Project "Grip". Study in regards to firearm violence/suicide. Your input please.

[Ralph III]

Hello Everyone.

The University of South Alabama has received a 1.8 million dollar grant to study the effects of gun injuries (homicides/suicides) and is working closely with gun owners in coming up with strategies to curtail such. So this is an opportunity for you to have some input in regards.

"While much of the national discussion centers on access to firearms, the approach by Assistant Professor Dr. Krista Mehari and Professor Dr. Phillip Smith will focus on better understanding the perspective of people who possess and own guns to improve public health strategies".

The study is called GRIP (Gun-Related Injury Prevention) and can be found HERE. My wife is employed at USA in one of the relevant departments so she brought this to my attention early. I have been in contact with Dr. Mehari and Dr. Smith and I am going to serve on the Gun Owners Advisory board. My correspondence with them has been very enthusiastic and excellent, btw. They are still in the process of assembling the team but we hope to have our first meeting within two weeks.

Anyhow, I would truly appreciate your input in regards to gun violence, accidents and suicides. Your opinions are valued and I will be sharing them where applicable. I would especially appreciate it if you could help me gather some verifiable stats; otherwise point me in the right direction.

In giving a little bit of my background. I've been involved with hunting and shooting for nearly 50 years now. Just like you, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, for both recreation and self defense purposes. I also think the shooting sports and outdoors is a fantastic hobby for families and the youth to be involved with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will give a brief summary of my stance on homicides and suicides in regards to firearms. I'm hoping to expand upon this by hearing your opinions and in getting even greater insight. This is a general summary. I may be asking specific questions once we begin the process.

1. Reducing gun related homicides:

a) Additional penalties associated with crimes in which a weapon was used: I think this would
deter the common criminal from utilizing a weapon which in turn could help reduce homicides
and shooting in general. The additional and severe penalties would also insure hardened
criminals are incarcerated longer which keeps them off the streets.

b) Legal gun owners: I believe legal gun owners act to deter crimes and stop crimes with the use
of their firearms and in significant numbers. One prominent study on this was conducted under
the Obama Admin. Despite their anti-gun stance their findings are quite telling. This is from pg
26 as found HERE.

Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey

It should be noted that the National Crime and Victimization study was obviously an anti-gun and consequently bogus study. It only noted "108,000 annual defensive uses" but their study did not in fact ask respondents about "defensive usage"! Otherwise, they do not include stats in which gun owners prevented a crime by telling a perpetrator that they had a weapon or by brandishing it. Some do not even count cases in which the gun owner fired but missed although such prevented a crime. Many resort to limiting their stats to instances where the gun owner actually fired their weapon and injured the perpetrator. This significantly deflates the stats of how often legal gun owners actually prevent or stop crimes with their weapons. This is obviously purposeful.

The study performed under the Obama Admin by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council notes the National Crime Victimization Survey discrepancy.

"The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."

c) Criminal Reformation: I believe Incarceration should include Reformation of a criminal who will
be paroled at some point. This may include increasing their education to teaching them a skill
to instilling a sense of morality. I also think they should be allowed to leave and then return to
the prison in the last year of their sentence, such as with the work release program. I think a
gradual re-introduction into society would be best -vs- simply releasing a criminal back into
society upon completion of his sentence.

d) Favorable laws: Laws should be created both at the Federal and State level that affords
protections to law abiding citizens who used their firearms to prevent or stop a criminal from
killing innocent people.

e) Other security measures: People should utilize home security systems, cameras and lighting
to secure their home. They should also be aware of their surroundings and take precautionary
measures when away from their home. This could act to reduce homicides and other violent
crimes.

f) Education: Their should be educational programs and campaigns to inform people of how
they may better protect themselves. It should include an honest portrayal of the benefits of
legal gun ownership which should include proper training of course. This would also help to
remove the anti-gun sentiment and propaganda that the left promotes.

