WHAT DOES “GUN SAFETY” HAVE TO DO WITH VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION? They are actually separate subjects with little overlap.


The first point to remember is the fact that most (61%) “firearms deaths” are intentional suicides and there is no feasible technology that could prevent any part of that toll.  In addition, even if we banned firearms from all suicidally inclined people, it is highly unlikely that the total rate of suicides in the U.S. would decline at all, since many, many countries with total firearms bans have extremely high suicide rates, including the ultra-civilized Japanese who have a suicide rate 2x the U.S. rate.  Indeed, the combined suicide and murder rate in Japan is actually higher than the same combined rate in the U.S.  In the absence of firearms, there are always an infinite number of lethal objects and techniques widely available to perform a suicide.  But notice the way the anti-self-defense groups like to include suicides in the American stats in order to inflate them, but they always avoid including suicides in Japan’s stats when comparing us to them, so that we always look worse in the comparison.  Intellectual dishonesty, anyone?

Build a “safe” car and it will have a noticeable safety effect against accidents, but it will have practically no safety effect to reduce the incidents where a crazed driver intentionally runs over a crowd of pedestrians or drives the car off a pier or cliff to commit family suicide.

Safety has many facets, but many politicians just use a warm-and-fuzzy phrase that deceives the voters into thinking that there is one all-purpose cure for a myriad of different situations.  If you wish to seriously reduce criminal violence, targeting the gun will not work, since the problem is primarily a moral one, that is also subject to external law enforcement programs, such as “stop-and-frisk” and computerized allocation of police patrol resources.  External behavior control also occurs in jurisdictions where many ordinary citizens are armed for defense in the home or on the streets.  The catch phrase should cease to be “there are too many guns on the streets”, to be replaced by “violent crime is reduced by a better balance of power between armed citizens and criminals.”


March 17, 2014 by the Staff of StudyCrime.org

Just ask yourself one question:  Would it be better to let criminals attack you or your loved ones for the typical 911 call response time of 10 minutes, or better to defend yourself with your firearm within 5 seconds?  10 minutes of beating by a baseball bat will leave you seriously injured or dead.  Or perhaps even worse, permanently paralyzed or catastrophically brain-damaged, so that you are a permanent burden on your family and severely limited in your quality of life.

Many people have realized that it would be preferable to defend themselves and their loved ones rather than wait for help that may arrive too late to do anything more than draw the chalk outlines around the bodies.  This is why so many people who have never before owned or used firearms have made the rational decision to buy their own guns and learned how to use them safely and tactically in the last couple of decades.

Some people claim it is too difficult to learn to use a firearm safely and effectively, but the real-world data disprove such objections.  Learning to defend yourself with a firearm is actually simpler than learning the multitude of controls necessary to drive…and almost anyone can do that with instruction and  practice.  Studies show that most defenses do not even involve shooting the criminal…simply showing or referring to your firearm is enough to scare the criminal away in most instances.  Other criminals give up to be arrested, defender shoots and miss but drive away other criminals, and only a small number of cases depend upon the defender actually hitting the criminal.  In only a minuscule 1/5 of 1% (1 out of 500) of defensive shooting cases does the defender actually die.

If you are still wondering whether self-defense is ineffective or excessively risky, take a look at a non-partisan, random data source…YouTube.  Use whatever search terms you like, such as “CCW concealed carrier saves woman” or “11yo Girl Defends Home With Rifle From 3 Armed Burglars”  or “Man Defends Family & Kills 2 Armed Men Invading His Home” or “two home invaders attacked BOYS house,HE USED A AR-15 to defend himself ” or “Student Uses AR-15 Semi-Automatic Rifle to Stop Home Invasion – Rochester, New York” or “Armed Good Samaritan Praised for Saving Cop’s Life in Shooting Standoff”.  You will find hundreds of videos of that nature.  Now try to find videos that show armed citizens who are killed by criminals or disarmed by criminals or incidents where armed citizens have accidents that harm innocent bystanders.  Hard to find more than a handful.

Colorado Recalls Two Anti-Self-Defense politicians and forces another one to resign to avoid Recall.

Colorado Democrat Resigns to Avoid Recall Fight

Remember that third recall effort out in Colorado, targeting two-term Democrat Evie Hudak? It is now moot.

State Sen. Evie Hudak has decided to resign rather than risk facing a recall election that, should she lose, would flip control of the senate to Republicans, FOX31 Denver was first to report Wednesday.

Later Wednesday morning, Hudak made her resignation letter public.

“In the interest of preserving the progress made over the last year, I am resigning as State Senator for District 19, effective immediately,” Hudak wrote.

