Guns & Ammo Network

Collapse bottom bar

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama

by Kyle Wintersteen   |  August 27th, 2013 190

(Photo by The Associated Press)

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.

“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.

Mainstream media outlets praised the order to lift the ban and lambasted the NRA and Congress for having put it in place.

It was the “Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most,” according to The Atlantic.

The CDC ban on gun research “caused lasting damage,” reported ABC News.

Salon said the ban was part of the NRA’s “war on gun science.”

And CBS News lamented that the NRA “stymied” CDC research.

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

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 that defensive 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:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

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:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 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 firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

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.

  • mxprivateer

    Obama is an ass and so is anyone who voted for that clown.

    • Eric Toth

      You truly are a conservative idiot!!

      • Jeff

        Do you ever have anything to say that is not an insult or slur? Disagree if you want but back up your opinion(if you have one) with facts or logic, only weak minds consider insults to be a form of discourse.

        • Bob

          Sadly, Jeff facts or logic have little or no impact on small-minded conservatives. Mitt Romney’s own campaign manager said that he was not going to let his campaign be influenced by fact checkers. The current campaign against Obamacare is a prime example of fear mongering based on outright lies and ignorance. John Boehner said the American people don’t want Obamacare even though they voted for it in 2008 and again in 2012. As the Liar of the House, he’s representative of all that is wrong with the GOP and those on the Right who are completely immune to facts, history or logic.

          • Jack Hammer

            Depends who the “fact checkers” are.

            And how do you know about the “outright lies and ignorance” about Obamacare? Did you read the entire Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? I doubt it, and most of Congress did not read it either.

            It can be easily proven that the POTUS has lied about Obamacare. For example, he said “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

          • Adam Knapp

            If you have to rely on the same soundbite over and over, you don’t have much of a case.

          • Joe Destro

            Bob here are the facts , you have a slobering love affair with your demoncratic party and facts do not matter. Secondly many hard working Americans lost their health care as a result. Bob wake the F up and do some research before you bloviate your liberal diatribe, it is non-sense.

          • DaBroker

            lol. The people voted for Obamacare in ’08 and ’12? As an independent, I assure you, the only reason Obama got elected the second time around was because Independents voted against Mitt. The Republicans would do well to learn from that mistake and put forth a drastically contrasting candidate in 2016.

          • Brian Harden

            Now that we’ve got numbers on costs versus benefits, would you like to revise your statement?

      • Breeze13

        You truly are a know nothing horse’s ass.

      • Ravi32

        Eric, you had to give yourself 6 guest votes? Desperate much?

      • Freebyrd1968

        Why don’t you psychotic LOFO’s go over to HUFFPO to share your pearls of wisdom?

      • Doug

        Eric, Do you really believe what your saying? Obama is a Marxist who wants to ruin this country and your helping him huh…Well when the SHTF you can be proud of what you’ve accomplished.Guns save lives everyday but what does Planned parenthood do EVERY FUCKING DAY!!! Kill Babies!! Burn in Hell asswipe!!!

      • MrApple

        Does that make you a Liberal douche?

    • Jarad

      I am sorry you feel one of the most thoughtful and intteligent men to have been elected president in the last fifty years is an idiot. The reporting in this article is flawed the 123 page report that they have linked to their article refutes the points that they are stating, and that is only my first issue with this article. My second major issue is that the study clearly states that no significant results can be garnered from this research for 3-5 years at the earliest.So they are jumping the gun and using the survey of previous research that is cited as sources for research directions in the report as the basis for their unfounded and misinformed claims.

      • Bugsy5656

        Wow…the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one!

        • Doug

          Cause he’s an Idiot!!!

      • NameNotGiven

        Actually the report refutes Obama’s claims.
        And do you realize since you count suicide as “violence” the USA has a LOWER “violence rate” than the average developed country!

      • DaveGinOly
      • Ravi32

        Jarad, aka Eric/Eric Tooth.
        The FBI has been conducting research all along.

      • slappyturnbuckle

        All of the research in the world does not trump my 2nd amendment rights!

        • AJcoog

          Your second-amendment rights do not exist in any Constitution in this country. They existed then and exist now for members of a military. The Scalia opinion in the Heller decision has been denounced by the best scholars on the Revolutionary period in this country, and called “unprincipled.” No one from the 18th century would understand your NRA-inspired babble about 2nd Amendment rights to ownership of a firearm, since there are no longer Indian raids, we have established constabulary in every town and county, and arguably the world’s most formidable military, none of which exists when the Bill of Rights were drafted. Mostly folks from the 18th century would think you belong in the stockade.

          • slappyturnbuckle

            I don’t live in the18th century and am not willing to give up my GOD given rights. If you prefer to trust a tyrannical government I guess that is your business. I don’t think it is very wise though.

