This week, we have one of those advocates on the show. Mark Bryant, executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, was involved in the private meeting with CDC officials. He attacked Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck's estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year as misleading. And he said it was preventing new gun restrictions from making progress.

The CDC initially rebuffed the request from Bryant, GVPedia's Devin Hughes, and Newtown Action Alliance's Po Murray. However, they eventually changed course and deleted the defensive use estimates from their website without getting input from other points of view or making a public announcement of the edit.

Mark joins the show to explain and defend his role in the conversation, which he says he was added to late in the process. He argued his only concern in the conversation was with the accuracy of the data.

Things got a bit heated when I challenged him on a number of points and vice versa. However, it stayed civil overall, and I think the conversation was fruitful and exciting. Beyond the politics of the situation, we also discussed the controversy over how best to measure defensive gun uses as well as things like mass shootings.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I give updates on New Jersey's gun-carry restrictions and California's fee-shifting law.

Special Guest: Mark Bryant.

So, I wanted to bring on somebody who has extensive knowledge of the topic to help us get a better understanding of the controversy. That's why I asked Manhatten Institute fellow Robert VerBruggen to join me. He has written about the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for estimating DGUs, including the Gary Kleck surveys at the center of the fight.

He said the real problem with the CDC ordeal is that it raises ethical questions which cast a shadow over the agency's reputation. He said officials should not have consulted with gun-control advocates in secret and to the exclusion of other outside perspectives. VerBruggen noted there was no new information shared during the conversations with the advocates, and the initial language the CDC scrubbed from their website was not inaccurate.

VerBruggen said there are legitimate critiques of using surveys to calculate DGUs. The media-report-based estimate that gun-control advocates prefer is even more problematic, according to VerBruggen. He explained the ins and outs of the different approaches and why they produce such divergent results.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the political fallout from the CDC's actions.

Special Guest: Robert VerBruggen.

That's why Robert VerBruggen from National Review and the Manhattan Institute is joining us. He's been writing about the ins and outs of crime data for years and has produced some of the most insightful commentary I've seen.

With data from the FBI, CDC, and elsewhere indicating a significant increase in murder over the past two years, VerBruggen walks us through the trend and its implications. He also explains why the FBI's data is less reliable than its ever been before and what impact that has on everything. He said that as we've seen a historic change in the murder rate, the FBI's reporting capabilities have become historically bad.

However, VerBruggen said there is still a lot we can figure out from what we do know. For instance, he said it's unlikely that the gun sales spike fueled the murder spike. Instead, he argues police pullback in the wake of the 2020 riots is largely to blame. However, even that conclusion comes with significant nuance due to how widespread the spike has been. 

We also hear from Reload Member Allen, who is a new gun owner living in New York City. He explains why he decided to buy his first gun just over a year ago and what the onerous process for actually obtaining a shotgun has been like.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a federal ruling blocking enforcement of the most controversial portions of New York's latest gun-carry law.

Special Guest: Robert VerBruggen.