By resigning before the signatures are turned in, she assures that a Democratic vacancy committee will appoint her replacement, keeping the seat — and the senate — in the party’s hands, at least through November, when her successor will be forced to win reelection.

While the Republicans won’t have an opportunity to win the seat until Election Day, Hudak’s departure is a welcome development. You mayrecall Hudak telling a rape victim that her statistics were incorrect during a hearing on Colorado’s gun laws. The Denver Post later found that Hudak’s statistics were incorrect, declaring, “the episode made Hudak look like she cared not a whit for a rape victim,” and Hudak apologized for “insensitivity.”

July 17, 2013 — The CDC committee hand-picked by Obama to find out what sort of Gun Control law works best, finds none reduce violent crimes…but armed self-defense helps! The public hears and reads nothing about this, as Media obediently cover up this failure of Obama’s delusions and ignorance.

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.

Obama’s CDC study on Gun Control fails and is hidden away,


Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence is the name of the Center for Disease Control’s new Gun Control study commissioned by President Obama in January of this year after the Newtown school murders in December of 2012.

That study was just one part of the Obama Executive Order tsunami of 23 different “gun violence reducers” he was going to railroad without going through Congress.  Many political experts think that use of Executive Orders to enact something that the Congress would reject is an improper and un-Constitutional use of Executive Powers, since executive orders were usually used in the past to take care of minor issues that the Congress simply wasn’t interested in handling.  Compare that to this issue of Gun Control which is one of the hottest and most involving issues among the entire American polity.

Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats/Progressives in politics and the Media, the study released in June, 2013 provided almost no support for new gun control laws, and a lot of support for the advocates of armed self-defense.  

The study notes with astounding understatement that, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,” and that there were “about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” compared to more than a dozen studies showing that the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

The CDC/Obama study also admitted that, “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.”  In fact, numerous studies including the 2004 National Academies of Science report “Firearms and Violence” found ZERO evidence that “gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence”, in direct contradiction of the CDC study.  And that NAS research group was, like the CDC committee, composed almost entirely of Democrats, Leftists, and liberals who certainly had an ardent desire to prove that gun owners are evil and guns must be banned.  Even criminological and historical facts rarely impress them; but in this instance the evidence was so overwhelming that they didn’t dare to make the liberals’ usual claims that “gun control = crime control”.

The CDC study also cited several studies including another government study, the National Crime Victimization Survey, conceded that “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.”  That concession must have really caused them severe angst.

Even some of the seemingly benign and most popular gun control policies proved to be a bad idea,”There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

Since the study was so detrimental to Pres. Obama’s contrafactual claims, the study had to be covered up as thoroughly as possible, so the Establishment Media and the Democrat Party did everything possible to try to make that study disappear down The Memory Hole.  That’s why there has been almost no news coverage of the CDC study and most people don’t even know it exists.


Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm#ixzz2pxOdEbBl


Shall-Issue Concealed Carry gaining momentum all across the U.S.

More states adopting “Shall-Issue” Concealed Carry while others relax their existing Shall-Issue laws.

There are now more than 40 states that have either “Shall-Issue” CCW permit laws OR “Constitutional Carry” which allows concealed carry without a permit, at least within that state.

The number of states that have “Constitutional Carry” has now expanded to four: Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont.  In these states, if you pass the Federal “instant” background check, you can receive your gun immediately over-the-counter, load it, conceal it or wear in openly, and walk out the door without further ado.  No tests, no classes, no permits required.  On the other hand, if you wish to take advantage of multi-state reciprocity, you can apply for a written CCW permit in addition to your in-state open or concealed carry without a permit.

Many states are also making it easier on their permit holders, by either lengthening the duration of the permit, making it cheaper, or reducing the amount of class time needed to meet the state requirements.  These relaxations or rational changes have occurred because most states have found that the CCW permittees are not a crime problem so there is less reason to try to set a high bar to jump over.  Some states were originally somewhat skeptical about issuing lots of CCW licenses due to exaggerated fears of crimes or accidents, but after the laws were in place for a few years, they realized that their original obstructionism was an excessive reaction that was inappropriate.

Is there a good source of randomly collected evidence to use in the gun control debate?

How can we find evidence that may not be completely compromised by Media prejudice and selective reporting?

The first thing to do is figure out if there is information that is not collected or edited by people primarily on either side of the self-defense vs. gun control debate.