          • AJcoog

            There is no Tyranny. There are no soldiers walking around with rifles, no barbed wire enclosed detainment centers. No curfews, No media shut-downs. You’re thinking of Egypt. God did not give you the right to carry a gun. The last thing God gave anyone (if you actually believe the Bible) were Ten Commandments, and that was to a guy on top of a mountain leading folks to some sort of land of “milk and honey.” But we all know how that turned out. And there was nothing about guns written on his stone tablets. So if those rights weren’t given to him, what makes you think God gave any to you? Now go take your medication and get better.

          • slappyturnbuckle

            18 trillion in debt is not tyranny? Tyranny comes in many forms and not all of them are soldiers walking around with rifles. Maybe you are not bright enough to see that the government only cares about you as long as you are playing the game. It seems that you are the one on medication and it is way too much.

          • AJcoog

            Slabby we did not acquire that in one term or two. And no that’s not Tyranny; that’s Economics. Calling a thing tyranny doesn’t make it tyranny. If you lived under a true tyranny, its doubtful we’d be having this exchange. Just ask the folks living in N. Korea how easy it is to speak out against the government as you did. Enjoy your liberty, even if you don’t recognize it.

          • slappyturnbuckle

            That is exactly what I am trying to do is enjoy my liberty and douchebags like you are trying to limit my liberty/freedoms. If you can’t see the tyranny in the corrupt taxes/laws/ordinances passed in the name of “safety/community” then you are part of the problem. Ya, they will let us speak out against the government and call it freedom while they slowly pick us clean. Time to wake up. As you stated we did not acquire our debt in one or two terms, so this has been going on for a long time. Pretty amazing how many people are ok with how inept/corrupt our government is and still defend them.

          • AJcoog

            One: calling me names does not change history or reality. Two: if you think “liberty” is had at the point of a gun, that’s not freedom, that’s paranoia. Three: if you think we’re living in a dictatorship, you don’t know where you’re living and are least qualified to be in possession of a lethal weapon. Fortunately for you, mental stability is not part of any current background check. Thus, you and any other paranoid citizen may own a loaded handgun and will likely use it at the least provocation in the name of “freedom.” No, that’s not a problem at all.

          • slappyturnbuckle

            One: You called me names first so I as playing by your rules. Two: Liberty was indeed won by gunpoint and guns are for a lot more than that, like say protection, hunting, etc. That’s not paranoia, that’s reality and my freedom. Three: I did not say dictatorship anywhere, but it certainly seems to be heading towards something like that. The evidence is all around just on the simple idea that the government knows how to manage my life better than me. Unfortunately for all of us mental stability/integrity is not part of a background test for politicians. If you are willing to take away freedoms of other people that you deem not necessary then you do not deserve freedom either.

          • AJcoog

            By your own definition, the guns were used by soldiers in a battle. Dictatorships are usually headed by tyrants. Let’s not split hairs. But if you knew anything about the Revolution you would also know that Washington’s army was not only ill-equipped, but that the muskets and rifles had very little real strategic effect against the British against whom he was outmatched and out manned in every possible way which is why he adopted the Fabian Strategy very early on with the massive British landing in Long island. Thus, the guns amongst the colonists by themselves were not very effective against what was the world’s greatest military at the time. Moreover, it was the aid of the French and their Navy, and Denmark and their money (and Navy) which actually helped win the war post-Saratoga. So, no, having a bunch of guns didn’t do Washington much good, especially given the high rate of desertion among the rank and file. But that myth plays well in pop Guns and Ammo magazines.

          • slappyturnbuckle

            Thanks for the history lesson it was very fascinating. By my own definition I also included protection, hunting, etc. Nice deflection though, pretty shifty. I still have the right to own a gun or several guns for protection, hunting, or for whatever I want.

          • AJcoog

            The “right” you claim does not exist, in any Constitution in this country. It’s only due to Scalia’s bizarr-o interpretation of the 2nd amendment with the Heller decision which is why you claim a “right.” and are so arrogant about it. 20 years ago, that claim would have been laughable. Most historians of the colonial period and Constitutional scholars have roundly denounced the Heller decision as “unprincipled,” including those who provided Amicus Curare briefs for the case. It’s not even close to a “win” for gun rights, so there’s nothing to be proud of. And in the 18th century, claiming that would likely have gotten you thrown in the stockade. The protection you need is from your own paranoia. I’m done here.

      • Freebyrd1968

        What turnip truck did you fall off of?

      • Joe Destro

        The flaw Jarad is your wild unfaltering love affair for Obama. The data is sufficient, we donthave to defend either. Whether you folks hate guns does not substantiate the freedom to abuse our 2nd Ammendment rights. your part of the same nehilist group the thrives on taking away hard fought liberties so you can say , we may have saved one life. Jarad if its lives your worried about stop abortion. You and your constituency have killed 15million babaies since Roe VS Wade. Think about how intelligent you are now.

