Gun Control Advocates are Paying for Fake Studies, Because FACTS Don’t Support Gun Control

Dream vs Reality
Gun Control Advocates are Paying for Fake Studies, Because FACTS Don't Support Gun Control
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington, DC – -( On January 8th, 2013, the Obama Administration met with 23 large foundations to organize a push for national gun control. They included such organizations as the Open Society Institute, the McCormick Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the California Endowment.

As one participant said: “There’s only one reason why you get a bunch of deep-pocketed funders on the phone.”

In 2012, Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $250 million to Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health to hire new professors, many whose primary objective is to do expanding research on gun violence.

President Obama has also been directing federal government funds towards gun control projects. Still other funds are being set up, such as the Fund for a Safer Future, which has $16 million to fund gun control research and is one of the many gun control projects being partially funded George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Recently, the MacArthur foundation has also been given a large million dollar grant. The public health research being funded is very flawed (e.g., see the discussion here on Kellermann).

Who is fighting against this flood of bogus research?

The Crime Prevention Research Center.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes.

But they do not have deep pocket downers funding this important research, like the gun banners and their wealthy freedom hating supporters. All the CPRC has is individuals like you and me, who are willing to put our hard earned dollars behind this battle for the truth and freedom.

The Crime Prevention Research Center can do the job if you pitch in to help, with as much or as little as you can afford. Donate here:

Here is an update on the current fundraising battle.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is currently the most successful campaign in the education section on Indiegogo and has over double the number of funders compared to the rest of the trending education campaigns.  The campaign is the 3rd trending campaign in the education section and has been consistently moving up over the last three weeks.

Additionally the campaign has recently received at least $15,000 in personal checks that did not go through Indiegogo , to add to the crowd funding contributions of $20,001, for a total of $35,001 to date.

However, we still have a significant amount of money to make before we reach our goal and, since I know that this campaign appeals to the patriots at AmmoLand. Thank you for sharing this information with your readers.

As an inspirational example the Gosnell campaign, has shown that the conservative spirit is strong among the masses and, with gun control advocates like Bloomberg pouring money into skewed research, this campaign is more important than ever.


Rebekah Meinecke Riley
Director of Communications
Crime Prevention Research Center
[email protected]
  • 14 thoughts on “Gun Control Advocates are Paying for Fake Studies, Because FACTS Don’t Support Gun Control

    1. No one will ever be able to convince gun nuts of facts they don’t want to hear…no source can be trusted but … The NRA? Yeah, that makes sense. They don’t have a dog in the race or anything — be that as it may, here’s a great run-down that pretty much destroys most gun-nut (non-)arguments. Happy reading! Be sure to share with friends and have a nice day!

      1. The researchers who have tried to debunk the real researchers have been exposed and debunked thoroughly.

        A well known anti gun group joiner and anti gun donor supporting, a “researcher,” who is published only with no peer review, in a well known anti gun medical journal, tried to attack another researcher’s work gun issues.

        The latter, actually a criminologist whose work is seen as impeccable and award wining by OTHER criminologists, who has no affiliations by membership or financial support with any pro gun rights persons or groups, and belongs to the ACLU, a decidedly anti gun liberal organization, and who himself was anti gun before he began his research, thinking he would find negative gun information, has had lie after lie told about him and about his work.

        He has a massive CV of accomplishments, is an award winner as a researcher in his field, and should be politically and philosophically against private gun ownership but is not because of what he found in his research.

        Even other researchers that do not like what he found concede to and admire the quality of him methods.

        But you want to believe otherwise.

        It’s the anti gun researchers that are bought and paid for liars.

    2. The Regime and it’s Gun Control Supporters know that when the Facts don’t fit the Agenda, you hire Big Named Experts to come up with the Facts that you want. Of Course the bigger the Named Experts and their Facts, the more the People (Subjects) will believe those Facts. When you are faced with the No Win Situation, you Always re-write the rules so that you WIN!

    3. Don’t be too upset with “Patrick Kelly”. He, she, or it is probably just an employee paid to post this stuff.

      Google “Jersey City mayor wants to ‘shape the dialogue’ on gun control” and read the comments.

