The Twisting of ‘Public Health’ to Embrace Gun Control

I was never particularly comfortable with a supposed “public health” approach to so-called gun violence. There were aspects I saw as positive, of course, such as counseling for the victims of such violent crime. After all, many perpetrators of such crime were people who were the victims of it previously, or who lost someone as a result of a violent crime. There’s a cycle at work, and breaking that is a good thing.

But there were other aspects that bothered me.

Then the pandemic hit, and we saw just how nasty the “public health” bunch could get when they got power.

At America’s 1st Freedom, they take a look at Johns Hopkins and their “public health” efforts, which are nothing but a gun control push.

When Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health recently unveiled the 2025 National Survey of Gun Policy, the headlines were predictable: Americans supposedly back stricter storage rules, licensing requirements and red-flag laws. But behind the numbers lies a familiar story: one of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s money, political agendas dressed up as “science” and a survey designed to produce the outcome its sponsors already wanted.

The Center for Gun Violence Solutions, created in 2022 through Bloomberg’s partnership with Johns Hopkins, makes no secret of its mission.

“We will now have even more capacity to bring meaningful policy change through evidence-based advocacy,” its co-director, Daniel Webster, declared upon launch.

That language reveals the real goal. This is not neutral scholarship. It is advocacy research with a built-in destination: more restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Bloomberg’s fingerprints are everywhere, and he has been involved with Johns Hopkins for decades, pumping in billions over the years with the school renaming its School of Hygiene and Public Health after him all the way back in 2001.

The former New York City mayor and failed presidential candidate also funds Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the anti-gun media outlet The Trace, a group that feeds “collaborative” stories to mainstream newsrooms. Now his dollars shape a university program that claims to speak in the voice of science but echoes the talking points of his political crusade.

Now, those are pretty strong words, and it’s not like anyone on this side of the aisle likes or supports Michael Bloomberg.

Yet, if the research is solidly produced, it shouldn’t really matter who funds it. If a survey is done correctly, it doesn’t matter if an anti-gunner pays for it, it’s still valid, just as if the NRA pays for it and it produces a pro-gun result. If the methodology is sound, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from.

The problem is that the methodology of a recent survey was anything but sound.

It made headlines saying Americans wanted all of this gun control, but let’s look at how they actually did things, because America’s 1st Freedom did.

According to Johns Hopkins, the survey drew responses from nearly 3,000 Americans. But the composition reveals its bias: almost twice as many non-gun owners as gun owners, and almost 500 more Democrats than Republicans. That imbalance practically guaranteed a stronger appetite for regulation.

So, when they said 74 percent of people favored mandatory storage laws, they were talking to people who didn’t own guns and who were primarily Democrats who tend to favor gun control on a far grander scale than Republicans do. When 72 percent said they supported permit-to-purchase laws, it was the same thing.

In other words, they stacked the deck to reach an anti-gun finding, then presented it to the media as proof that gun control was super popular.

What this tells me is that, on some level, they know it’s not. They know that there’s nowhere near as much support for these measures as they might like to believe. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have to stack the deck. They could conduct normal surveys and find exactly what they expect to find. They know that these are extreme measures, though, and they know most people don’t favor radical gun control measures.

They’ve spun this web of claiming this is about public health, that they’re just interested in addressing a problem that results in a lot of deaths each year, but the truth is that they’ve never actually looked at doing anything but restricting our rights. That’s all it was ever about. Bloomberg had no problem finding an ally in academia because they shared similar sentiments all along. It was just a rich source of money for Johns Hopkins to do what they wanted all along.

I can’t even say they sold out, because they’re still doing everything they wanted to do before the check was written.

But it’s also proof that they’ll stoop to any level they can in order to stomp on our rights in the name of “public health,” even ignoring defensive gun uses entirely.

During COVID, the medical establishment did everything they could to wreck our economy and our society, all while lying to us repeatedly about everything they demanded. Six feet of “social distancing” wasn’t based on science, but a guess. The back and forth on masks–from they don’t do any good to everyone needs to wear one, but a cloth one that lets in everything is just fine–was never anything but a lie, and they knew it.

Now, they expect us to trust them on guns, and they’re still lying. They’re just doing it a little differently this time, but it doesn’t change the fact that anyone who trusts these particular clowns deserves whatever happens to them afterward.

Editor’s Note: The medical establishment and its allies in the media lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.