Liberal Press Again Skews Facts About Firearms Violence Research

Gun Violence Researchers Race to Protect Data From Trump | WIRED:
(February 07, 2017)

 AROUND 11 AM Pacific on January 20th, while newly-inaugurated President Trump finished a celebratory lunch in the Capitol Rotunda, Magdalena Cerd  noticed something different about the White House’s website: All of its references to climate change had disappeared. Cerd  is an epidemiologist at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, which focuses on another politicized region of science—gun violence. So she knew what that meant.  (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know what 'that meant'; but the insinuation that the Trump White House was censoring published (or private) research data about "Climate Change" is obvious,

There are a lot of details which are not examined or made clear in this amateurish article, which suggests that it should be ignored except as an example of unprofessional reporting.  It's more important for what information it does not provide, than for the bias which is revealed.

And even more telling, research data about "gun violence" was, as insinuated by this WIRED article, also at risk of having been "disappeared".

This article is a patent attack on the integrity of the Trump White house, for purely political reasons.

 “It was a real call to action,” Cerd  says. With links to climate data vanishing, she worried the same thing could happen to gun violence data on websites belonging to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I was on Amtrak between Berkeley and Sacramento,” she says. “So I sent an email to Garen Wintemute saying we needed to start downloading our data immediately.”

Does that mean that the research data of the UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program was not regularly backed up?

This is difficult to believe, considering that tens of thousands of dollars were probably invested in the research.   The UC Davis Web Master wasn't encouraging the research teams to perform website and data backups at least daily (and more responsibly, more than once a day) or that the data wasn't available on an offsite data repository?   It's a base canard against the professional practices of a respected Educational and Research Facility.

Rather than to point the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate at UC Davis tech support, I find it much more likely that the UC Davis research program managed to lose (at least temporarily ... whether they recovered the data is not discussed in the article) valuable research data, and in an attempt to cover up their embarrassing lack of data integrity supervision has chosen to blame their oversight on an external agency.

Specifically, a political foe:  the current President of the United States of America.

The suggestion that the President would be responsible for a loss of research data is not only bizarre, but it is a sad commentary on whomever provided the 'background' information for this article ... and for the author, who rushed to judgement by printing innuendo instead of facts.

(In fact, the article suggests that the President had the power, and the resources, to delete 'research data' from multiple, federally funded, generally reliable websites such as the Center for Disease control!)

And the worst approbation is for the website, which allowed this article to be published without requiring the minimum standard of finding at least two sources which support the same interpretation.

I once considered WIRED to be a reliable data source, if only for its technical content.
Now that the website has undermined its own integrity, every single word they ever published will be tainted.

So long WIRED.   Nobody will ever trust you, since you turned Political.

(The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award)

Eliminate ATF? Oh, please!

What federal agency doesn't have enough work to justify its existence, so they are overstaffed and then go looking for innocent civilians to harass just to make it look like they're actually ... you know .. accomplishing something?

If you said "Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives" you  would be almost right.

(I say "almost" because, having nothing better to do with their copious free time, this agency changes its name with the seasons;  I'll just call them the "ATF", because that's what they call themselves when they're at home;  and you can call them less complimentary names if it makes you feel good.)

I think it might be a good idea to eliminate the ATF and shift its duties to other federal agencies.

The ATF (BATFE ... etc) ... is an organization in search of a job.  They don't have enough to do while enforcing regulations on alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives .....    

... (which organization, by the way, was originally established only to insure that the appropriate taxes were paid to the feds;  all this enforcement shit that made such a huge wave in the Prohibition Era was generated only because they didn't have UTUBE for self-congratulatory advertisements,  It's all about funding!.)  ...

...... so they at ATF are desperate for a way to justify their existence.

They couldn't find enough work regulating firearms, and their best years of busting moon-shiners were gone, and tobacco isn't an issue (enough smokers die every year to render ATF meaningless), and what's with that "Explosives" thing?  We all know, all you need is a pressure cooker and some chemicals from under your kitchen sink.

So the ATF (Excuse me!  "BATFE"!) is looking for some way to justify their existence.   They don't have anything else to do, to keep them busy.

Please, by all means .. eliminate the redundancy and shift their duties to some other Federal Agency which is already so over-burdened that it hasn't time or resources to harass  bug law-abiding firearms owners with meaningless and redundant regulations.

Personally, I feel really sorry for the sad sacks who can't find 'A Real Job' and have to go to work for the ATF.   They are the most despised people in this country, and they try to make themselves feel better by imagining that they are doing something which justifies their salary.

I understand that.  I did the same thing for the last 20 years of my career, when I was working for a state educational institution.

But at least I never put anyone in jail for exercising his constitutional rights.

Guns in churches?

Guns in churches? Pastors debate church security - KWES NewsWest 9 / Midland, Odessa, Big Spring, TX: newswest9.com |:

The Texas legislature is considering a law that would allow churches to hire security officers. Many Wichita Falls churches have security, but not everyone believes armed guards belong in church. "If you think you need to have a gun to go to church, or have someone there to guard you, it makes me wonder if we need to test the depth of our faith," Cheryl Murray, Pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, said. "Maybe we are just sticking our big toe in the shallow end instead of diving all in." She believes there are more pressing issues for the legislature to tackle than security in churches.

Luke 22:36 (BBE) And he said to them, But now, he who has a money-bag, or a bag for food, let him take it: and he who has not, let him give his coat for money and get a sword.

I guess this is officially an even-numbered year

Yesterday I wrote a draft outline about my angst-ridded decisions whether or not to renew my National Rifle Association (NRA) membership.   But I didn't publish it; I gave myself time to rethink my original decision.

I 'rejoined' the NRA last year, after having allowed my annual membership to lapse the year before.  I usually rejoin on even number years, and decline renewal on odd-numbered years.  There's a "love/hate" relationship between me and the NRA; I think they're insufficiently conservative and that they don't do enough to protect the Second Amendment.

uh ... yes, perhaps I am a little right of center.

Today, I read this article:

America's 1st Freedom | Tracing Judge Gorsuch’s Paper Trail On The Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.” So wrote U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in United States v. Miguel Games-Perez. That case demonstrates why Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.

Then I went to the NRA website and signed up for another year.   If it helps keep judges like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, it's worth $40 to me.

But I did demand that I get the free magazine with my membership.  I'm not a TOTAL Bleeding Heart!