Lets bring science into politics just this once

[donttread]

1) There is no clear cut evidence that strict gun control even begins to work.

2) For Christ's sake try security first. How would history judge a populace that painted the "gun free zone target" on smaller, more rural schools and not secure them ,when the same socieity does have security in the schools where they are afraid OF the students? Why would attacking and modifying and ammendment be a default setting, rather than reaching for a doable, legal solution?

[ripmeister]

1) There is no clear cut evidence that strict gun control even begins to work.

2) For Christ's sake try security first. How would history judge a populace that painted the "gun free zone target" on smaller, more rural schools and not secure them ,when the same socieity does have security in the schools where they are afraid OF the students? Why would attacking and modifying and ammendment be a default setting, rather than reaching for a doable, legal solution?

I agree with bringing science into it. Lets start with allowing and funding the CDC to investigate gun violence and gun culture in America.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree with bringing science into it. Lets start with allowing and funding the CDC to investigate gun violence and gun culture in America.

What more do we need to investigate?

[MMC]

I agree with bringing science into it. Lets start with allowing and funding the CDC to investigate gun violence and gun culture in America.

BO the Peep tried that in 2013 and it Backfired on him.





CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama......



“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.


As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe.



So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.


Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“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.”


2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate thatdefensive gun uses by victims are 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…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”


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:


The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda......snip~

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/...#ixzz57xgIuGUA

[donttread]

I agree with bringing science into it. Lets start with allowing and funding the CDC to investigate gun violence and gun culture in America.

It seems that if strict gun control worked, Chicago would be safe? No?

[MisterVeritis]

I agree with bringing science into it. Lets start with allowing and funding the CDC to investigate gun violence and gun culture in America.

In your opinion what expertise does the CDC bring to the problem? Let's investigate the extraordinary damage the left has done to the Constitution. I propose that we hire Mark Levin for the task.

[MMC]

In your opinion what expertise does the CDC bring to the problem? Let's investigate the extraordinary damage the left has done to the Constitution. I propose that we hire Mark Levin for the task.

Well its clear the leftness doesn't want to use the CDC for any research. Maybe they can get NOAA. As they are always shuffling numbers around.

[Common Sense]

1) There is no clear cut evidence that strict gun control even begins to work.

2) For Christ's sake try security first. How would history judge a populace that painted the "gun free zone target" on smaller, more rural schools and not secure them ,when the same socieity does have security in the schools where they are afraid OF the students? Why would attacking and modifying and ammendment be a default setting, rather than reaching for a doable, legal solution?

Sorry, where is the science you mentioned?

[donttread]

Sorry, where is the science you mentioned?

Pretty much all over, no clear cut edge either way with any edge that does exist favoring less gun control.

[Common Sense]

Pretty much all over, no clear cut edge either way with any edge that does exist favoring less gun control.

You presented opinions and unsubstantiated statements...you presented no science.