Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

Posted: October 11, 2013 in Books And Pamphlets, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

So, our illustrious Monarch-in-chief told the CDC to investigate what is called “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” It only cost a measly $10,000.00 of tax payer’s money. I don’t think he is happy. Here is a summation of what the report found:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

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:”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

Firearm Violence

  1. jcoles says:

    If those really are the CDC’s conclusions you know that fairy crowd running that organization are not happy campers at having to issue that report … but I follow these things & have not seen results from the CDC gun violence study group published anywhere … I believe the words & ideals in them are true … but not the source.

  2. Bo Perrin says:

    Hello Jim. I have seen the white paper reported on by numerous pro-2nd amendment groups. I agree. The people at the CDC are properly pretty upset for being forced to publish something so contrary to what they want the public to know. This may be one of the reasons that it is getting circulation only among 2nd amendment groups.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s