Findings Not What Obama Wanted
Centers for Disease Control Gun Violence Study’s Findings Are Not What Obama Wanted To Hear
Posted 08/21/2013 06:43 PM ET
Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." We’re pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn’t what the White House was looking for.
The Democrats, and their media allies, obsess over some shootings while ignoring many others.
Kill innocents in a school or theater in large numbers, and the media will fixate on the tragedy while Democrats wail about America’s "gun culture."
Shoot a minority who’s wearing a hoodie and the left twists the story into something it isn’t while the media turn the shooter into a "white" man, though he, too, is a minority — and an Obama supporter with a mixed ethnic background.
It was under these raw and highly charged circumstances that President Obama asked the CDC in January to perform the study. He was surely looking to manufacture a crisis that he could take advantage of.
What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.
The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."
Here are a few more salient points from the study:
• "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue."
• "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
• One "body of research" (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found "estimated annual gun use for self-defense" to be "up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent."
• "There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective."
Does anyone recall this study getting extensive media coverage or the administration plugging its key findings? Of course not. It doesn’t support their anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun ideology. It’s therefore ignored as if it never happened at all.
 
; –
AS A RULE, I try to avoid "cut and past". I believe that the information herein is germaine, however, the page did not load well when I pulled it up on Chrome. It sort of stuck, and was difficult to scroll. My main purpose is to place it here so that I can load it on to Facebook.
DISCLAIMER: All notes shall initially be "private" until such time as they can be reviewed for content. Left-wing trolls, who are sent here to disrupt the free exchange and expression of ideas, need not bother leaving such notes as are dictated to them by the DNC or any other communist, NAZI, socialist, progressive, or fascist organization. I am not obligated to allow protests or disturbances on my diary, nor am I required to reprint links to biased websites such as slate.com or dailykos.com..
© Copyright 2013. All rights reserved.
NOTES:
Wow, when did you become Ashleigh? I mean the cut and paste part. I’m not even really sure where this article was supposed to go except the author doesn’t seem to like democrats. I mean it’s not really anti-gun restriction and those stats aren’t comfortable at all, and everything else seems unresolved as far as the CDC is concerned and I’m not sure whether the author thinks the CDC is a reasonable investigative body or not.
I get that the author thinks democrats and, apparently, other sundry liberals, get their panties in a wad over gun control. I’m thinking anyone who has had a kid shot regardless of party affiliation probably gets their panties in a wad, which, according to the article happened 300 k times by criminals in 2008 and some nebulous number between 500k and 3 mil by citizens (though I suspect that means 2.5 mil of those cases aren’t determined yet, I mean otherwise that number would be as solid as the other, right?). Just sayin … you can not include this note if you’d like. [haredawg] [p]
Dawg, i would always include your commentary (well … probably). I think that the difference between "500k and 3 mill" reflects the fact that, if you pull out a piece to stop a violent act, you may not want to report the incident. Cops have a reputation for taking away your firearm "for the purpose of the investigation", and never returning it, unless you pay a lawyer $3000 to pursue the matter. Buying a new weapon is far cheaper than suing the police department, who never have to pay the legal expenses for actions against them … certainly not as individual officers (who are responsible for the crime of stealing your firearm in the first place).
Please also note that I did apologize for doing a "cut-and-paste".
–
Switzerland requires its citizens to have military training and have guns. The statistics there support CDC’s findings.Willy of [Willy & Wilma] [p]
–
Other agencies have been asked for reports that the Obama administration ultimately ignored or misrepresented to the public.
Thanks for letting us know about this one, before it gets maligned. [Graffiti Forensics] [p]