Can an Elite Education allow you to objectively evaluate Gun Violence?

Harvard's "The Crimson" demonstrates that even the most literate of our Young Americans cannot resist the lure of biased reportage when addressing the twin issues of Gun violence and Gun Control.

After recounting the shock of discovering that his Harvard classmates have become victims of gun violence, the author (ANDREW W. AOYAMA Apr 26, 2018) sinks to the same level of reaction as did the CDC decades ago.   He reports only one side of the issue:

Can an Elite Education Protect You from Gun Violence? | Magazine | The Harvard Crimson:

Hemenway cites the Dickey Amendment as a major hurdle in the path towards a realistic conversation about gun violence. The amendment, a 1996 congressional provision, effectively prohibits the Centers for Disease Control from using public funds to research gun violence. “The gun lobby didn’t like the results of early research funded by the CDC that found that having a gun in the house increases, not decreases, one’s risk of death,”  Hemenway says, referencing a landmark 1993 study that challenged the narrative often repeated by the National Rifle Association: that gun ownership allowed individuals to better protect their families.

Had Aoyama done his homework ... a concept which is apparently no longer taught at Harvard ... he would have discovered that the CDC had been found to be highly biased in reporting the findings of their research on Gun Violence.

Specifically, he would have learned that the reason  that CONGRESS pulled the reins on CDC reportage was that the federally funded research center reported on gun violence without balancing their reports with information about personal firearms which were used to protect citizens against gun violence.   This information had been casually gathered by CDC, but either not as thoroughly researched or else deliberately not reported.



When this was brought to their attention (by the NRA, a civil rights organization which represents law-abiding gun owners), Congress responded by jerking the irresponsible CDC up by their short hairs  and BLOCKING federal funding for BIASED Gun Violence REPORTING!

They can still do the research, but their reports must be free of bias .. they needed to publish both sides of the Gun violence phenomenon, including that firearms are used frequently to lawfully defend citizens against violence.

Or else, the CDC can find other funding.  Their Choice.

THIS IS PROPAGANDA:

 The Dickey Amendment has brought public research on gun violence to a standstill. “I’m an economist by training, and I’ll tell you—people go where the money is,” Hemenway says. “When there was no money for AIDS research, we didn’t do any AIDS research. If you want more research done, you have to be able to pay the researchers.”

No, it didn't bring any research to a standstill; it merely refused to provide public (federal) funding to biased reportage.   Biased research and reports continue to be made available thru funding to independent research (including that by Harvard!) ,....  but it will no longer be paid for by Federal Funds, which means the tax dollars of law-abiding firearms owners may not now be used to unfairly influence public opinion against their Second Amendment Rights.

If Harvard alumni wish to continue to pay for biased reports, that's their business.   But since you have now realized that even "Elite Education" will not protect you from gun violence, perhaps you might consider buying a gun.

And learning to use it safely, responsible, and effectively.

That's how those of us who graduated from State Universities have done.   We don't expect to be safe, or protected, because we grew up in the same neighborhoods the Bad Guys did. 

We know we're not privileged; and when the bullets start flying, nobody is.

Because you know what High-School drop-outs with a love for violence call Ivy League Professionals who can't afford armed body guards?

Meat.