President Obama signs executive order for CDC gun violence study. (AP photo)
(from CNSNews, CDC, StudyCrime.org, and other sources) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama in an attempt to prove the claim that gun control must actually work, as part of the group of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“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 “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
The report notes that “violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years”. Others have noticed that the murder rate trend reversal year was 1991, when the murder rate was approximately twice as high as it is today, despite or because of the growing percentage of people who have bought firearms during this period and the even faster growing trend for people to carry concealed firearms in public. More guns does not have much correlation to increased murder and violence rates.
The White House plan included one-sided orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence”, without any accompanying research on positive effects such as self-defense or crime reduction effects that seem to be present in many state or local jurisdictions. According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.” Significantly, the White House claim did not mention that any research that is only directed at one side of an issue, is in fact “cost-only” analysis, which is just a form of advocacy or propaganda.
Researchers compiled data from dozens of previous crime and self-defense studies in order to guide future research on firearms and people, noting that “almost all open data national defense survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are more common or 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.” There is just one outlier study that doesn’t even specifically ask respondents about defensive firearms usage, but even that one gets responses indicating approximately 75,000 defensive uses of firearms annually.
“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”
Researchers also found that the majority of firearm deaths are from suicide, not homicide. “Between the years 2000 and 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 firearm-related violence in the United States.”
The report finds essentially no strong evidence that the 22,000 existing gun control laws have ever reduced violent crime, which would have been loudly and widely acclaimed by the Media and Democrat politicians if any such proof existed. The study also claims that there is little evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime”, despite the objectively reduced crime in many jurisdictions where it has been tried. The study also admitted the fact that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”
Instead, researchers proposed gun safety technologies such as “external locking devices and biometric systems” to reduce firearm-related deaths.
“I thought it was very telling that this report focused so heavily on . . . futuristic technology that’s not been brought to the market in any kind of reliable form that consumers have any interest in,” John Frazer, director of research and information at the National Rifle Association (NRA), told CNSNews.com. So far, no military or police organization has found such safety mechanisms to be reliable enough for general issue, and not even the most politically correct police or military agency is willing to endanger their members with excessively complex and unreliable equipment. It would be far worse to impose these technologies on citizens who, unlike police or soldiers, do not have a full-time armorer or firearms maintenance staff and specialized parts and test equipment available.
These “smart gun” technologies are “designed to prevent misuse, to prevent either accidents or crimes committed with stolen guns,” Frazer noted. “Obviously it wouldn’t have any effect on crimes committed with a gun purchased by the criminal. It obviously wouldn’t have any effect on suicides by people who bought the guns themselves.” Nor would such technologies be immune to family members who have seen how the guns work, or immune to hacking by the local underground market gun thief or distributor. However, “it could have a huge burden on self-defense rights of law-abiding people if they’re forced to use an unproven technology.”
The report establishes guidelines meant only for future “taxpayer-funded research,” Frazer said. However, “the anti-gun researchers out there who want to study and promote gun control are perfectly free to get funded to do that by [New York] Mayor Bloomberg or by any number of other organizations or foundations.” Government should not be funding politically one-sided, “cost-only” research unless it provides equal funding opportunities to the pro-self-defense side.
According to a National Academies press release, organizations supporting the CDC study have close ties to Obama.
When contacted by CNSNews, the Annie E. Casey Foundation reaffirmed its support for the study, which “is in keeping with our work to collaborate with public agencies, nonprofit organizations, policymakers and community leaders to make a positive impact on the lives of kids, families and communities.” They were not even interested in finding out how useful self-defense is. Patrick Corvington, the foundation’s former senior associate, was nominated by Obama and confirmed in 2010 as CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Other supporters include The California Endowment, which has been promoting Obamacare; The Joyce Foundation, on whose Board of Directors Obama served for eight years prior to his Senate run; and Kaiser Permanente, which contributed over half a million dollars to his presidential campaign.