Agenda Once More Bleeds Through in Latest National Gun Policy Survey

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The results are in! Our new National Survey of Gun Policy reveals that Americans broadly agree on many gun violence prevention policies,” Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions exclaims on X.com. “Check out the 2025 survey findings.”

They present those over at their website, where we find the Center is part of the “Bloomberg School of Public Health,” as in anti-gun (except for the government and his law-skirting security team) billionaire Michael Bloomberg. The use of the pejorative term “gun violence” to stigmatize the inanimate object instead of the willful human aggressor is our first clue as to what they mean by “solutions” and “prevention.”

We’re told it’s a “nationally representative survey” which “found wide support for gun violence prevention policies across political lines and among both gun owners and non-owners.” We’re told they’ve been doing this since 2013.  What we’re not told is any meaningful metric to prove any of their “solutions” have prevented anything except citizens being able to exercise a supposedly unalienable right with a government mandate that it “shall not be infringed.”

The questions, asked of “2,977 respondents, 1,001 gun owners and 1,976 non-gun owners and 959 Republicans and 1,419 Democrats” 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 – as opposed to what they’ve been told by the overwhelmingly prohibition-supporting media, and by the Democrat Party.

Why, if it’s “representative,” 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’t overlook that just because someone is a gun owner doesn’t automatically put them in the pro-Second Amendment camp, as the Fudds comprising Giffords’ “Gun Owners for Safety” amply demonstrate.

But on to the claims…

We’re told that “74% of Americans support laws that require a person to lock up the guns in their home when not in use.”  What they don’t tell us, and presumably didn’t 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’ll be on you before you can load your gun. We’ve also seen cases where trained children have successfully defended themselves against intruders, and cases where they could not, with tragically outrageous results. It would also be helpful to see what percentage of homes where untrained children access unsecured guns include criminal residents.

“Only 24% of Americans support allowing a person to carry a loaded firearm in public, without obtaining a permit or license,” the survey report declares, going on to justify further infringements in “sensitive locations such as polling places, protests, or establishments that serve alcohol.” What it does not declare is that “ there are no documented instances of people being shot at polling places in the United States in recent history,” that peaceable armed rallies are the norm (it’s those anti-gun “vigils” 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 “terrorists” and “enemy combatants,” and that an untold number of gun owners have both gun safes and liquor cabinets and the two coexist just fine.

“Permissive open and concealed carry laws … have been shown to increase gun violence,” the Center then lies. They did it before, when the effects of Ohio passing permitless carry did not match the hysterical “blood in the streets” predictions, and claimed “firearm assaults rose about 10% in states that relaxed restrictions on concealed carry weapons.”

Not by citizens who weren’t “prohibited persons” it didn’t. But conflating correlation with causation is an old trick prohibitionists use on those who don’t know they’re being conned. Which doesn’t really seem to be the case with Americans, as it’s now the norm in the majority of states, 29 at last count.

“72% of Americans support requiring a person to obtain a license from a local law enforcement agency before buying a gun,” 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,  and built-in registration so if it changes its mind, it knows just where to go to confiscate guns.

“72% 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,” the Center continues.

Sure, like we’ve seen has worked so well in all the Democrat cities that spend tax plunder on avoiding the reality that  “68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.”

Tell it to prosecutors George Gascón and Pamela Price, too permissive even for urban California Democrats, and then tell us again how “representative” Americans overwhelmingly agree with George Soros’ picks.

“77% 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,” the Center then asserts, without addressing what should be a key concern: They haven’t been proven to be at risk of anything and afforded full due process. And if the person is a danger, removing his guns — but not him — ignores the reality that releasing such a person back into society puts everyone else at risk, and it makes a much sense as opening a tiger’s cage. That and the majority of criminals have no problem obtaining a gun through other than “legal” channels.

Despite that, the Center says “Americans” overwhelmingly want to extend who can initiate gun confiscations to “clinicians” (77%– no HIPAA Privacy Rule violations there, right?), and “law enforcement” (76%– no police state fears there, either?).

And not to overlook a pool of  citizens to disarm, the survey concludes a whopping “82% of Americans support prohibiting a person subject to a temporary domestic violence protection order from having a gun for the duration of the order.” 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.

It’s truly an Alice in Wonderland absurdity, illustrated by the Queen of Hearts ordering “Sentence first — verdict afterwards.” And the Johns Hopkins gun-grabbers want that codified into law.

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 “universal background checks,” “assault weapon bans,” “ghost gun” bans, no carry/”gun-free” zones, “waiting periods,” and more, culminating in no guns.

Just look at their “co-director,” Josh Horwitz, a career gun prohibitionist ostensibly leading a team of “scientists” (and talk about Astroturf: just look at all those people on the payroll). I’ve had run-ins with this character before, when he ganged up on me with half-a-dozen antis to argue for Virginia Tech disarmament in The New York Times (but comment posters overwhelmingly agreed they failed), when his now defunct Coalition to Stop Gun Violence actually lied about me, when CSGV added anti-white racism to misogyny, and plenty more.

Be aware that before they called themselves CSGV, they were the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. That’s what they still want and where they’re going with this, and it won’t end there.

Despite lying denials to the contrary, yes, of course they’re talking about taking your guns. That’s always been the agenda.

Johns Hopkins has once more beclowned itself as a purveyor of agendized “junk science,” and provides yet another object lesson in why “research” by gunquacks needs to continually be exposed for the wholesale hysteria-inducing fraud that it is.

We’ll end with Josh engaging in more of it, trying to convince the ignorant that “gun violence” is a “critical public health issue.” If that’s the case, why are “outbreaks” for the most part limited to “a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them”? Why haven’t 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?

Umbrella Sparks False Shooter Panic at University of South Carolina

Spanberger’s Attacks on 2nd Amendment Should Galvanize Gun Owners to Unite Against Her

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.