        • Fat Clemenza

          43 Million babies.

          • Joe Destro


          • John Holroyd

            So is typing with all caps.

          • bhaggen

            Really Joe, although your thoughts are dead on, all caps does display some sort of mental disorder, so chill out. We are reasonable & responsible gun owners, OK?

          • petewhite

            Nice rant……I can almost hear your little feet stomping all the way over here!

          • Brian Harden

            200+ years without fascist death squads.

      • Huh?

        How does Barack’s dick taste? How about you shut the fuck up faggot.

      • Joe Destro


        • petewhite

          Ohhhhhhhhh buddy!!!!! calm down, take a pill…get laid!! I hope you don’t have a gun, you’re the ranting, rabid type who should be disarmed as quickly as possible!

        • Adam Knapp

          I don’t believe that all guns should be taken away from everyone, but I sure as hell hope someone keeps you away from deadly weaponry, because you’re nuts.

          • joe destro

            Adam No one should be allowed to change the second ammendment under any circumstances. Its unfortunate that you as a liberal are so thin skinned and recklessly prepared to sacrifice what so many of us Americans have fought to protect. Adam no one has forced you to own a gun right? So dont worry what others choose to do.

          • Adam Knapp

            The first amendment has stipulations, such as “yelling fire” or slander. There’s no reason the second amendment shouldn’t have stipulations, such as “No nutcases.”

          • USMC69

            The 1A does not prohibit “yelling fire”. And there is a reason the 2A should NOT have stipulations: it’s the 2A itself that ends in “….shall not be infringed.” Nutcases, felons, etc. existed back when the 2A was written and our FF still included those four words “shall not be infringed”.

          • Brian Harden

            Let them all be armed, and the wise be wary.

          • Brian Harden

            While we’re at it, let’s disarm people who disagree with me.

            The vast overwhelming majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent, and the illness is brief or controlled. Why should a non-violent white collar felon be disenfranchised from gun ownership and the inherent right of self-defense?

          • Adam Knapp

            You do bring up a good point. Most people with mental illness are not destructive to themselves or others, and would likely not be even if they had a firearm. However, there’s certain mental illnesses and tendencies which almost anyone will agree ARE a high risk of destructive behavior. Those are the ones that should be studied in this context.

            As far as the white-collar felon, this is another good point, especially as there’s many people who end up with felonies for non-violent crimes that they were likely plea-bargained into ‘admitting’ guilt for anyhow.

            The point here is that there ARE people out there who probably shouldn’t be trusted with a can opener, let alone a gun. Why should we arm them?

          • AJcoog

            Non-violent is not the same as stable. If what you say is true, lets put you in a locked room with 30 mental patients with no history of violence, but are off their meds, and give them loaded weapons. Now just remain calm, because they’re non-violent, remember?

          • Crazy Train

            Jokes on you. You think a weapon has to be “loaded,” and I think “this pencil makes an unobtrusive stabbing weapon,” and it never has to be re-“loaded.”

            The other half of the joke is- I’ve been locked in a unit with more than thirty psychiatric inmates who were off their meds and had not been searched for weapons. Many of them had pencils and pens. I’ve also worked in prisons and correctional facilities. It was my primary employment for several years.

            Your rhetoric doesn’t scare me any more than they did. Perhaps if you came back with your argument loaded or at least sharpened?

          • AJcoog

            Switching from guns to pencils doesn’t make your point. In only changes the scenario in order to re-cast you as the survivor to support your opinion — somehow — that being isolated among unstable mental health patients with loaded weapons is no more harmful than arming them with pencils. I defy you to perform my experiment and videotape it. Now, if what you say is true — that somehow, loaded guns would be no more harmful than pencils, prove it. First you’ll have to get permission to allow non-compliant diagnosed mental health patients to possess firearms, then find an inescapable setting where you are isolated among them and video tape the results. Good luck with that. All you need to ask yourself at this point is why such an experiment would never be allowed. Is it because guns are so harmless among the mentally non-violent? You could switch out the mentally unstable patients for toddlers. Most of them are non-violent. I don’t think the results would differ much.

          • Reynard Vulpes

            That is the right of the states to determine. They cannot determine the general right of the people, but they can limit individuals for cause.

            Cause, of course, can always be challenged in federal court, and that is what happened in DC and Chicago.

            Piling on requirements to posses can reach the point of being onerous to the law, and of course the constitution is the law.

            That’s how DC managed to have such prohibitions that no one but the favored few, celebrities and such, could carry. Even those had trouble getting permits.

            Done with now. As it should be.

            So you have our wish. And the feds have complied in the NICS FBI background check making it universal that some conditions will bar some from possession. But it isn’t immutable. And that is why we have federal courts. And state courts that will challenge.

