TexasCHLforum.com

The sad part is that there is a lot of good research that this money could fund. The issue is that in the early 1990s, a large part of academic clinicians publicly stated that they would use the public trust placed in them and in their research to produce propaganda supporting gun control legislation no matter what the data showed. Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership pointed that fact out in Congress and got funding banned since 1994, IIRC. The issue was the public refusal of the medical establishment to produce research that was unbiased, fair, or..well...scientific.

The cardinal sin in research is to begin with a conclusion and then seek to prove it by producing data. That mindset taints even good work, and is toxic to science. Killing oneself or another human being are grossly pathological behaviors, whether they're committed using a bathtub or an M2HB. The extremely focal nature of violence involving firearms, even WITHIN at risk communities (i.e the inner cities), is striking. People are trying to do research on how those interpersonal webs operate with the goal of breaking the cycle of violence, and funding that research would save lives. Instead, we get tripe like this article that made it into JAMA (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2688536), wherein the authors speak at great length on projectile lethality while completely ignoring the process by which they came to rest inside human bodies.

The goal of reducing the number of people who are killed with guns (or by any sort of violence) remains a sideshow to the goal of disarming Americans.