California funds negative reporting on firearms ownership

In Lieu Of Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research, California State Senator Looks Local - Generation Progress:

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) was, years ago, deprived of federal funding because their research had historically emphasized the negative impact of personal firearms ownership without acknowledging any positive benefit.   In a word, it was biased and not scientifically ethical.

But one state senator from California is trying to change that. California State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) introduced the California Firearm Violence Research Act, SB1006, which, though it wouldn’t restore funding to the CDC, would establish a research center to study firearm violence in California. The center, which would be part of the University of California system, would take an interdisciplinary approach to examining gun violence prevention, including analyzing risk factors, societal consequences, prevention, and treatment. “The [polarized] discussion is not productive in my view,” Wolk told Generation Progress. “There are people who think guns should be banned and melted down, and there are others who believe there should be no restrictions at all and no control whatsoever. Most people are in the middle on this one, and I’m one of them. I would like to know what policies would be most effective in reducing the incidents of death and injury.”

(emphasis added)
["TREATMENT?"  Does this study propose to 'treat' firearms as an Epidemic?  That's the approach which lead to the defunding of  the CDC project!]

Everyone would prefer to find a means to "(reduce) the incidents of death and injury" due to firearms.

California is certainly welcome to fund its own research on Gun Violence.
But be advised that there are no constraints on how they interpret the data they gather.  In fact, there are no rules about how they either word their questionaires, how they gather data, or how they interpret the data after it has been reaped.

California has so politicized their attitude toward Second Amendment Issues, we can expect that the conclusions they reach will be interpreted so that the question of civilian firearms ownership will be as completely negative as they can make it.

California, and other states, will then use this 'study' to justify whatever extreme constraint on the Second Amendment they feel they can get away with.

The folks who initiate, fund, guide, administer and interpret the data gathered in this 'study' (read: "Necklace Party") do not have your constitutional rights in mind.  Instead, they are agenda driven and no data which supports your right to own and carry a firearm will see the light of day; or, if it is accidentally included in the results, will misinterpreted, misconstrued, or ignored (deleted?).

We should be prepared for the shit-storm of controversy which will be the consequence of this skewed study.  When the results are published, you should rigorously examine the parameters of the study ... what questions are asked of whom, how they are worded, and the multiple-choice questions that are asked.  Be critical, because we know before it starts that there is only one conclusion acceptable to those who have paid for the study.

Especially California State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis)  who seems to be spearheading the effort.
(WHY is she adamantly behind the study?  We can only assume that she has her own political agenda ... which will only accept 'results' which support her personal opinion.)

Note that Senator Wolk's most recent legislative efforts include ...

SJR 1 - Gun Violence Prevention: Urges the President and Congress to develop a comprehensive federal approach to reducing and preventing gun violence by placing assault weapons and high-capacity assault magazines under the scope of the National Firearms Act, and require a universal background check for all transfers of firearms.  SJR 1 also urges the President to take steps to ensure all states and federal agencies are reporting all necessary records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. (Chapter 83) - See more at: http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/legislation/2013-2014#sthash.wtYPrjl5.dpuf

(emphasis added)

She has identified herself, by her legislative efforts, as an anti-gun proponent,   This fact establishes that her agenda includes undermining the Second Amendment Rights of California gun owners.

Do not assume that she will allow any 'research results' to be publicly aired if they do not support her personal convictions.