          • Steven Pierson

            I completely disagree, I would like to see the 2nd amendment clearly spelled out, so the Liberals in this country could no longer use the childish “It’s about a state militia” excuse. I wish the founders had been explicit in stating the right of the individual to keep and bare arms for self protection, preservation, protection of one’s private property, and the protection of the innocent from armed assailants regardless of the cost to the aggressor!!!

          • Reynard Vulpes

            Actually the founder DID spell it out. Numerous references by courts of the time, letters from one founder to another, and similar papers make very clear the intention was to use the already personally armed for mustering militia if and when needed.

            Grammarians have parsed the document and those influenced the Supreme Court in their decision I would wager.

            It means exactly what it is, that a preexisting right gave the state the ability to call up militia.

            “Shall not be infringed,” says it all. One cannot infringe something that doesn’t exist. And the Right is not assigned at any point in the 2nd Amendment, thus it must be preexisting, just as the other protected rights are.

            It does not say, “So that we may muster a militia we hereby grant the people the privilege of bearing arms.”

            Two grammarians consulted and I’d say their credentials are more than sufficient:


          • AJcoog

            Grammarians may have, but so have historians in the Amicus Curie briefs from the Heller decision, not to mention 4 dissenting jurists. They asked Revolutionary historians to weigh in as Amicae not grammarians, you should note. Actually, its the grammarian “originalist” thinking by Scalia that lead to his outrageous interpretation, which has been held as wholly out of step with the founder’s intent by Constitutional and Revolutionary scholars alike. The 2nd Amendment is not a grammar issue; its a historical context one. And the NRA and Scalia have interpreted it beyond recognition . Beyond that, Scalia has been scathingly criticized by Constitutional experts for not using established principles of Constitutional interpretation when rendering his opinion, which should give anyone truly concerned about liberty serious concerns.

          • Roberto

            The 2nd Amendment was clearly spelled out when it was written. It clearly states that the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis of course mine.) It makes a clear distinction between the militia and the people and then states the latter have the right to keep and bear arms. Any other interpretation is intellectually dishonest and stupid on its face.

            Who ever heard of an unarmed militia? Do you really think the founders believed they needed to protect the right of the militia to be armed? Just like Johnny Cochran said about an 8′ tall wookie living on Endor, “It does not make sense.”

          • AJcoog

            It clearly says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right…” Means the military can be equipped, for the purpose of protecting the people. Why do gun nuts always leave out the entire part that described the purpose of the clause? This s the only amendment that was re-drafted to included this specific clause so that it would be clear. What’s the problem? Stop using the Reader’s Digest version. The Amendment does not start with “The Right.” Its starts with “A well…” Get it straight.

      • Joe Destro


      • rockymtnman

        You cant spell intelligence and you want to profess it? We have to wait 3 to 5 years? Why? So you can vote for it before we read it? Facts are facts-get over it, your wrong. Its not funded by the t.p’er. for the t.p’er Its by Oboma for his personal politics, at the t.p’er. expence .That’s immoral, unethical and possibly illegal. Not that Harry or Erick will hold him to account .

      • T Bone

        “he has lifted a ban on research so that unbiased research can be done funded by the taxpayer to get results that will benefit the taxpayer”

        Hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Oh my goodness. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!
        Wheeuuu………. That is the funniest thing I have read in quite a while. Thanks for that.

        • DaBroker

          No doubt. He lifted the ban so that taxpayers could fund partisan hack studies. Much like they lifted the ban on forcing media outlets to stick to the news and not propaganda.

      • the people

        Dirty Liberal

      • Bang Bang

        Ignore Jarad (a paid OFA stooge). It is clear he did not read the report and he is outright lying and parroting his owner’s instructions. What a clown! Thanks for the laugh, Jar.

      • squillaempusa

        actually, Bill Clinton has the credentials that would prove that he is more intelligent than Obama. it’s not easy being a Rhode Scholar.

      • Steven Pierson

        “Jumping the gun” LOL LOL

      • Alpha

        Sadly, the “legal working adult” makes up 0% of the fuck-ups that try to break into my house every year.

        This year, its actually something like (exactly) 80% unemployed, welfare using, black males 20-33 years of age… And other dude wasn’t caught.

      • JustASec

        Go stuff your piehole with a Subway….

    • Clifford Browning

      my balls your chin

    • Leo

      Don’t be upset he was a better choice than anyone else on the ballot, hands down. It was a lesser of two evils situation. I voted for him, hell yes I did. He has done SOME THINGS to help bring our country into a more modern day state of mind. Solved a lot of social issues. He went off into the deep end though. He, a long with part of congress, wants to run this country into the ground. Apparently considering the interests of the people isn’t on the to do list. I am just hoping this next election comes quick and isn’t another crappy situation!

    • stout7735

      I voted for Obama the first time and neither candidate the second time…I am only half assed…..

    • RicknKaren Sloan

      Hangs head, I can admit I was wrong, Please forgive me. At least I am not (Jihad Jarad). And I know the 2nd amendment trumps Obama Bin-Lyin, the UN, AND the Mexican infiltrators.

