but did any of this this back and forth with the gun control advocates surprisegu yo ?la actually , yo u know, laura , first of all, thanks for havingh me on .en it s funny you ask that, backuse when i got the documents back from the foia request i filed inol june, i actually told the reporter, stephen bartowski ,who handled this, that i was t wo skeptical it would even be aeven story because it just confirmed what i already suspected was the case that the cdc has cdc h unfortunately been politicized been ps to the gun control debate because they are .- the let me give you an example.en i ve been doing this for a few a years now. as a lawyer for the california rifle and pistol association. and we certainly as don t get meetings with the cdc or the california equivalent. so - but sadly, it isn t surprising a that that is what happened here. now, accordin g to one acc f the emails that you obtained, part of the reason why the cdces onmade these changes is that its scientists determin
the original text that provided an estimate with a very wide range could raise more questions than it answeredm made the most sense to removove the numbers from the fact sheet will cost us .it it is a big you know, that sa a big spread, sixty thousand to two point five million. so is there any legitimacy to that point? imacy tono law, because althoug a wide spread, the spread reflected the lowest end estimate, which was a government surve- y called the the national crime victimization survey that came to a resul victimatt of sixty t we believe there are issuesthat with that one , too, but it sa fair to have the lawstep f. 199, and the high end came from a survey in the nineteen nineties done by mr. gary kleck . in there s a lot of survey results in between that range. five hundred thousanbetweed eight hundred thousand. a million, a little over a million. and it s fine to telle publ the public what the range is now. icrangiswith the edits now madet website, you don t learn anything at