The University of Wyoming may well be a unique place in the university landscape. While many are tripping over themselves to advance Democrat talking points as if they’re established facts, UW has kicked off something more important.
In 2019, more Americans beat or stabbed somebody to death than murdered somebody with a rifle.
So, the widespread angst over “assault rifles” is just one example of an inaccuracy that can be cleared up with some research, a University of Wyoming law professor said.
Moreover, bringing multiple points of view to the table for discussions and research regarding guns and gun control will help keep misconceptions from spreading to begin with, Professor George Mocsary told Cowboy State Daily.
“Folks in the field who come at it from different directions don’t talk to each other,” he said. “Journalists without subject matter expertise will sometimes oversimplify things. Lots of people get left out and voices get ignored.”
Mocsary hopes to rectify that. He recently founded the Firearms Research Center through UW’s College of Law. He hopes to garner information from gun rights and gun control advocacy groups – as well as experts in social sciences, health, law and other fields.
“We want to bring clarity to the topic by involving as many stakeholders as we can,” he said.
This is especially important right now.
Following the wake of the Michigan State shooting, a lot of nonsense is going to get thrown around. Many who have loud voices and little knowledge are screaming about AR-15s.
That means there’s most definitely a place for the Firearms Research Center.
However, I suspect that since the interest here is actual facts, rather than advancing gun control by any means possible, it won’t be popular with the media that so desperately needs a dose of sanity.
Why? What justification will there be? Funding.
You see, because the Firearms Research Center isn’t vehemently anti-gun, they’ll take money from gun companies. Moscary vows that he won’t allow conditions to color the content produced by the center, but that’ll still be enough to justify dismissal by those who support gun control.
Which is hilarious because they’ll tout research by anti-gun group-funded studies as if they’re gospel facts.
Look, science is what it is. If the methodology Moscary uses is bad, call him or his colleagues on it. If it’s not, then it’s time to accept the findings and move on until we find another study with a solid methodology that contradicts it. At that point, we start delving into why that disconnect exists.
But don’t expect that to actually happen. The anti-gun side will accept nothing that doesn’t gel with their worldview.
Still, my hope is that there are enough honest journalists out there that will look to the Firearms Research Center for some hard and fast facts on guns rather than the propaganda produced by groups like Giffords and Bloomberg.
I won’t hold my breath, but it sure would be a welcome change of pace, wouldn’t it?