  • BubbasBBQ

    This made my day.

  • USPatriotOne

    Vote..No Vote…makes no differences since the Demorats stole the election! In Ohio 2 of the programmers that wrote the computer code to steal the election for OB and several other Demorat candidates in Ohio like Shared Brown (Senator) testified in front of the Ohio Senate Judicial Committee and admitted they wrote the code and stole the election for OB…so voting makes NO DIFFERENCE! Just as this study makes NO DIFFERENCE, the liberal/Commies just lie, lie, lie and either making things up, or just turn a deaf ear! Get the DVD Agenda, it tie everything together that these Commie/Progressive/Liberals have been doing to destroy America and our Children! What these Monsters are doing is more EVIL than you can even imagine…!!!

    • soundwich

      Is that Agenda: Grinding America Down?

    • Terry K
      • NameNotGiven

        That snopes article only refutes a tiny minority of the voter fraud cases

      • Sammy Sasquatch

        Terry, are you really relying on snopes to tell you what the truth is? I do agree that snopes is good at uncovering some falsehood that are running amuck out there; however, they have been proven to be partial and biased on what they are putting out there. Snopes isn’t any better than the mainstream media.

  • Kingo Gondo

    Actually, the Second Amendment is what it is regardless of any social research.

    Social research might provide the impetus to amend the 2A–or offer ammunition to those seeking to defeat such amendments–but it cannot alter the text. Neither can Obama. That can only be done through the amendment process set forth in the Constitution itself.

    • rycsailor

      don’t delude yourself, they can circumvent it by many means if allowed to get away with it and should Obama pack the Supreme Court with sycophants we are in BIG trouble…..

      • Sr Viejo

        Perfectly said. Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid and others illustrate your statement.

    • DaveGinOly

      Technically, the Second Amendment could be repealed, and it would have no effect on our rights. First, because repealing the amendment wouldn’t grant powers to Congress that it doesn’t already have (see the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, in which it is explained the the BOR is intended to prevent misconstruction of the enumerated powers of Congress). Second, because the possession of arms, recourse to self-defense, and resistance to tyranny are all considered rights, repealing the amendment wouldn’t affect their standing, both logically/naturally and by reason of the Ninth Amendment. An argument could be made that an attempt to alter the Constitution by amendment to alter or abolish any right of the people could itself be considered unconstitutional.

  • rycsailor

    No room here to gloat, the anti-gunners will do whatever they are allowed to get away with to accomplish getting rid of the 2nd amendment, either by nullifying it with peripheral rules or by direct elimination……they have no scruples when it comes to applied stupidity…..

  • ILoveTexas

    It’s sad when we live in a country ruled by a bunch of people calling themselves Democrats when they are too stupid to know that the word means MAJORITY Rule, not minority rule!
    Who is Eric Holder fooling when he says that Voter ID will disenfranchise minorities? All it will do is put a stop to those who routinely break the law by voting more than once. You know the slogan for the liberals, “Vote Early…Vote Often”

  • RetLEO

    Now that’s what I call Patriotism in action.

  • Don

    Now can we have one of his eo’s studying his impeachment.

    • Eric Toth

      You loud mouth conservatives keep farting out of your mouths IMPEACH!!!

      But you can never say on what charges?

      You don’t even know what impeachment is!

      • Justin Warkentin

        How about treason?

        • Rick Griffin

          Eric one conservative is worth more than 10 brain dead liberal sheep who blindly follow their leader and worship his every word !

          • Clifford Browning

            Rick its time your generation threw in the cards and stepped away from the table.

          • Rick Griffin

            You are right I am at the end of my life cycle but you will have to live in the “perfect world ” you have created and you may not enjoy it as much as you think you will ! In my lifetime I would not have believed I would see such evil tolerated by the people and I hope your generation gets what they deserve . To think that generations fought and died for the freedoms that you are willing to just throw away makes me sick !

      • DaveGinOly

        Do you realize that at least one entire book has been written about why Obama should be impeached?
        Or you could just go here:

      • Protectthe2nd!

        I’m not overly conservative but the dilution of any part of the constitution to self-in- power is an act of treason as far as I’m concerned…for example last years NDAA specifically title x expressly gives the President the power to deploy federal troops against U.S.citizens on us soil if deemed they are affiliated with al-Qaida or the taliban…this power explicitly and specifically can only be enacted by an act congress’ as prescribed by and backed and protected by the Posse Comitatus law of 1878… This part of the NDAA is over stepping it’s boundaries in accordance to what you can and can’t do under the limits set by the constitution and is incredibly wide open to lose interpretation….which leaves room for dictatorial powers being given to the President! An act of treason! An impeachable offense!
        Btw if you want to be technical every president since Truman has committed treason by signing the UN charter, which specifically states that every signatory agrees to the charter and recognizes that international law supersedes all others including the law of the land in which they’re from….which is expressly prohibited and wholly considered an act of treason as prescribed by the constitution! Definitely an Impeachable offense…just food for thought.