2. Reducing accidental gun injuries:

a) Education and Training: Gun safety should be taught and stressed at every opportunity to
both adults and children. I really feel the NRA and other gun organizations should put on
free clinics to the public. This would go a long way in both creating enthusiasm and in
curtailing accidental shootings. You cannot just hide guns from children, you must also
remove their curiosity!!!!

b) Safe storage: Guns should be stored safely in households with children. I'm not one to say
you must utilize a gun safe -vs- kept out of reach and hidden. That is a decision you must
make based upon your circumstances. I chose to educate my children which included
completely removing any curiosity. I then kept my pistol hidden and out of reach. My gun
safe is a bio-metric type but I would never trust it for fast access in case of a home
invasion. I do however lock my guns up when other children visit.

3. Reducing suicides with firearms:

I think about 60% of all suicides in America are committed with use of a firearm? Consequently, if you want to prevent suicides by firearms then you have to temporarily remove the firearms. That's the simple answer right. For me it is a little more complicated then that.

It seems to me a lot of studies place emphasis on removing the firearm and less emphasis on treating those suffering suicidal thoughts. I mean if you removed all of the firearms in stopping suicides by firearm, then you may have only stopped suicides by firearm and nothing more.

There are many other countries that don't allow firearms or otherwise they are highly restricted and yet they have higher rates of suicides than America. So even if you removed the firearm who is to say they wouldn't have committed suicide by other means?

A lot of stats say that most attempted suicides fail by other means whereas suicide by firearm is typically fatal. But how do we know that many of these attempted suicides were really just calls for help? Whereas those who chose truly lethal means, whether by firearm or other methods, were truly seeking to commit suicide.

But yes, if you have someone who is suicidal within your household then you must remove or lock away your firearms. I'm not sure how much of a solution this is though versus a temporary prevention? Anyhow, this is a subject which needs greater research so your input would be especially appreciated here.

Note: Many of my stats are a little bit older so if you have some pertinent stats which are a little more current, then please reference those.

Thank you and God Bless,
Ralph

 

[WestKentucky]

Just a quick word, your terminology paints a picture different from what your saying. If it’s a chance for gun owners to be proactive or have a productive say in the matter then terms like gun violence, gun injuries, and similar terms with negative connotations will push a few folks away from providing input.

It’s something I would like to see done right though. The large grant though comes from somewhere, and the somewhere likely is not as 2A friendly as we would like to believe. That’s the world we live in. Rich folks are scared of simple tools and are paying money in efforts to neuter them or get them to be made contraband.

specifically to the topic of avoiding gun related injuries and gun related suicides, shoot more in a relaxing mode. Blow off stress.

 

[herrwalther]

There are many other countries that don't allow firearms or otherwise they are highly restricted and yet they have higher rates of suicides than America. So even if you removed the firearm who is to say they wouldn't have committed suicide by other means?

I will comment on just this part. I have had many soldiers commit suicide with their own firearms. If I were to draw an X over our old company photo, there would be very few exposed faces left. The one closest to me was using heroin as a pain killer when his medication for pain ran out. He could have easily given himself a lethal dose if he did not have his firearm. The too common approach in the military for someone suicidal is to take away means of doing so. We did the same thing in jail. Someone suicidal they don't get bed sheets, laces, belts. They sleep on a special bed, with a special gown, and eat with special silverware. Neither method works as veteran and inmate suicide are both high. I of course don't blame the firearm for my friend's death but I certainly didn't want it when his mother offered me ownership of it. We have to tackle the mental aspects. Seems to me that is more important that spending 2 million on tallying numbers. Just my bitter opinion.

 

[Steve S.]

I attended the U of MO after Vietnam on the GI Bill - my major was AOJ. The OP’s review reads almost exactly like one of my classes from the latter ‘70’s - reads like nothing has changed in that discipline from almost 50 years ago.
Since my college days, shootings have skyrocketed (especially in certain behavioral groups) - I wake up to more shooting news every day in St. Louis - they take a body count and then they move onto the weather report - no one cares anymore. I think that you could sentence these people to a million years In prison and the triggers will still get pulled.
Suicide is a staple of human nature - for some people, this planet will never be right. Just like auto fatalities and shootings, suicide is just another daily blip on the news.
Shootings, suicides, auto fatalities, natural disasters, home fires, COVID deaths, etc - all just news blips only until one of those events hits close to home - then suddenly that stuff becomes real.
Firearms were created and refined for one reason - ever efficient killing. I do agree that the only way to eliminate violence with firearms is to remove firearms availability - the human behavior that perpetrates the violence is never going to change. Humans are violent by nature, that is why men must be governed. The only reason that many more people are not killed every day is simply because our laws say that there is a price to be paid.
I do wish the OP great success with the study venture.