Clearly, anything that is published or broadcast in the Mainstream Media will probably reflect their personal prejudices or pre-existing emotions.  The days of responsible, neutral reporting have been largely extinct since 1970 at the latest.  Numerous studies and books have been produced in that interval and they consistently show that 65-90% of the Editors, Managers, Reporters, Investigators, and Researchers are liberals, Democrats or even farther Left, and those groups almost always favor gun control and oppose self-defense by law-abiding citizens.  To expect neutral reporting from such an unbalanced sample is largely a fantasy, despite the few reporters who actually report all the facts, and just the facts.  This can be self-verified by simply examining the expansive, hostile, long-term repetitive way that news outlets report crimes compared to the almost non-existent coverage of acts of self-defense, which are typically covered, if at all, in the inner pages and not followed up beyond two days after the incident.  Have you ever seen an “Anniversary Special” story on any incident of self-defense?  How many “Anniversary Specials” have you noticed on crimes committed with firearms?  Q.E.D.

Wouldn’t it be difficult and expensive to collect a broad range of stories on self-defense incidents?  Well, there are several such sites that try to do exactly that, but they largely suffer from their own dependence on the Mainstream Media to provide the original article.  And if it isn’t reported in the first place, or hidden in the inner pages, who is going to find the story?  Remember that many ordinary citizens who defend themselves, their loved ones, or their businesses have strong, valid reasons not to share their stories or make their names or faces known.

Luckily, the miracle of the Internet has made the collection of self-defense incidents easier for people to do, and then share with others.  We are talking about YouTube (™) and other such online websites and personal blogs.  There are now millions of local surveillance video cameras and tens of millions of private cameras that can catch fleeting, unplanned incidents.  Best of all, the postings on YouTubs (™) are, as far as we can tell, rarely censored by politically correct editors.  Most such incidents occur in public places and there is little legal “expectation of privacy”.  It seems that the main restriction is that the websites may remove an identifiable crime victim if the victim requests the video’s removal for safety or privacy reasons, or remove a video that is too gory. Since most self-defense incidents do not result in gory fatalities, it seems that most videos can be posted.  Even if the original story is reported by the Mainstream Media, sites like YouTube (™) and blogs preserve the evidence much longer, so it doesn’t fall into the “memory hole of history”.

So go ahead and do some searches in YouTube (™), Yahoo (™), and other sites, using search terms like “CCW holder saves cop” or “11 year old girl drives away 2 armed home invaders” or “Citizen saves woman from attacker” or “Colorado church attacked by gunman” or “Jeanne Assam” or “15 yr old boy uses AR-15 to shoot intruder” or “14 yr old shoots armed home intruder while protecting siblings” or “Teen Mom Sarah McKinley Kills Intruder while on phone with 911” or “Child shoots Intruder — Port Allen, LA” or “Carjacker killed by gun permit holder” or “armed samaritan shoots attacker, saves woman” or “security guard shoots AR-15 at gun-wielding couple…” or “gunfight caught on tape: store owner vs. 2 armed robbers” or “caught on tape: armed homeowner fights off armed gunmen” or “Police: store owner shoots would-be robber” or “Video: Senior citizen wins shootout with crooks”  or “robber shot to death when off-duty cop pulls in for gas” or “security guard with the mindset and skill” or “watch robbers run for the door after woman shoots at them” or “armed robbery goes wrong, shootout in Texas convenience store” or “Good guy 1, Bad guy 0, CCW in action unedited” and a hundred other variants on those themes.

We’ve found hundreds of these incidents and remember that many places do not have surveillance cameras, so the vast majority of self-defense incidents undoubtedly go unrecorded.

Nationwide Study of Gun Control finds No Laws that Reduce Violent Crime

National Academies of Science conducts nationwide gun control study and finds no laws that actually reduce violence.

The 2004 report, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” conducted by the National Academies of Science returned a result that the 20 researchers found largely unexpected.  Unexpected because all but one of the 20 researchers apparently believed the long-standing Media claim that “guns equal crime and violence” and that the solution is simply “more gun control laws and an eventual ban”.

The researchers studied all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States; examining 253 professional or academic journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and the committee’s own empirical work.  Despite the vast amount of information available to the committee, from all over America and going back a full century, the committee as a whole could not find ONE SINGLE GUN CONTROL LAW OR AGGREGATION OF LAWS that had any noticeable success in reducing violent crime.  However the one pro-self-defense committee member found that gun control laws can sometimes be counterproductive, while outside researchers also found similar counterproductive effects.  This might cause curious observers to ask whether the committee was somewhat predisposed to only publish results that matched their unexamined prejudices and emotions.  How did the committee handle their undesired result?  Despite the vast amounts of prior research, the NAS committee deduced that the problem was a lack of research, so they recommended more research!  Presumably they think that reality will change if they simply study it long enough.  But as Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result.”

This report was released on Dec. 16, 2004 in a 328 page report that can be accessed for page-by-page reading on-site, or for paid download at the NAS website:  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R1

It is also available for sale in Hardcover edition at Amazon.com.

Note: this is not the first or likely the last nationwide study that reaches the same “counterintuitive” conclusion.