      • Ken

        Shall we say treason???? As in Benghazi????? Or misdemeanors(they are too numerous to count) So, many actions and Executive Orders taken whose sole purpose was to circumvent “The Constitution…….” or sidestep

        Congress. Regarding impeachment, the most troubling challenge is not

        a lack of evidence but which, of the abundance of evidence, do you begin?

  • Shayla Striffler

    Since the report is 123 pages long, I’m sure there is more to it than the 7 hand picked talking points

    • tiko

      Sure there are………BUT they are the handpicked talking points that the uneducated such as obama and bloomberg and pelosi and the rest of the band of ignorant yo yo’s love to crow about. Consider the idiot from Great Britain. Piers, the mouth, Morgan. He trembles in fear that he will die in a hail of gun fire at any moment and yet he moved here. He did not move to the safer Somalia or Nigeria or Afghanistan or Iraq. He chose to die at any second in the United States of America. Go figure. BTW Shayla……how many times have you been injured or killed by gunfire? Just asking.

      • Shayla Striffler

        1. That’s a stupid question Tiko. 2. I own guns, that’s why I subscribe. However, I don’t blindly follow ideologies, I get my owns facts. Try it sometime.

        • tiko

          1. Stupid? Really? You anti-gun nuts seem to think that you will be shot at any second. It is quite a legitimate question. Being brain dead would be explained easily by the part of the question about being killed by gunfire.
          2. I do get my own facts and that is why I pointed out to you that they are the talking points for you anti-gun nuts. Perhaps you are not aware of that? Research it.
          3. If you want to be taken seriously than act like you actually did some research.
          4. Is this “Craig’s List”? Are you advertising for sex with that picture? Seriously? A naked picture?

          • Shayla Striffler

            Where do you get anti gun? Did you even read #2? I own guns and was raised with guns. Save your preaching for someone that cares. I am a nudist and am not advertising anything. Nudity does not equal sex, or didn’t you know that? Did you read the 123 pages? I did.

          • NameNotGiven

            You have several of anti gun rights and some absurdly left wing posts. My guess is you are claiming to have guns and don’t

          • Shayla Striffler

            Nice, hide behind a fake name. I’m not pro or anti and my response was to Tiko. Since that’s not you, mind your own business.

          • NameNotGiven

            Your name is most likely fake as well. And your response was nonsense. Try facts instead of blind emotions.

            FACT: As gun ownership has SKYROCKETED, gun murder has PLUMMETED

          • Shayla Striffler

            I’ve read the 123 pages, have you? This isn’t even the research that the article is claiming that it is.Why do you feel the need to interject yourself into someone else’s conversation?

          • Ravi32

            You don’t sound like you read it at all.

          • tiko

            You are on a public forum and you want privacy? GIVE ME A BREAK. Coverup.

          • Shayla Striffler

            Women have just as much right to go shirtless as men do, it’s called equality. If we cannot, then men should not be allowed either. There is a movement called Topfree. Check it out..

          • Bo

            If you are a woman and are walking around without a shirt on you are apparently a ach oh are ee and you want to be eff you see kayd.

          • tiko

            If you are neither pro or con when it comes to guns than why did you use that as an argument (that you own guns). You argued that the guns and ammo writer should not use7 of the findings of the CDC that support what we second amendment supporters have said all along (and obama and his ilk have lied about). That says that you are antigun.

          • Shayla Striffler

            I am making the point that it’s poor journalism, and I am not antigun.

          • tiko

            A nudist goes nude in public as much as possible for health reasons. What is healthy about that is beyond me. Rape, being hit by a car, physical attacks other than rape, etc. Flaunting a not so good looking body on a public forum is what an exhibitionist would do. Forcing your not so good looking picture on others is the internet equivalent of sexting.

            BUT…..back to the point. When you argue against what the CDC and other reports find (and especially those points that the anti-gun nuts lied about) you are an anti-gun nut (anti second amendment for clarification). You can own all of the guns in the world and that does not mean that you are pro second amendment. You advocate unreasonable laws in the hope that the braindead democrats will not take your hunting firearms away. Did I just call them firearms? Zimmerman was called a cop wanabe for calling them that. See what I mean by braindead?

    • RetiredTpr

      The report is 123 pages long, but if you get rid of all the worthless mundane BS, it comes down to 7 items!

  • Tracy Thorleifson

    Outstanding article, Mr. Wintersteen. Well done, sir.

  • Robert Shaw

    Amazing! A careful study of gun violence reveals that the second amendment is working as written? Who would have thought?!? Lol, keep ignoring it liberals, it won’t change the fact that guns are a good thing.

    • James

      Guns are a good thing. And to prove it, I’m going shopping this weekend for that new shotgun I’ve been craving.

