CENTER for DISEASE CONTROL REPORTS on...

CENTER for DISEASE CONTROL REPORTS on "EFFECTIVENESS" of GUN CONTROL LAWS

Posted in the Bellefontaine Forum

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#1 Jan 31, 2013
CDC Questions Impact of Gun Control Laws UPDATE
"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes. "
Gun bans don't work
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study last week that states there is no evidence to prove gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence. No kidding. There always has been substance to the cliche that guns don't kill people, people do. Correlative to that rule is that the criminals who use guns to kill usually possess their weapons illegally. These serial lawbreakers are not deterred by statutes prohibiting or regulating gun ownership. They will continue to use guns to commit violent crimes even if the rest of the population of sitting ducks are disarmed.
In the exhaustive brief, the CDC analyzed scientific evidence regarding "bans on specified firearms and ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition [including waiting periods], firearm registration and licensing, concealed-carry laws, child-access-prevention laws, zero-tolerance laws for firearms in schools and combinations of firearms laws." The verdict? "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." The task force also concluded that "firearms-related injuries in the United States have declined since 1993" despite the fact that "approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year."
The CDC maintains that the above conclusions are actually inconclusive, and that more research in needed. Given that a task force of 14 experts spent three years to review 51 different studies to come up with the findings, the only justification for the CDC's equivocation is that the authorities want to continue to research the issue until they reach findings that can be stretched to justify more government regulation.
All the taxpayer funds spent on this exercise are a waste of cash. Last year, the CDC spent $400,000 on gun reports. That isn't much compared to the $2.6 million they spent on gun studies in 1995 during the Clinton administration. We don't need expensive government studies to convince us that gun-control laws don't make communities safer. When taking away law-abiding citizens' right to defend themselves, it has always been obvious that the only people who become more safe are criminals who mug, rape, carjack and break into our homes. However, many of these same thugs will think twice before victimizing someone who might be packing heat.
It is offensive when liberals blanketly suggest that the average American isn't responsible enough to own a gun, and that increased gun control is needed to stop gun violence. Crimes committed by those who own guns legally are a statistical blip. The same goes for accidents. The new CDC report is welcome in that it confirms what has long been known: There is no proof that gun-control laws prevent violence. Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should get back to the honorable mission of stopping communicable diseases.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-08584...
****

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#2 Jan 31, 2013
Impact of Gun Control Laws Questioned
Oct 2, 2003, By KRISTEN WYATT
ATLANTA (AP)- A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.
The review, released Thursday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.
Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws.
Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies were done by the federal government.
In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."
"I would not want to speculate on how different groups may interpret this report," said Dr. Sue Binder, Director of CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It's simply a review of the literature."
Most of the studies were not funded by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.
A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures.
"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."
The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it.
Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year.
About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population.
The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done.
"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."
Among the problems:
- Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#3 Jan 31, 2013
- Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means."

- Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.

- Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.

- Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence." ---

On the Net: CDC Injury Prevention and Control: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/ncipchm.htm Top/center of page "Spotlights...."

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031003/D7T...

Morean More

West Mansfield, OH

#4 Jan 31, 2013
Well if there is no proof gun control laws help, obviously we need many more of them. After all, if just one child's life is saved, gun bans are well worth the cost.

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#5 Jan 31, 2013
Morean More wrote:
Well if there is no proof gun control laws help, obviously we need many more of them. After all, if just one child's life is saved, gun bans are well worth the cost.
Well now, that's one way of looking at it. However the other side of the coin goes like this: If a law abiding citizen with his "little children" is confroned by a criminal with an "unlawful" gun, and the lawful gun carrier is able to protect himself and his little children from being murdered by this criminal, "obviously we need many more of them" (guns) "After all, if just one child's life is saved, gun 'carrying' is well worth the cost."

“ A TRUMPSTER”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#6 Feb 1, 2013
Libs don't like this truth!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bellefontaine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sherry Barton (Jul '09) 24 min Brian Burchiel 41
IL Superintendent Patrick O'Donnell offered sw... 39 min Btwnmale69 9
wood forest bank at walmart bellefontaine ohio (Jan '15) 43 min Brian-a-bitch 18
J Jordan 19 hr caiaphas 5
Roypublicans Wed USN Atheist 6
Trump is yours.......Deal with it! (Jan '17) Tue Mein Trumpf 2,261
Jim Jordan's favorite former aide Wes Goodman w... Tue caiaphas 20

Bellefontaine Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bellefontaine Mortgages