 

[JohnKSa]

Gun safety should be taught and stressed at every opportunity to
both adults and children. I really feel the NRA and other gun organizations should put on
free clinics to the public.

Here's one oriented specifically to children. It's not free, but much of the cost can be covered by a grant through an application process.
https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

 

[earlthegoat2]

Personally, I believe one of the weakest arguments of the gun control groups is how suicide can be prevented by removing one availability in a world filled with hundreds.

In the end, for better or worse, people do not really want firearms gone. They want them gone from bad people. If they have to take them from everyone to achieve that end then so be it. On top of that, the people who enact said movements still want to be able to have firearms to protect themselves but do not want the “commoners” to have them.

If bad people never had firearms, then firearm related crimes would drop to nearly zero. Homicide by firearm would still happen though as good people with firearms would defend themselves from attackers armed with non-firearm but similarly deadly weapons. Which makes one wonder, would violent crime decrease in a strictly gun controlled world? My guess is, probably not.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I have known a number of people that have intentionally killed themselves.
None of them used guns.
Methods included slitting wrists, falling from a high place, drinking Drano, misusing drugs, misusing alcohol, driving "accidents", and disobeying a doctor's orders.
Only two of these cases were judged to be suicides.
I knew better.

Concentrating on stopping suicides by eliminating access to firearms will simply change the method of the suicide.

 

[Pudge]

Overall suicide statistics are unknown. A self-inflicted gunshot wound, hanging, or cutting yourself to bleed out, without evidence it was caused by another party, are typically listed as a suicide. But, if there is no note saying they intended to end their life, many deaths like single car (or multi-car, or fatal pedestrian) fatalities or overdoses are classified as accidental. Without an accurate accounting of overall suicide statistics, we can't begin to assess the role firearms play. And that is from the point of view that forcing someone to live with pain they are willing to die to escape is the right course of action.

I don't believe suicides should be part of "firearm violence" statistics, nor should police or self-defence shootings. Accidents and criminal shootings should be the focus of the study. Suicide is a Healthcare issue which is not dependent on a single means. If you can reduce violent crime numbers in a meaningful way, defensive and law enforcement firearm use will also decline.

 

[Tinman357]

The OP reads like a gun control group looking for talking points.

 

[WestKentucky]

The OP reads like a gun control group looking for talking points.

Yep. Perhaps unintentionally, but terminology used is definitely terminology that gun control groups use.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Another thing skewing suicide numbers can be local politics. Here is an example I was close to a few years ago when I was a PI.

Older couple is found dead in their home. All evidence pointed to a murder suicide with a firearm.

Coroner (elected official) rules the death as natural causes.

I’m pretty sure the Coroner was walking some official agreed upon line by not ruling it a murder which would increase the crime rate in the area. Suicides are just bad press in general and I think that maybe it also worked as some kind of favor to the family to not have suicide officially and publicly tied to their loved ones. This incident never reached the news in any way either so there were no parties crying foul on the ruling.

Either way, I got to thinking, how many other suicides and murders are ruled as natural causes to further a political agenda? Conversely, how often is murder and gun crime trumped up in the media to further that agenda? A previous police chief of this city was put in prison for illegal gambling, and extortion. Reads a lot like Don Gotti. What are crime statistics actually reporting again? What are actually the causes of death of anyone at any given time?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Here is what I sent:

"Reading about Project GRIP, I wonder if in studying suicides you control for intent?

Most people who commit suicide do not intend to die. They intend to call attention to their problems -- this is often referred to as "a cry for help."
It seems logical that people who are crying for help will select a method unlikely to result in death, or arrange matters so they will be discovered before they die. And people who intend to die will select a method that will be surely fatal."

Now what I did not say is most mental health professionals say suicide is due to severe mental depression. So you have a guy so depressed he wants to stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. Does anyone suppose that if he couldn't get a gun, he'd be magically cured of his depression and go through life skipping and whistling?

 

[theotherwaldo]

Some of the suicides that I was referring to were performed by collapsed narcissists - people that do not consider those around them to be people and consider life to be a game. In this case, a game that they are no longer in control of, that they are losing, and that they no longer wish to play.

