{"id":111815,"date":"2025-08-26T19:14:28","date_gmt":"2025-08-27T00:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=111815"},"modified":"2025-08-26T19:14:28","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T00:14:28","slug":"111815","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=111815","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

If we can\u2019t believe prohibitionist gunquacks, who can we believe?<\/em><\/p>\n

Agenda Once More Bleeds Through in Latest National Gun Policy Survey<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

They left out \u201cconfiscation.\u201d If they ever get these done and they\u2019ll always be back for more. (Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions\/Facebook)<\/p>\n

U.S.A. \u2013<\/strong>\u00a0-(Ammoland.com<\/a>)-\u00a0\u201cThe results are in! Our new National Survey of Gun Policy reveals that Americans broadly agree on many gun violence prevention policies,\u201d Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions exclaims on\u00a0X.com<\/a>. \u201cCheck out the 2025 survey findings.\u201d<\/p>\n

They present those\u00a0over at their website<\/a>, where we find the Center is part of the \u201cBloomberg School of Public Health,\u201d as in anti-gun (except for the government and\u00a0his law-skirting security team<\/a>) billionaire Michael Bloomberg. The use of the pejorative term \u201cgun violence\u201d to stigmatize the inanimate object instead of the willful human aggressor is our first clue as to what they mean by \u201csolutions\u201d and \u201cprevention.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
We\u2019re told it\u2019s a \u201cnationally representative survey\u201d which \u201cfound wide support for gun violence prevention policies across political lines and among both gun owners and non-owners.\u201d We\u2019re told they\u2019ve been doing this since 2013. \u00a0What we\u2019re not told is any meaningful metric to prove any of their \u201csolutions\u201d have prevented anything except citizens being able to exercise a supposedly unalienable right with a government mandate that it \u201cshall not be infringed.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The questions, asked of \u201c2,977 respondents, 1,001 gun owners and 1,976 non-gun owners and 959 Republicans and 1,419 Democrats\u201d need to be viewed with two further caveats: The Bloombergians make no attempt on this page to share how the questions were worded (because doing so differently could produce different results), or to establish actual knowledge the respondents had \u2013 as opposed to what they\u2019ve been told by the overwhelmingly prohibition-supporting media, and by the Democrat Party.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why, if it\u2019s \u201crepresentative,\u201d does the survey include significantly more Democrats than Republicans, especially after the popular and electoral victories Second Amendment-proclaiming Donald Trump attained over gun prohibitionist Kamala Harris? And don\u2019t overlook that just because someone is a gun owner doesn\u2019t automatically put them in the pro-Second Amendment camp, as the Fudds comprising Giffords\u2019 \u201cGun Owners for Safety<\/a>\u201d amply demonstrate.<\/p>\n

But on to the claims\u2026<\/h3>\n

We\u2019re told that \u201c74% of Americans support laws that require a person to lock up the guns in their home when not in use.\u201d\u00a0 What they don\u2019t tell us, and presumably didn\u2019t tell the respondents, is that they also want ammunition locked separately from firearms, meaning if quick access is needed to defend against an intruder, he\u2019ll be on you before you can load your gun. We\u2019ve also seen cases where trained children have successfully\u00a0defended themselves against intruders<\/a>, and cases where they could not, with\u00a0tragically outrageous results<\/a>. It would also be helpful to see what percentage of homes where untrained children access unsecured guns include criminal residents.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cOnly 24% of Americans support allowing a person to carry a loaded firearm in public, without obtaining a permit or license,\u201d the survey report declares, going on to justify further infringements in \u201csensitive locations such as polling places, protests, or establishments that serve alcohol.\u201d What it does not declare is that \u201c there are no documented instances of people being shot at polling places in the United States in recent history,\u201d that\u00a0peaceable armed rallies<\/a>\u00a0are the norm (it\u2019s those anti-gun \u201cvigils\u201d that seem to be lethal), that it is the gun controllers who demand a violent response to treat armed Americans exercising the First and Second Amendments as\u00a0\u201cterrorists\u201d and \u201cenemy combatants,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and that an untold number of gun owners have both gun safes and liquor cabinets and the two coexist just fine.<\/p>\n

\u201cPermissive open and concealed carry laws \u2026 have been shown to increase gun violence,\u201d the Center then lies. They did it before, when the effects of Ohio passing permitless carry did not match the hysterical\u00a0\u201cblood in the streets\u201d predictions<\/a>, and claimed \u201cfirearm assaults rose about 10% in states that relaxed restrictions on concealed carry weapons.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not by citizens who weren\u2019t \u201cprohibited persons\u201d it didn\u2019t. But conflating correlation with causation is an old trick prohibitionists use on those who don\u2019t know they\u2019re being conned. Which doesn\u2019t really seem to be the case with Americans, as it\u2019s now the norm in the majority of states,\u00a029 at last count<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201c72% of Americans support requiring a person to obtain a license from a local law enforcement agency before buying a gun,\u201d the Center then insists. Just like the Founders intended when they ratified the Bill of Rights, right? Prior restraint on a right by a government which has no legitimate Constitutional authority to mandate it, \u00a0and built-in registration so if it changes its mind, it knows just where to go to confiscate guns.<\/p>\n

