{"id":115756,"date":"2026-03-20T15:12:11","date_gmt":"2026-03-20T20:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=115756"},"modified":"2026-03-20T15:12:11","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T20:12:11","slug":"115756","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=115756","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Another Day Ending in Y: JAMA Publishes Still More Anti-Gun Agitprop Presented as \u2018Research.\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n

No one who truly values their Second Amendment rights should be worried that University of Michigan psychiatry professor\u00a0Brian M. Hicks, PhD<\/span><\/a>, is gaining fame and making money by passing off anti-gun propaganda as legitimate research, right? After all, it\u2019s a free country. Professor Hicks can make a dollar and a name for himself however he sees fit, can\u2019t he?<\/p>\n

If the good professor twists some questionable data and bizarre opinions together and then calls it all legitimate research, that shouldn\u2019t matter, should it?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, if a peer-reviewed medical journal founded in 1883, which is published 48 times a year and read by physicians across the country and around the globe, takes Professor Hicks\u2019 scribbles and calls them actual research without labeling his work as opinion or anti-gun agitprop, that\u2019s not a problem either, is it?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Wrong.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Journal of the American Medical Association \u2014\u00a0<\/em>JAMA<\/span><\/a>\u00a0for short \u2014 has published more than a few of Professor Hicks\u2019 tall tales and has never once labeled them accurately. Rather than calling them opinion pieces, JAMA publishes his work as legitimate research. Obviously, they\u2019ve never investigated the good professor or even looked at his social media to insure fairness and accuracy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, friends,\u00a0we<\/em>\u00a0have.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s little doubt that the good professor is publishing anti-gun rubbish, which JAMA then passes off to its readers as legitimate research. That alone is a massive red flag, or at least it should be.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Take a look at Professor Hicks\u2019 latest work, which was published on St. Patrick\u2019s Day: \u201cPrevalence of Thoughts of Shooting Others Among US Adults.\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0As Hicks wrote . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

This study\u2019s findings suggest that a small but nontrivial percentage of people in the US think about shooting others.<\/em><\/p>\n

He used a host of previously published works to form this opinion, which included data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (which has\u00a0its own anti-gun history<\/a>).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Hicks, of course, included in his article a call for more gun control laws, as he does in all of his anti-gun writings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Prevention efforts are needed to address gun violence risk among those with and without access to firearms. \u2026 Resolving the risk of gun violence will require understanding nuanced contextual, social, and psychological influences and the difficult work of building bridges across many stakeholders.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"Professor
Professor Brian M. Hicks<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
Then There\u2019s His Social Media\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/h5>\n

Even a brief look at\u00a0Professor Hicks\u2019\u00a0<\/span>X account<\/span><\/a>\u00a0shows he is very anti-gun. His posts should have been examined by JAMA, at least once.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n