These people will not show the same symptoms as those that are clinically depressed or desperate. They are not crying out to others for attention, as they do not really believe that those others are really people.

These collapsed narcissists usually set out to succeed in killing themselves - and often those around them - as a statement to themselves that they are still in control of all that matters to themselves.

After all, other people are really just playing pieces... .

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Exactly right -- so method is irrelevant to such people, as long as it is a sure method. After all, people committed suicide long before firearms were invented, so for such a person, a gun isn't a necessity, it's merely convenient.

 

[entropy]

Here is what I sent:

"Reading about Project GRIP, I wonder if in studying suicides you control for intent?

Most people who commit suicide do not intend to die. They intend to call attention to their problems -- this is often referred to as "a cry for help."
It seems logical that people who are crying for help will select a method unlikely to result in death, or arrange matters so they will be discovered before they die. And people who intend to die will select a method that will be surely fatal."

Now what I did not say is most mental health professionals say suicide is due to severe mental depression. So you have a guy so depressed he wants to stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. Does anyone suppose that if he couldn't get a gun, he'd be magically cured of his depression and go through life skipping and whistling?

Very well put. My younger son, when he was 12 and had some emotional issues going on, did not choose a gun for his attempt. (he could have.) He chose hanging. It did not work, (good thing he was never a Boy Scout!) and he got the help he needed. It was not an instantaneous process, however. It took a lot of time, therapy, and a short hospital stay. He is a happy well adjusted gun owner today. (the hospital stay was self admitted, it did not affect that.) I do not worry about him attempting suicide again.

There is a current TV commercial about gun suicide that closes with something to the effect of 'There is no respawn in real life." (Those of us who believe in reincarnation might digress here, but it doesn't serve the purpose.)

There was a run of teen suicides a few years ago around here, and none used a gun. Two jumped off a bridge in a suicide pact, one used opioids, one asphyxiation. My wife joined local suicide prevention efforts after our son's attempt, and conducted several workshops on looking for signs. We ignored our son's what to us are now glaringly obvious signs he was looking for help. Think how often you've said this about kids in the past: "Oh, he always acts this way. So melodramatic." "She always withdraws into herself this time of year." "It's just a phase."
It may well be a phase. Or they may be at that point where they've come to the incorrect conclusion that "not living at all would be better than living like this." Establishing the rapport before it gets to that point is ideal, but if not, ask them. Admit you've been wrong. Ask what you can do to help, present options and guide them through coming up with solutions. It's not easy, but neither is walking in and finding your child dead, no matter the method used.

We were lucky. Our son told a teacher about his attempt. She listened to him. We weren't listening, and it could have cost us our wonderful son.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Sorry, NO.

The first two lines tell me more about their agenda than they want me to know.

The goal of Project GRIP (Gun-Related Injury Prevention) is to reduce gun-related injuries and deaths, like suicides and homicides. Right now, there is a communication gap between gun owners and users and the people who are working to prevent suicides, homicides and assaults.

I do, however, appreciate the OP's intent.

Todd.

 

[Tinman357]

Allow me to expound on my statement above. Guns are not the primary tool used to commit suicide. Just like the primary causes of death, I doubt that provable numbers would put firearms in the top 100. Buckets, cars, walking while texting causes more deaths than firearms. The whole Original Post just seems odd. Something doesn't smell right. Not questioning poster's motives, I just wonder what the end goal is.

And, before anyone thinks that I don't care about suicides. I most definitely do. I lost my 22 year old daughter 6 months ago to suicide. She was determined to do it. Nobody suspected a thing, even me, and she lived with me. We spent hours together, every single day.

She didn't use a firearm, she left her gun at home, both of them. She was, without question, determined to end her life. No gun control law imaginable would have stopped her, no law period. But I don't believe this proposed study is really aimed at preventing suicides. There literally hundreds of ways to effectively reduce suicides that would be easier, and legislatively cheaper than implementing more gun control. The way it's written makes it look like they are gathering talking points to support more anti gun legislation. I could be way out in left field, but it does read that way to me.