\u201c72% of Americans support funding community-based gun violence prevention programs that provide outreach, conflict mediation, and social support for those at high risk of gun violence,\u201d the Center continues.<\/p>\n

Sure, like we\u2019ve seen has worked so well in all the Democrat cities that spend tax plunder on avoiding\u00a0the reality that\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0\u201c68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tell it to prosecutors\u00a0George Gasc\u00f3n and Pamela Price<\/a>, too permissive even for urban California Democrats, and then tell us again how \u201crepresentative\u201d Americans overwhelmingly agree with George Soros\u2019 picks.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201c77% of Americans support allowing family members to ask the court to temporarily remove guns from a relative who is at risk of harming themselves or others,\u201d the Center then asserts, without addressing what should be a key concern: They haven\u2019t been proven to be at risk of anything and afforded full due process. And if the person\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0a danger, removing his guns \u2014 but not him \u2014 ignores the reality that releasing such a person back into society puts everyone else at risk, and it makes a much sense as\u00a0opening a tiger\u2019s cage<\/a>. That and the majority of criminals have\u00a0no problem obtaining a gun<\/a>\u00a0through other than \u201clegal\u201d channels.<\/p>\n

Despite that, the Center says \u201cAmericans\u201d overwhelmingly want to extend who can initiate gun confiscations to \u201cclinicians\u201d (77%\u2013 no HIPAA Privacy Rule violations there, right?), and \u201claw enforcement\u201d (76%\u2013 no police state fears there, either?).<\/strong><\/p>\n

And not to overlook a pool of\u00a0 citizens to disarm, the survey concludes a whopping \u201c82% of Americans support prohibiting a person subject to a temporary domestic violence protection order from having a gun for the duration of the order.\u201d Without even being charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one, and with the motives of the initiating spouse not even examined for common factors in divorce like jealousy, spite, hatred, jockeying for financial settlements, influencing the child custody process, etc.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s truly an\u00a0Alice in Wonderland<\/em>\u00a0absurdity, illustrated by the\u00a0Queen of Hearts<\/a>\u00a0ordering \u201cSentence first \u2014 verdict afterwards.\u201d And the Johns Hopkins gun-grabbers want that codified into law.<\/h3>\n

That and more. These are just the citizen disarmament edicts they listed in this survey. If they were ever achieved, there would be a new list, because they also want \u201cuniversal background checks,\u201d \u201cassault weapon bans,\u201d \u201cghost gun\u201d bans, no carry\/\u201dgun-free\u201d zones, \u201cwaiting periods,\u201d and more, culminating in no guns.<\/p>\n

Just look at their \u201cco-director,\u201d Josh Horwitz, a career gun prohibitionist ostensibly leading a team of \u201cscientists\u201d (and talk about Astroturf: just look at all those people on the payroll). I\u2019ve had run-ins with this character before, when he ganged up on me with half-a-dozen antis to\u00a0argue for Virginia Tech disarmament<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0The New York Times<\/em>\u00a0(but comment posters overwhelmingly agreed they failed), when his now defunct Coalition to Stop Gun Violence actually\u00a0lied about me<\/a>, when CSGV added\u00a0anti-white racism<\/a>\u00a0to misogyny, and\u00a0plenty more<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Be aware that before they called themselves CSGV, they were the\u00a0National Coalition to Ban Handguns<\/a>. That\u2019s what they still want and where they\u2019re going with this, and it won\u2019t end there.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite lying denials to the contrary, yes, of course they\u2019re talking about taking your guns.\u00a0That\u2019s always been the agenda<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Johns Hopkins has once more beclowned itself as a purveyor of agendized \u201cjunk science,\u201d and provides yet another object lesson in why \u201cresearch\u201d by\u00a0gunquacks<\/a>\u00a0needs to continually be exposed for the wholesale hysteria-inducing fraud that it is.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ll end with Josh engaging in more of it, trying to convince the ignorant that \u201cgun violence\u201d is a \u201ccritical public health issue.\u201d If that\u2019s the case, why are \u201coutbreaks\u201d for the most part limited to \u201ca small set of urban areas<\/a>, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them\u201d? Why haven\u2019t you, I, and the millions of gun ownership advocates who have proven ourselves on the whole to be the most peaceable population on the planet caught the bug?<\/strong><\/p>\n