      • Nate Rex

        You my friend are my hero

        • MrApple

          He is truly a man amongst men.

      • USMC69

        I am jealous.

  • Ron Smith

    Today’s mainstream media coverage is complete GARBAGE REPORTING.

  • RetiredTpr

    Obama and the rest of the socialists are never bothered by facts! They have their ideas on how things should be and then it doesn’t work out that way, they have to blame somebody or something! Liberalism has not and never will work, they are just too stupid to see it!

    • Eric Toth

      You call Obama a socialist and you whine about facts?

      If you think Obama is a socialist, you’re far too stupid to be allowed to own a gun!

      • Jeff

        again where are the facts? only insults….as to Obama being a socialist, one can look at his behavior, statements and associates and draw that conclusion.

      • Rick Griffin

        Mrs Toth you need to spend less time on your knees under Obamas desk and more time out here in the real world .Your savior is not doing so well.

        • Clifford Browning

          Your great republican bush put us in the hole and stole many u.s. rights with the patriot act. Im tired of you name calling ignorant redneck finger pointers. Talk to me and assume all you want but know that I am a member of the nra and not all the people that don’t jump on your hate obama bandwagon are the same.

        • Clifford Browning

          It takes years for work put into the economy to show real results. Im by no means standing up for the president but you people not putting blame on the dumbest president we ever had, bush, is rediculous.

      • RetiredTpr

        Throughout life, Eric, I have made it a point not to get into a battle of wits with someone who has no ammo!

      • joeschmoknows

        fact 1: Obamacare, fact 2: Gun control (subverting the 2nd amendment), fact 3: Guns to tyrannical Muslim brotherhood,(treasonous) fact 4: supports UN gun ban treaty(Treasonous) fact 5: lying about video and Benghazi in front of the UN and American people. Four People died because of their incompetence. Secretary of state says “what difference does it make.” fact 6: NSA spying on US citizens without probable cause/warrants. fact 7: Christmas ornaments on tree honoring Mao(murderer of 80+ million) fact 8: Hires card carrying communists in admin.(Van Jones) Fact 9: Counsels with Muslim Brotherhood about US policy. Fact 10: Secretary of state hires woman with DIRECT ties to Muslim brotherhood and gives access to highly classified documents on US foreign policy etc… I won’t go into staff members Bill Ayers and the Religious theology of Rev. Wright. Even Oprah had the intelligence to leave that church because it is whacked! And the list goes on and on and on….

      • NameNotGiven

        Fac tis gun crime is don, gun murder is down as gun ownership has gone up.

        And legal gun owners are safer than disarmed Americans.

        The gun control movement is a a far based anti science anti fact movement.

      • DaveGinOly

        You’re right. He’s not a socialist. He’s a communist. “Socialist” is what communists call themselves in polite company in order to maintain an air of respectability. The people Obama cites as mentors in The Audacity of Hope are all commies. He admits all of them influenced his political thought. Do you think that influence made him more mainstream or more conservative and didn’t make him a socialist? If you do, you’re loopier than I thought.

      • Jayhawker

        Obama is worse than a Socialist, he is a progressive as are the Clinton’s.

  • Eric Toth

    Sorry, but “Guns and Ammo” isn’t a reliable source. And you hacked the findings to ram your conservative agenda down America’s throat, despite America not wanting it.

    There have been several mainstream studies that show clearly that more guns mean more gun violence and that gun owners are far more likely to be the victims of gun crimes.

    But facts never stopped conservative gun huggers from pushing their dishonest agenda.

    What I find most hilarious, it that you republican half wits think that you can crap on the will of the people and still win elections!!

    Gunbots are dangerously stupid!

    • Nramem

      The facts never stop us? Did you read the article? The findings are from the CDC and they are available to all, so why would Guns and Ammo act like a liberal and lie and/or twist the facts thus discrediting themselves?

      The Brady Bunch ordered a study done by one of their members years ago and rejected the report because it didn’t have the results they wanted. The member went on to write the book “MORE GUNS LESS CRIME”. His name is Dr. John Lott. He isn’t an NRA member or a gun owner.

      Every year the FBI gathers stats from every law enforcement agency in the U.S.. These findings show that armed citizens wound, capture and/or kill more criminals that the police. How could this be? Because the first people at the scene are the victim(s) and the perp(s).

      Obama is a PROVEN LIAR! He lied about keeping you doctor and your health insurance. Every time he opens his mouth nothing but lies come out. His administration supplied weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels and cause more deaths in both our countries! His lack of leadership caused 4 AMERICANS TO DIE IN BENGAZI.


    • howler1968

      And you’re an asp.