It just strikes me as odd that many elected officials have worked to raise the age limit for gun ownership while lowering the age to drive a car. Not hard to figure out the anti gun goal has nothing to do with saving lives.


. (Edited for too much irrelevant information.)

 

[wiscoaster]

Government-funded studies are almost always funded on the basis of reaching and/or supporting pre-determined conclusions and are therefore unworthy of participation or funding. I've read examples of the legislation that appropriates the funding and so I'm not just shooting from the hip on an unfounded opinion. Sorry if I offend, but I believe it to be the truth.

 

[Vernon102]

Another thing skewing suicide numbers can be local politics. Here is an example I was close to a few years ago when I was a PI.

Older couple is found dead in their home. All evidence pointed to a murder suicide with a firearm.

Coroner (elected official) rules the death as natural causes.

I’m pretty sure the Coroner was walking some official agreed upon line by not ruling it a murder which would increase the crime rate in the area. Suicides are just bad press in general and I think that maybe it also worked as some kind of favor to the family to not have suicide officially and publicly tied to their loved ones. This incident never reached the news in any way either so there were no parties crying foul on the ruling.
........

Insurance is not paid if ruled a suicide.

V.

 

[CDW4ME]

If someone lawfully defends themself with a gun and attacker is killed is that recorded as a gun related homicide? (Probably)

Suicide with gun. What if the person is at end of life anyway and chooses not to spend last days lingering / dying slow, that count as a negative? (Probably)
Take elderly dog (or dog dying with cancer) to vet to be "put down" out of mercy and that is okay; sometimes people are not treated as mercifully. (Just saying)

 

[I6turbo]

The OP reads like a gun control group looking for talking points.

Yes. I'd bet a thousand bucks the basis of this "grant" is looking for gun control "ammunition."

 

[Ralph III]

Hello Everyone. I'm the OP, btw.

Now let's cut through some of the Bull Sheet!

Ok, now that I've got your attention let me clarify a few things.

1. I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and have been my entire life. It's how my Dad, who served in the Korean war (Navy) and start up of the Vietnam war (Army) raised me. He started taking me hunting when I was 7 years old and I loved every thing about it, especially the times I spent with him and other close family/friends. I belong to this gun forum, KahrTalk.com, RugerForum.net, WaltherForums.com, BersaChat.com MSGO.com and a few others. You can check out any of my posts on those forums under Ralph III.

So why do I belong to those forums and others? Because I have firearms relevant to those forums and when I was attempting to settle on a ccw gun I thought it prudent to get first hand feedback. I belong to the MS forum because I grew up in Ms. and I have a lifetime hunting and fishing license for the state. So it's nice to converse with locals as I'd call them.

2. I am a conservative. A Reagan conservative and a staunch Trump supporter despite his blowing the re-election bid.

3. The USA study is going to take place no matter if you or I participate, period! I however saw it as an opportunity to be involved with the direction of the study however and I intend to insure the perspective of legal gun owners is represented! Period and end of story! That is my goal and that is in fact what the college is asking for.

"University of South Alabama faculty researchers have received a $1.8 million federal grant to collaborate with gun owners in devising strategies to reduce injury and death" That is the first sentence folks and the stated goal because and to continue.

"Right now, there is a communication gap between gun owners and users and the people who are working to prevent suicides, homicides and assaults......Project GRIP wants to connect everyone's voices to create solutions that work to prevent deaths and save lives".

They are absolutely correct. There is and has been a communication gap BECAUSE the point of view of gun owners is rarely considered or put at the forefront! Nor are the benefits of gun ownership and it's place in preventing crimes ever stressed by studies or the main stream media. Instead, all we get and hear is that guns are bad and they should be banned. I think every law abiding citizen should learn how to use firearms and then carry one for self protection. I think law abiding gun owners should also be afforded protections under the law when they intervene to stop a crime with their weapon. I truly believe you'd see a drastic reduction in crime with such.

Ok, I've been asked to participate in a prominent fashion as the goal is to have the gun owners help set the agenda and devise questions and topics which should be addressed. So I'd appreciate some help and in getting your opinions. A few responders have already offered some insight and experiences so I'd like to follow up with them, such as herwalther who has dealt with suicides with military personnel. That really hits home for me as my family has a long history of service to our nation. However, if I am wording things improperly then please point out specific instances so I can change my wording or tone? I don't know what some of you are talking about.....

