Aside from the fact gunloons never, ever back up their
Many of the studies--and there are no shortage of them--showing guns cause harm to their owners, to society, to kids, etc. are waved away by gunloons because they don't like the results. To the gunloon, many PhDs and MDs and academics are simply "bought" by "biased" anti-gun groups and they are paid to produce "biased" reports and studies.
However, like most gunloon claims, such idiocy is easily debunked.
First, researchers have professional reputations. If a researcher is caught--or even suspected--producing bogus results for money or other reasons, that researcher may as well find a new occupation. See John Lott's career.
Second, bogus research will usually get caught. Research is peer-reviewed. In the case of gunloons, they are alleging that not only are there hordes of researchers producing fraudulent work but their uncompensated peers are also complicit in the fraud.
Third, researchers are usually employed by universities and/or professional organizations and associations. They, too, have reputations to protect. Is a Harvard or Stanford going to risk its considerable reputation to get a small grant? Not likely. But let's play the devil's advocate and say they would. How is it some university hasn't taken a gazillion dollars from Phillip Morris to produce a study that says cigarette smoking isn't harmful? Or a billion bucks from Exxon to say the oceans benefit from oil spills?
In order to justify the claims of gunloons, we have to believe thousands of highly educated professionals are actively or tacitly involved in a conspiracy. We have to believe our top universities and professional organizations are actively engaged in fraud. And we must believe science is biased.