CDC report supports Second Amendment

| August 28, 2013 | 20 Comments

Earlier this year, while the country was still trembling in fear over the Sandy Hook murders, by Executive Order, the President lifted a 17-year restriction placed by Congress to prevent the Center for Disease Control from conducting a study on the effects of guns in our culture. So, the CDC went to work and poured through available data for their report. So, their report was released in June. Have you heard anything about it? Probably not, because apparently it didn’t turn out the way the gun grabbers wanted. This summary from Guns & Ammo;

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“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.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Somehow I don’t think this report’s release would have been as quietly shuffled away had the results been even a little bit different.

Thanks to JBS for the link.

Category: Guns

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. CDC Study Supports Gun Ownership | 2nd Amendment In Action | August 28, 2013
  1. Anonymous says:

    Peace through superior firepower. Like we needed a study to know that, but cool enough.

  2. Hondo says:

    CDC is a part of HHS. I’m guessing the report’s author can probably kiss any chance of a promotion goodbye for a while.

  3. A Proud Infidel says:

    Those sound like facts, which, along with logic and common sense, are perpetually ignored by the left! I wonder if B, Hussein 0bama & Co. will release a statement dismissing this report, saying something like “it’s contaminated with NRA propaganda” or some other bucket of liberal gobbledygook?

  4. Combat Historian says:

    I’m sure this report was so locked-away and covered-up that Guns & Ammo probably had to file a FOIA for it; I’m glad the magazine was able to get the report without the whole thing being redacted except for the table of contents…

  5. 68W58 says:

    Does not fit the narrative! ERROR! ERROR!!! Must be ignored!

  6. Andy says:

    wow, this report came from a government agency? I’m surprised it didn’t “accidently” get knocked into a shredder.

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    ‘There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.’ – report.

    This statement alone makes me happy.

    The Sinaloa drug cartel has its meathooks deeply embedded in Chicago’s neighborhoods. A friend of mine who lives in my old neighborhood tells me now that street robberies have started – something that never used to worry me when I live there – and most recently, 5 people were shot, and 1 has died, in a drive-by shooting at the corner of Sheridan and Wilson in Uptown. All of these things involve guns obtained on the street. I’m so glad I moved away from there.

    Anti-gun legislation will NOT stop any of this, and this report supports my opinion.

    Thanks for publishing that.

  8. Old Trooper says:

    @7: You’re wrong, young lady. Taking guns away from everyone WILL stop a majority of the crimes!! I’ve heard it from very reliable sources within the Brady Campaign and many other anti-gun groups. They know; you don’t!

  9. OldSoldier54 says:

    Let the weeping and wailing commence … NOT!

  10. OWB says:

    Kinda what normal, healthy people knew all along. Too bad that our betters will simply ignore it, as they do everything else which proves them to be wrong about anything.

    Their purpose is to dispose of their opposition. Reality means nothing to them.

  11. Ex-PH2 says:

    @8 OldTrooper, thanks for calling me ‘young lady’.

    Makes up for the lousy weather we’re having. ;)

  12. BCousins says:

    I just used the link above to download the entire report. My reading list for today has been re-prioritized.

  13. MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) says:

    Where is the headline?

    I don’t see one here.

    Oh … We knew this already.

    Thanks CDC and HHS … Jackassess all of them … I tell ya!

  14. Ex-PH2 says:

    Master Chief, the report simply confirmed what we already knew.

    Now it’s in writing. Cain’t no one turn their dumb-bum backs on it now.

  15. Twist says:

    The Libs are already saying that the NRA somehow nuetered the CDC’s study on the effects of guns in our culture.

  16. DefendUSA says:

    Hondo…they won’t promote, but surely they will reprimand with paid salary er, leave.

  17. PintoNag says:

    The CDC might be neutral, but the AMA isn’t. Don’t look for a whole lot of support from the medical community where 2A is concerned.

  18. streetsweeper says:

    Me thinks the lib’s need to be neutered and muzzled. But hey, that’s just me. :)

  19. David says:

    Actually, I would love to be a fly on the wall of any NRA discussions “heck, we opposed ‘em for years as biased, now their first report supports us – where did we go wrong?”
    (and in the interest of full disclosure, NRA Life Member here.)

  20. Nik says:

    This is #978 of things you’ll never read or hear about in the mainstream media.

    Now it’s in writing. Cain’t no one turn their dumb-bum backs on it now.

    You mean like the evidence concerning global warning being falsified? They still quote that shit even though they know it’s as fake as a Clinton smile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *