Reminder to Pres Obama: Your CDC report found guns make victims safer

lars.serendipityThumb

by Lars Larson

When President Obama shows up in Roseburg on Friday, do you suppose someone should remind him of the CDC report he ordered up two years ago?

CNS news reported back in 2013:

“’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 as part 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, entitled ‘Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,’ states.”

“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.’”

For more Lars Larson, visit Lars’ web site

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, President Obama | 24 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Dick Winningstad

    I suspect this study will be buried pretty quickly!

    • Eric Blair

      Why do you suspect that? It’s been out for 2 years and is easily available on internet.

      • Dick Winningstad

        And has not been talked about much. If the conclusions had reflected the current administration’s views it would have been splashed all over the liberal press.

        • Eric Blair

          Except, the report didn’t have conclusions, except to state the a lot more research is needed. Even if you were right about the administration not broadcasting the results of the report, that is a far cry from burying it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmmmm… How much have you heard about this report? I follow this kind of news a bit and hav enot seen any. Perhaps this part is contributiong to the absence of coverage: Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).
            This would show that defensive use of guns far outnumbers the successful aggressive use of guns.

  • DD

    It’s hard to trust ole Lars when he routinely states that “hammers kill more people than rifles”. When was the last time you heard about death by hammer? Or when he says “1.5 million times a year a good guy with a gun stops the commission of a crime”. That means over 80 times a day in Oregon (on average) an armed citizen is using a gun to stop a crime from happening. I think not!

    • thevillageidiot

      “That means over 80 times a day in Oregon (on average) an armed citizen is using a gun to stop a crime from happening. I think not!” how do you know? at least LARS has quotes from the CDC report not off the cuff.

      • DD

        Dear Mr. Idiot,
        How do I know? Well first common sense made question the validity once I crunched the numbers, 80+ a day seemed a little hard to believe. Lars used to use the NRA number of 2-2.5 million a year which is totally ridiculous. I then did my own research and found Lars is full of it but considering he has a opinion and a agenda I’m not surprised. Research it yourself, while you’re at it research the “hammer” claim Lars repeatedly makes, you’ll find it is total BS also. I made no reference about the CDC report. My comment, which still holds, is based on past history it’s hard to trust anything he says and everything he claims needs to be verified. I’m not anti gun, just anti Lars BS.

        • Check HB and C

          Momma look a boo-boo! Harry Belafonte knows one since he is one singing the phrases attending a timeless observation;.

    • Dick Winningstad

      Read Kleck’s book sometime. When he says 1.5 million times, it does not mean the gun was fired every time. A display is enough to get most perps to leave the citizen alone.

      • DD

        The actual number is about 300,000 a year.

        • Dick Winningstad

          I would disagree and the FBI has said ~800,000 a year but even at 300,000 that is way more than the crimes completed.

          • DD

            I’ll say it again. I’m not anti gun. If you admit the number is 800k that is still along way from 1.5 million or the NRA version of 2-2.5 million. Kleck surveyed only 2000 head of households. If you did a survey right now you would find about 9% of the population believes in UFO’s and 6% who would say they have actually seen one. We now know people tend to over exaggerate on surveys. And there is PLENTY of peer view disputing his findings. Lets compromise at 500-600 k. That way the conversation stays based in reality. Now if we can just interject some reality into Lars.

      • DD

        Kleck did a survey not a study and that was in 1992! Plus there were many flaws in his methods and conclusions.
        I’m anti Lars BS not anti gun.

        • Dick Winningstad

          No there not flaws in the methods as peer reviews upheld his conclusions. Flaws in the eyes of gun grabbers only.

          • Eric Blair

            Peer review does not uphold conclusions, they simply make sure that the paper meets certain standards in that field. It can give added weight to a conclusion, but it certainly doesn’t uphold conclusion. That can only be done by additional studies and testing the proposition to see if they can be falsified.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Nice try at obfuscation. Peer review confirms the research methods were valid. And given Kleck has not been disputed by his peers gives added weight to his conclusions. Of course more research can verify or dispute the results something that has has not succeeded in showing his research to be wrong.

          • DD

            HAVE YOU ACTUALLY LOOKED! There is a ton of reviews questioning the methods, validity and conclusions of his phone survey.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Why yes I have seen criticism but not from scholarly journals. Mostly from sites that have Salon, Huffpost, or some such in the address. So no Mr. Kleck has not been refuted by professionals in the field.

            Unlike Michael Bellesiles, author of a book, titled “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture” which purported to show that guns were not that prevalent in colonial/early America. He won a Bancroft Prize (a history book prize that was later recinded) and was the darling of the gun grabber set. Until actual scholars checked his sources and found he outright lied on some and severely bent the truth in others to make his point. They then showed that gun ownership was much more prevalent than was claimed by Mr. Bellesiles. When the William and Mary Quarterly, an actual scholarly journal of history, published the article by the researchers checking his sources, Mr. Bellesiles reputation was ruined and he lost his professorship at Emory University.

            Here is the W&M Site: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

            Here is a Wikipedia site discussing the scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America

    • DD ting

      You are not being succinct, butt sorely heading in a misdirection.

  • Jack Lord God

    When planes flew into a few buildings, politicians instantly surrounded themselves with guns, and posted armed guards at every building they have occasion to enter.

    Yet guns are useless against planes.

    Those same politicians tell us having an armed guard at your school is totally ridiculous.

    Yet when a gunman attacks a school, they send in police officers with guns to resolve the situation.

    That’s really the only time guns are employed by government in schools to protect people. Unless, of course, a politician is visiting the school, then armed guards seem to be quite necessary.

    And that tells us really all we need to know about their priorities doesn’t it?

  • Eric Blair

    Of course Lars didn’t report the rest of the paragraph immediately following: Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary
    across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

    Nor was the report a study of guns, gun safety and gun ownership, but rather a review of the literature and a call for more studies and better data. In fact, that is the one constant throughout the entire report: the need for better data.

  • Eric Blair
  • thevillageidiot

    This whole conversation looks a lot like all the studies. inconclusive. lots of opinions. and lots of guesses. correlation is not causation. one anti gun study was trying to correlate increased gun sales before or after a mass shooting. the conclusion was that gun sales increased before the mass shootings. In other words back ground checks are a precursor to mass shootings. There are so many flaws here it is just opinion.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)