4. My second goal is as the project GRIP purports and desires to accomplish. That is to some how reduce firearm injuries. I think more legal gun owners is one major solution because it is the greatest deterrent to stopping criminals with guns. The issue of suicides is a difficult subject though and I see it as a different subject. However, if you had someone who is suicidal in your family you'd surely remove or lock up your firearm wouldn't you? That IS NOT a solution though as I see it. It is simply a short term precaution. Recognizing and helping people in depression should be the greatest goal as it is a solution. Anyhow, your thoughts are most helpful here.

I have to go now so I do apologize for any typo errors. Again, I appreciate your help.

Thanks,
Ralph

 

[Ohen Cepel]

The method of tracking suicide needs to change. If someone leaves a note and jumps from a building, Gravity is not the cause of death.

Why is it that the firearm has anything to do with it if someone kills themselves?!?!? They committed suicide, it goes in the book as a suicide, NOT a firearms death.

Yes, have had buddies kill themselves with a firearm. They committed suicide, the means changes NOTHING.

BREAK

For the research they may want to look at who is receiving certain medications and if there could be a system to prohibit people on certain drugs from being able to buy a firearm. This has to also be easily lifted when the person has recovered from their issue. IIRC many of the high profile shootings a few years ago were all on various psychotic (not right term) medications and not in a good mental health place but were still able to legally buy their firearms. Think VA Tech and the Aurora movie theaters were like this. However, it can not be a permanent mark on them banning them for life or less people will seek help. I know lots of Vets who won't seek help as they don't want that to prohibit them.

Education goes a long ways, the way society handles itself and portrays violence also.

I would look at the high crime areas and see what can be addressed their as a high % of the firearms deaths are in 10 or less counties. Why and how can you address that? Will go much further than chasing after counties that have 1 or less firearms related deaths in a year.

 

[wiscoaster]

Focusing on the gun as the suicide tool is pointless and the whole point of doing pointless research is to hide and obfuscate the real point. Sorry, but the OP is either deceived himself or is part of the deception. I don't care about his personal bona fides because they're irrelevant. The real research should be to discover why people don't wish to continue their life and then to find some solution to counter that. When the reason is found and when an effective solution is found to counter that then the tools used to implement the death wish are irrelevant because they'll no longer be used for those purposes by the previously affected person.

 

[I6turbo]

Hello Everyone. I'm the OP, btw.
...
2. I am a conservative. A Reagan conservative and a staunch Trump supporter despite his blowing the re-election bid.

HE blew the re-election bid??? You lost me right there, but I'll go on.

3. The USA study is going to take place no matter if you or I participate, period! I however saw it as an opportunity to be involved with the direction of the study however and I intend to insure the perspective of legal gun owners is represented! Period and end of story! That is my goal and that is in fact what the college is asking for.

"University of South Alabama faculty researchers have received a $1.8 million federal grant to collaborate with gun owners in devising strategies to reduce injury and death" That is the first sentence folks and the stated goal because and to continue.

"Right now, there is a communication gap between gun owners and users and the people who are working to prevent suicides, homicides and assaults......Project GRIP wants to connect everyone's voices to create solutions that work to prevent deaths and save lives".

I don't think anyone is doubting YOUR intentions and integrity (I know I'm not). I think the skepticism is, What is the source of the grant money and what is the true objective at the end of the broader project? Just because someone is wanting to understand more about the views of gun owners - the main voting group that has held the gun controllers back for decades - doesn't mean that whoever plans to make use of this study has intentions that are aligned with gun owners. They may just be trying to understand more about their enemy, the same kind of thing that is behind CDC studies and other "research" related to "gun violence" While this type of study isn't NECESSARILY advocacy, things like this are almost always the result of someone somewhere trying to promote an agenda. They have a pre-determined outcome in mind. Now, they just need some government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded data points to validate their anti-gun agenda. And they need those points to resonate with their enemies and help change their hearts and minds.

I'm just always very skeptical - based upon decades of history - of who's agenda is to be promoted whenever I see one of these "studies," "fact-checkers," "experts," etc. telling us that they've done the research and "the science" says they have figured out how to solve society's problems.