      See the comment by “kellypat” that’s a word-for-word copy of the comment here. I bet there’s quite a few other places this anti-freedom comment of the day got copied and pasted to.

    4. It literally amazes me how stupid liberals like Patrick Kelly can be to think any new laws will affect the criminals that are killing people! Criminals don’t abide by the law and law-abiding citizens aren’t the issue here. Society just needs to punish the criminals that continue breaking the existing laws and leave the law-abiding citizens be. The law-abiding citizens are only trying to protect their families and their freedom and not allow a tyrannical government to take those freedoms away.

    5. VT Patriot is absolutely correct, there are no free disarmed populations, and the body counts are much higher in the “gun free” countries, just as they are higher in “gun-free” zones here. Note his reference to Chicago, true absolutely. Nearly every high body count event happened in a “gun-free” zone. Boston banned guns and they turned to bombs.

      Jim has it right, too, that the heroic Democratic leaders would tell the truth always. I recall that last few truths were “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” and “If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance”. The list goes on and on and on…

    6. Nahhhh, I am sure all the anti-gun stuff must be true. After all, would our heroic Democrat leaders in the white house and Congress lie to us. Would our hardworking law compliant Attorney General pick and choose what to enforce; make decisions on who or NOT to go after based on race, and that little puff over the Mexican gun running though our government. These people in our government would never lie nor would their supporters.

    7. @Patrick Kelly, You have apparently read all of bloomburgs publications. Do a little research, historical research, and you’ll find that every country that has banned the citizens from owning weapons (Germany, USSR, China, No Korea – – – has given up their rights to any semblance of freedom. You children coming home in body bags idea is not perpetrated by me or the approx 90 million legal gun owners.
      If you live in Chicago, you would realize that the “killing of children daily” is happening on the streets of gang run neighborhoods. Yet, almost no-one in Chicago is allowed to OWN a firearm. How do you explain that?

    8. @Patrick Kelly, if it was for people like me and the NRA you would be living in a country like England which is Gun Free with a hell of a lot higher crime rate than we have. So what’s your point that less guns = less crime? The facts are you’ve been lied to, less guns = higher crime. Just look at every Country that is Gun Free, they all have a higher violent crime rate than we do. The Facts, More Guns = Less Crime.

    9. Wow! @patrickkelly- paranoid and delusional. You worry about your children coming home from the movies in body bags? Wow! Get a life. Gun violence had decreased by 50% in 20 years, that’s not “slightly” by anybody’s standard.“Whose going to protect the public from the armed citizenry?” Why would you need protection from law abiding citizens????? Go see a shrink, take the meds he gives you and don’t go outside. Please.

    10. Number of children killed by guns last year, 235. Number of kids killed by accidental poisoning, 26,000… One of those numbers is , the other is laughable. I think your concentrating on the wrong one, though I doubt you actually care about safety.

    11. @Patrick Kelly – The blood of gunshot victims is on the hands of those who pulled the triggers, not the NRA and law abiding gun owners! If you understand that, no explanation is necessary. If you don’t, no explanation is possible!

    12. 75-Adults and 8-Children killed by guns in the US yesterday. And Richard says that because instances of gun violence has come down from 90-deaths a day means everyone should run out and buy a gun? Richard conveniently overlooks all the other countries who have brought instances of gun violence along with other types of violence down to almost nothing by placing heavy restrictions on guns? Even a second grader could figure that the answer to gun violence in America is anything but more unrestricted guns. The NRA has the blood of America’s children on its hands and those who value guns more than children have no legitimate right to call themselves Americans because of the threat people who think like you pose to the great country. America doesn’t need an armed citizenry to protect the public for the simple reason that allowing so many unrestricted guns on our streets raises the questions of; “Whose going to protect the public from the armed citizenry?” If that’s the best argument you can come up with Richard to support the idea of turning America into an armed camp where no one is truly safe, then that in itself says you are trying to defend something that is simply indefensible even if gun violence has decreased slightly for many reasons the least of which is more guns. If people who think like you and the NRA were not around during the last 21-years you speak of, we would probably be living in a gun-free America by now. One where you can send you kids to school or to the movies without worrying if they will be returned in body bags.

    Leave a Comment 14 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *