An assistant professor at a liberal east coast university has found himself in the crosshairs of progressives after his own research confirmed the conclusion reached by an Obama-era federal agency.
In response to the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Barack Obama asked for a report on gun violence.
The 2013 study was ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. It found that “defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," the study found, "with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
That was later confirmed by the 2021 National Firearms Survey commissioned by Georgetown University political economist William English.
It was based on a representative sample of 54,000 U.S. adults, making it the largest, most extensive study of its kind.
It suggested that firearms are used defensively approximately 1.67 million times annually, and that "in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired."
A 2022 update conducted that both AR-15-style rifles and so-called "high capacity" magazines — those capable of holding more than 10 rounds — are commonly owned by the public and used for lawful purposes.
This is an important finding, given that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this is the standard for determining what weapons are covered under the Second Amendment.
Since its publication, English’s report has been used by courts and Second Amendment support groups. But last month it came under fire by The New York Times.
The newspaper found it disturbing that in addition to supervising the survey, English was himself a gun enthusiast who has served as an expert witness in trials.
“"Court records reveal that Dr. English served as an expert for pro-gun litigants in at least four lawsuits from 2018 to 2020, often charging $250 to $350 an hour," The Times reported.
"In a 2019 deposition in one case, Dr. English expressed a personal interest in guns that included sports shooting, hunting and a lifetime N.R.A. membership.
"He also said he had once brandished a gun to scare off an intruder at his home."
So instead of responding to the study’s findings, The Times attacks its author. it’s somehow corrupt that someone with a knowledge of firearms would commission a survey on defensive gun use.
Does The Times think an expert in needlepoint might have been a better choice to supervise the work?
English fired back with his own Wall Street Journal column, in which he argued that the newspaper’s only goal was to silence him.
"The survey outraged gun-control advocates, who believed it could hurt them in court," he wrote. "They proceeded to disparage me professionally and tried to delay the progress of my research without any scientific basis."
English concluded that if "these reporters want to uncover a well-funded, ideologically motivated plot to undermine objective firearms research, they need only look in the mirror."
That was confirmed yesterday in another New York Times opinion piece, this one written by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, headlined, "The First Amendment Is Out of Control."
Wu argued that the First Amendment’s speech protections were written long before the era of electronic communications on social media was envisioned, and it now "has become harder for the government to protect its citizens."
"The judiciary needs to realize that the First Amendment is spinning out of control," wrote Wu, an Obama administration official in an earlier life. "It is beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens."
And that sort of thinking is what’s most frightening.
The goal of any news organization should be the free flow of information in defense of the First Amendment — no matter what their editorial stance.
Otherwise, the state becomes the final arbiter of the truth. And we see that happening every day when the White House discredits videos of the president wandering aimlessly or freezing while staring out into space in mid-sentence as "cheap fakes."
In other words, "don’t believe your lying eyes, just listen to what we tell you."
Or, as novelist George Orwell put it, "the Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
The New York Times and other legacy media outlets have become the mouthpiece of the Party. And we can’t let them get away with it.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.