Results of a Center for Disease Control study on gun violence

[Darthlawsuit]

Whelp, Obama just funded research that proves what pro-second amendment groups have been saying for years. Thanks Obama

As reported by The New American, The “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” contains some surprises – particularly for gun-control advocates. Among them:

The majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:Between the years 2000-2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61% of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.

Mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.” Accidental deaths due to firearms have continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1% of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Firearm-related homicides in Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, which have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, skew the national rate. Were the statistics from those four areas removed, the United States would be in line with any other country.

Background checks, restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy – from friends, family members, or gang members – well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.

The current report from the CDC paralleled findings it published 2003, when Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms. Today, that number is estimated to be more that 300 million – an increase of more than 55%.

In summary, the CDC said ten years ago and it is echoing it now: “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws”:

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,

Restrictions on firearm acquisition,

Waiting periods for firearm acquisition

Firearm registration and licensing of owners

Zero tolerance for firearms in schools

Clearly, if Barack Obama and the anti-gun crowd looked to the CDC for proof that placing more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners would reduce or limit gun violence, they were unpleasantly surprised by the findings of the report.

 

[Prime Rib]

Look im all forward to people who need guns for home protection and maybe even to open carry into public view, but i do not like that people use them to harm schools other people for no reason or for gangs to be using.

 

[Koo]

And after all of that dog and pony show demagoguery the media will conveniently forget to report the CDC's findings yet again. Why do I get the feeling if the facts supported our Dear Presidents inclinations this study would be headline news?

 

[KGB Kakuzu]

Wow....but a better question is why is a Center for Disease control doing research on guns....being shot to desth is not an illness...unless they label it Lead Poisoning...even then that is more of Poison Control's job.



Interesting stuff.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

Wow....but a better question is why is a Center for Disease control doing research on guns....being shot to desth is not an illness...unless they label it Lead Poisoning...even then that is more of Poison Control's job.



Interesting stuff.

Executive order from the President. He was hoping for different results.

Look im all forward to people who need guns for home protection and maybe even to open carry into public view, but i do not like that people use them to harm schools other people for no reason or for gangs to be using.

In the 50's people brought their guns to school and stored them in their lockers.Principals and teachers were armed. Even had rifle and pistol clubs in high school. Didn't have many mass school shootings. Occasionally a madman would try to shoot up a school but he got stopped before he could kill entire classrooms full of people. Teachers are often willing to die to protect their students and when they have a gun they will fight a gunman to their last breath. Principals tended to be very well armed

By the time the police finally arrived they had to tend to the injured and carry the gunman out in a bodybag. Gunmen didn't have 15 minutes of time to go on a shooting rampage before the police finally entered the building.

 

[Koo]

You used to be able to take your 30.06 to shop class to make adjustments with the school equipment.. Sigh. Hey but at least we all have "free" healthcare amirite!? How's Utopia, America?


Also... The CDC must have "Trivial non-disease related studies" in their operating budget because presidents don't constitutionally get to issue requests like this

 

[Darthlawsuit]

You used to be able to take your 30.06 to shop class to make adjustments with the school equipment.. Sigh. Hey but at least we all have "free" healthcare amirite!? How's Utopia, America?


Also... The CDC must have "Trivial non-disease related studies" in their operating budget because presidents don't constitutionally get to issue requests like this

Google "Executive orders USA" it is a strange thing that is allowed to happen and has happened since george washington.

 

[Aim64C]

Look im all forward to people who need guns for home protection and maybe even to open carry into public view, but i do not like that people use them to harm schools other people for no reason or for gangs to be using.

It's no different than banks that say: "No firearms allowed."

Is someone committed to robbing a bank (itself, a crime) really concerned about the "you cannot wear sunglasses" and "you cannot carry weapons" sign?

Of course not. They couldn't give two shits about the rules - they are there specifically to break fundamental rules and codes of conduct.

So, saying: "You can't bring your gun to school" to prevent school shootings is about as sensible as saying: "You can't bring a gun into a bank" to prevent bank robberies.

That doesn't mean "firearms should be dispensed in a jar in the nurse's office like condoms" - but it does mean that the whole notion of writing new rules to try and prevent people from breaking old rules is fundamentally flawed.

It's like children. If your kid goes ahead and plays with fire despite you telling him not to - telling him that he can't touch matches or lighters isn't going to stop him from playing with fire, again. He's already broken that rule - he's not going to say: "Oh... I can't touch the matches... okay... I guess I won't break the rule about not playing with fire, again."