violence research,” Townhall.com Weekend Editor Jennifer Van Laar reported Saturday. “One thing legislators have found the money for is anti-gun research. They call it ‘gun violence research,’ but make no mistake, there is only one acceptable outcome for the research.”
That “research” will be provided via an exclusive arrangement with UC Davis “researcher Garen Wintemute “if a bill pending in the Assembly passes … Wintemute’s organization will be the only one the CA DOJ is required to share its Gun Violence Restraining Order data with. As a result, other researchers who want to independently verify any of his findings will probably not be able to. Under SB 536, the DOJ would have the discretion to deny other researchers access to that data, which is publicly funded.”
That’s problematic for a variety of obvious reasons, including a lesser-known one learned through personal experience. The man has a documented tendency to “exaggerate.”
“This article originally wrongly implied that blogger David Codrea had ‘outed’ gun researcher Garen Wintemute,” a correction posted to a 2013 article in Nature (“International weekly journal of science” admitted. “In fact, Wintemute had publicized his own work before Codrea’s blog post. The text has been corrected to reflect this.”
That’s not all that needed to be corrected, and Nature was told that yet elected to post a tepid non-retraction, giving further evidence of putting agenda before simply chronicling the observable. Per my provable explanation at the time:
“With two demonstrably erroneous statements and one notable contradiction in the three short sentences dealing with my WarOnGuns.com blog’s commentary on Garen Wintemute’s ‘research’ methods, [Nature’s] article merits additional scrutiny,” my letter began.
“I was not the one who ‘outed’ Wintemute, he did,” the letter protested. “It was his own revelation that he was trying ‘to eavesdrop on gun transactions without attracting notice.’ My resulting ‘warning’ blog, directed to lawful gun show proprietors, security personnel and attendees who properly consider their private business just that, was posted in June, 2007, not in 2008 as the article states.
“When Wintemute tells [Nature] by that point he had discontinued this practice, he directly contradicts what he was telling the media at the time — that ‘Eventually, he hopes to train others to become observers at gun shows — and possibly to go one step further than he did and notify local police when they witness an illegal transaction,’” the letter documented.
A “Not Wanted”poster…
That warning to proprietors and attendees that this guy was secretly snooping was further misrepresented by Slate, which quoted Wintemute talking about perceived “threats” on his life, which he attempted to make appear egged-on by adding:
“There is a wanted poster on the Internet.”
The words “wanted poster” link to a WarOnGuns post from 2007. Anyone who equates a handout warning gun show exhibitors and attendees to notify security if they spot him with a threat is hardly a reliable observer and reporter of facts. And anyone who misrepresents that deliberately can hardly lay claim to ethical practices. That makes the Slate article by Harvard “ethicist” Paul D. Thacker, and his ridiculing response to having the lie exposed, yet another example of the truism that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.
If the State of California does grant Wintemute exclusive access to tax-funded data, don’t be surprised if this is the quality of the work product the legislators use to dream up yet further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Note Wintemute making a cigarette comparison in the following video, and then recall the reasons Congress was pressed to defund specifically anti-gun “research” by the Centers for Disease Control. Among other blatant examples of agenda “science” intended to “eradicate” them, CDC official Mark Rosenberg let slip “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.”
Agenda much, Doc?
For readers interested in qualified rebuttals to the absurd “public health model” by medical professionals, visit Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment