Supply: The Second Modification Basis’s Investigative Journalism Undertaking
Right here’s a query for you: Does it matter if a college psychiatry professor builds his profession and repute on anti-gun analysis that will get printed in one of the crucial broadly learn medical journals on the planet, and not using a single disclaimer, bias label, or conflict-of-interest flag?
It ought to. And in line with the Second Modification Basis’s Investigative Journalism Undertaking, that’s precisely what’s been taking place with College of Michigan psychiatry professor Brian M. Hicks, PhD.
Hicks has made a reputation for himself and secured important federal funding by producing research that reliably arrive at one conclusion: weapons are unhealthy, and extra gun management is required. The Journal of the American Medical Affiliation (JAMA) retains publishing his work as if it’s goal science. It isn’t.
The Newest Examine: ‘Ideas of Capturing Others’
Hicks’ most up-to-date piece, printed in JAMA Community Open on St. Patrick’s Day, is titled “Prevalence of Ideas of Capturing Others Amongst US Adults.” That title alone tells you the place that is going.
His conclusion? “A small however nontrivial proportion of individuals within the US take into consideration taking pictures others.” He leaned on CDC knowledge, an company with its personal well-documented anti-gun institutional bias, and used it to argue, as he at all times does, for extra “prevention efforts” to handle “gun violence danger.”
What he doesn’t point out: that the overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun homeowners haven’t any such ideas, use their firearms responsibly, and could be immediately harmed by the type of sweeping coverage interventions his analysis is designed to help.
JAMA Retains Publishing It — With out Labeling It
That is the place the story will get worse. JAMA, based in 1883 and printed 48 occasions a yr, carries monumental weight within the medical group. When it publishes one thing, physicians throughout the nation and around the globe deal with it as settled science.
Hicks’ work isn’t labeled as opinion. It isn’t flagged for ideological bias. It’s introduced as reputable, peer-reviewed analysis, and JAMA has apparently by no means bothered to take a look at the professor’s social media to see who they’re platforming.
SAF’s investigative staff did. What they discovered ought to give JAMA’s editors severe pause.
His X Account Removes All Doubt
A have a look at Professor Hicks’ X account makes clear that his analysis isn’t pushed by dispassionate scientific inquiry. Right here’s a pattern of what he’s posted:
“Most COVID gun patrons believed in Q-Anon conspiracies. 76% endorsed the idea that the federal government, media, and monetary worlds in america are managed by a bunch of Devil-worshiping pedophiles who run a world baby intercourse trafficking operation.”
— @BrianMHicks1, September 16, 2023
“COVID gun patrons reported way more intimate companion violence (IPV). 56% sometimes to steadily punch or hit their companion versus 1.6% of non-gun homeowners and three% of pre-pandemic gun homeowners.”
— @BrianMHicks1, September 16, 2023
“So the profile of a COVID gun purchaser consists of excessive charges of prior violence and delinquent conduct, suicidal ideas and self-harm behaviors, many psychological well being & substance use issues, beliefs in violent conspiracies, and tremendous into weapons.”
— @BrianMHicks1, September 16, 2023
“Professional-gun attitudes had been related to much less worry of a college taking pictures. So pro-gun persons are much less afraid {that a} taking pictures will happen however are extra in favor of academics carrying weapons. Some folks identical to weapons.”
— @BrianMHicks1, Could 27, 2022
This isn’t a impartial researcher following the info. That is an ideologue with a conclusion already in hand, working backward to help it — and getting printed in JAMA within the course of.
Your Tax {Dollars} at Work
If you happen to’re a gun proprietor and a taxpayer, and odds are you’re each, you’re serving to fund this. The Nationwide Institute of Psychological Well being (NIMH) not too long ago awarded Hicks a grant particularly to “increase his analysis into firearm harm and mortality prevention.”
That’s federal cash, flowing to a researcher whose social media makes clear he views gun homeowners as violent, paranoid, and harmful — and whose printed work is designed to construct the tutorial case for proscribing your rights.
The Backside Line
Hicks is one professor. However he’s a symptom of a well-funded, institutionally backed marketing campaign to launder anti-gun politics by way of peer-reviewed journals and land them on the desks of policymakers and physicians.
When a journal as influential as JAMA publishes this work with out a lot as a bias label, it carries actual penalties for gun homeowners. This analysis will get cited in court docket circumstances, referenced in laws, and quoted by politicians pushing for restrictions in your Second Modification rights.
