Anyway, I came across this interesting article, about a new CDC report that's come out on gun violence, and thought I'd put it out there. Here's the link:
And here's the link to the actual report it references:
I haven't read the report itself, but from the article that references it, it would appear that the findings are actually counterproductive to Obama's gun control goals when he initially commissioned the research.
Specifically worth noting is:
“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,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
Also very noteworthy is the following:
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “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.”
The report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that “whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and that there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”
And lastly what caught my eye:
The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..
In any case, I thought this is some interesting research on a topical issue, and I invite comment on it from all interested parties. I make no comment on the standing of the researchers, or the weight of this evidence. I put that out to you more dilligent folks who have the time to go and dig up some dirt on the researchers, or alternatively find reasons to endorse them.
My comments would just be that on the face of it, this research seems to support the position of us pro-gunners. Let's hear the your views.
Edited by Free Northman, 21 July 2013 - 05:00 PM.