Anti-Gun Research Hack, Too Smart to Figure Himself Out

Bogus Research
Anti-Gun Research Hack, Too Smart to Figure Himself Out

USA – -( I’ve often pondered the liberal mind. It’s tough to do, and honestly, I’m not sure I’ll ever figure it out. For example, how does a guy like Leonardo DiCaprio stand up in front of a crowd and lecture the attendees about their role in global warming (hoax) with a straight face? Here’s what he said to a large gathering in 2015 of the Global Citizen Festival:

“We are running out of time, and it is now incumbent upon all of us, all of you, activists, young and old, to please get involved. Because the environment and the fight for the world’s poor are inherently linked. The planet can no longer wait, the underprivileged can no longer be ignored. This is truly our moment for action. Please take action.”

While I could quickly go several different directions with this, such as the name of the festival itself, I won’t. I’ll stay focused on why I used this quote, in the first place. The “celebration” was held in Central Park in New York City on September 26, 2015, and presumably, DiCaprio took a huge jet airplane, or more likely a smaller and less environmentally friendly private jet to get to the said festival. I’m sure when he arrived at the local airport where those private jets land, he didn’t hop in an Uber ride with 10 other ride-sharers either.

Boston University’s School of Public Health’s Michael Siege
Boston University’s School of Public Health’s Michael Siege

I’ll also assume that DiCaprio didn’t take gobs of his Hollywood earned money and start giving it to the “world’s poor” and “the underprivileged” he spoke about during his lecture. Nope, like the rest of the left coast liberals, DiCaprio isn’t about to give up his humongous yachting experiences, private jets, and gas-guzzling SUV lifestyle any time soon and I don’t expect him to give away his (well-earned) riches.

He’s just a blowhard, deal with it.

While getting into the heads of any liberal is tough enough, add the gun-grabber to the mix, and you're in uncharted territory. Recently, a study commissioned by Boston University’s School of Public Health’s Michael Siegel and published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine provided results that read like a gun banner wish list right out of the pocket of billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Not surprising except for one notable quote from Siegel himself during an interview about his results:

“Although I completely understand the desire to ban assault weapons, I just don’t see empirical evidence that such bans have any substantial impact on homicide rates. These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality.”

Of course, while his study praised so-called red flag laws and universal background checks as effective in reducing violence, I took note of his opening sentence. Siegel claims to “completely understand the desire to ban assault weapons” in the same statement in which he acknowledged such bans to be ineffective. WAT? So riddle me this: How can an educated man, (and he is an educated man), understand “the desire to ban” something that he has found will not provide the “desired” results?

It would seem to me that an intellectually honest educated man without an agenda would use this opportunity to educate those not as intelligent as he.

In other words, the next time someone screeches their “desire to ban assault weapons” in his presence, he would take the opportunity to fill that person in on his findings and explain to that person that Americans have a right to bear arms and that person's “desires” come from being misinformed. He would continue that it is illogical to “desire to ban” something that is not a problem and advise that person to focus on the things that can actually reduce crime, such as working towards eliminating gang violence in Democrat-controlled urban environs.

If anyone were to ever accuse him (Siegel) of wanting to take away Americans guns, he would vehemently deny it and use his own study as proof. The problem is, he won’t, and he can’t, because you see, Siegel “completely understands the desire to ban assault weapons” even in the face of his own findings and his own words – that doing so has no impact on anything.

It seems to me Siegel’s slip of the tongue there just confirms his enlistment as a soldier of the army involved in the left's war on our right to bear arms. I’ll use that fact to choose not to believe anything that comes from his studies as they pertain to my right to bear arms.

About Mark WaltersMark Walters

Mark Walters is the host of two nationally syndicated radio broadcasts, Armed American Radio and Armed American Radio's Daily Defense with Mark Walters. He is the Second Amendment Foundations 2015 Gun Rights Defender of the Year award recipient and co-author of two books, Lessons from Armed America with Kathy Jackson (Whitefeather Press) and Lessons from UnArmed America with Rob Pincus (Whitefeather Press)


  • 13 thoughts on “Anti-Gun Research Hack, Too Smart to Figure Himself Out

    1. Leo DiCrappio?? Oh yeah, I’m really going to listen to what a damnocrat who doesen’t bathe but once or twice a month has to say. Just another hollyweirdo.

    2. The writer from the Boston University’s School of Public Health suffers from grant whore syndrome. It is a consequence of the “publish or perish” imperative in modern academia. However, without funding one cannot access all the resources needed to research anything to “accepted” standards (also known as the “pay the rent” and “eat” corollaries). Hence the need to convince a patron your research will prove their point even if you, in moments of lucid clarity and honesty, don’t personally support it.

    3. What this guy “completely understands” is the desire of leftists to get those guns banned so that leftists and their supporters can turn the rest of the population into slaves. That’s harder to do when your potential victims are armed, and very dangerous for leftists.

    4. It has long been settled this is not about gun control – correctly this is about “control” of one ideology over another. The “control” crowd, in part, will not be satisfied until it obtains total gun confiscation. This is merely one of their goals, which they now finally openly admit. They also advocate programs which will bankrupt America as they care less, (Green New Deal for example), in that they need this chaos in order for their socialistic form of mayhem to come to power. Ironic however, only a strong economy “can support” such nonsense. Remember socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money. So in essence, their goal actually destroys itself, sadly taking America down with it!

      The conflicting ideology advocates less “control”, which equates to less government overreach, less chilling of Constitutional Rights, less regulation, spend less, live within budget, pay down debt, stop waste and fraud, and most importantly Lady Justice is once again blindfolded, (no more rules for one class and different set for another).

      Yes, two conflicting ideologies. One foreign to our Republic…you decide!

    5. It really hurts your credibility when you start off stating something incorrect: Climate change is not a hoax. It’s verifiably happening, humans are causing it and anyone denying it is falling for oil, coal and gas industry propaganda.

      1. Ah Robert, you started out with something that MIGHT be correct (that there is climate change) and then went completely off the rails by asserting that it IS caused by humans, something you cannot prove.

        I eagerly look forward to filling up my car with non-ethanol, 92 octane gas and the resultant 4 mpg increase associated with that fill up.

        Carry on, tin foil hats on sale on isle 2.

      2. @Robert, Of course it is a hoax! The hacked and then published memos from one “researcher” to another “researcher” suggesting that they need to modify the data because the data does not support their predictive models pretty much proves that the hoax was designed to get more and larger research grants.

      3. @ Robert Yawn, the same story only a different day. The climate changes from time to time and has for so many years. As far back as records go, there is proof of this unless you would find a profit in climate change. Look at Al Gore he has made a fortune telling this same falsehood. A friend of mine, a scientist that worked as a meteorologist for over thirty years does not subscribe to this, in fact he has said that one time in our far past there was palm trees in the northern part of the world. Temps change and liers make money off of it. Get real.

    Leave a Comment 13 Comments