    • Johnny Swab

      Blah Blah Blah you sound like every other worthless hippie. You blather on about the “mainstream media” yeah they never lie or twist things to their agenda do they? IF you look at the actual facts you will see how stupid you really are. If you don’t like guns DON’T BUY ONE. You said “What I find most hilarious, it that you republican half wits think that you can crap on the will of the people and still win elections” I’m pretty sure the will of the people was quite clear when Obama and his cronies tried to ban guns after Sandy Hook. Your POS so called leader is gun salesman of the year and you are a misguided fool. Maybe you should study the actual FBI statistics they sure don’t agree with your version of things.

    • NameNotGiven

      It is a CDC report doofus!

      And ALL the “mainstream” studies show the more legal gun owners the lower violence.

      You are about to only cite the ones that do not parse legal gun owners from active criminals.

      And your claim that gun owners are more likely to be victims is FALSE. LEGAL Gun owning homes are SAFER. The biased non scientific etudes that do not parse which gun owning homes are the homes of meth and crack dealers or gangbangers form legal gun owners are FLAT EARTH.

      the homes and occupants of LEGAL guns owning homes are safer than the general public

      WE are seeing the anti gun movement is FLAT EARTH. It uses the identical bogus logic as the anti vaccine nuts

  • Logan Waltz

    a study that’s scientifically accurate. about guns… and people are surprised about the results?

  • howler1968

    Wanna bet the liberal media will not report on this?
    Sorta like their coverage of Benghazi when it was fresh wound.

  • skilitchi

    Maybe we can spend money on research to help us learn more about mental illness and decrease the amount of people who are dying by their own hand instead of research to take away our first amendment rights.

    • Shayla Striffler

      First amendment rights? Nobody is taking away your freedom of speech.

      • NameNotGiven

        First amendment protected circumcision kills THREE TIMES as many US children per year as assault rifles do.

        And the rest of the bill of rights is MORE “dangerous” than the second amendment. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, eight amendments are the reason we have criminals on the streets. If you start attacking the second Amendment the entire bill of rights can be shredded in the same logic.

  • Jarad

    haha just read the report myself and this agenda biased reporting platform has yet again managed to scew the report in their favor. Yay oh yay for the frickin unbiased reporting ethics in america.

  • Erik

    Nice job of down playing the findings. How many school massacers happened without guns?

    • NameNotGiven

      The big massacres and mass murder are by bombing.

      And the fact is up to 3 million crimes per year prevented by legal gun owners

  • Erik

    How many school and theater massacres occure without guns?

    • NameNotGiven

      Actually the big massacres and mass murder are by bombing.

      And the fact is up to 3 million crimes per year prevented by legal gun owners

    • Ravi32

      How many of those which were committed with guns would have been effected by the passage of all the laws suggested by nuts like Bloomberg or Fienstien? Answer: ZERO

  • Isaac Strack

    So, not to be too contrary (because I am 100% pro 2nd amendment!) but this CDC document isn’t a findings report. It’s an overview of what the CDC is going to research or feels needs researching. All the comments/quotes above are based on past studies already performed, not what the CDC is going to be doing.

    In other words, this isn’t conclusive about anything the CDC found – this is the pre-research research. And from the tone in the document, I’d doubt very seriously that the research is going to be objective / pro-2nd.

    • NameNotGiven

      The problem with the research is that research on the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments would all show they can be shown to increase violence and crime.

      Why do you think the ACLU opposes CDC research on the health affects of those amendments (as well as the first)?

    • JDon357

      Isaac, sorry – but the article seemed to indicate the CDC report was designed to provide a short term answer to the Administration regarding the advisability of implementing more gun control – potentially by executive order since the Senate and House are at odds. Given the promise of more funds, of course they will study the issues further – but most of the facts are already pointing ito the obvious answer. Watch DC gun deaths go down, now that the courts have struck down that city’s unreasonable gun control laws.

  • NameNotGiven

    Fact is gun murder has plummeted over 40% as gun ownership increased by 16% (gallup shows us going from 41% to 47% in the past 15 years.

    One of the reasons why the CDC research was closed down was their abject and continued refusal to parse LEGAL gun-owning homes from CRIMINAL owners. The researchers claimed that was irrelevant.

    EG If you parse those two groups that gun owning homes are SAFER than the general population. If you don’t parse it you can claim they are more dangerous.

    So if you are a crack dealer, a gangbanger a career mugger or armed robber and own an illegal gun, you and your household are more danger from gun murder than the average house. DUHHHH!!!!!. As it turns out if you are not in one of those demographics and own a gun your household is actually safer than disarmed homes!

    So for all you gangbangers and drug dealers reading the research: get rid of your gun. If you are not a gangbanger or drug dealer, ignore the claims of the “researchers” since it does NOT apply to you.

    Secondly the ACLU vociferously says both crime and violence prevention cannot be weighed in discussion about the rest of the bill of rights. Why? because ANY of them would be in severe danger of being shredded if we did so.

  • Protectthe2nd!

    facts are that where there are gun bans coincidentally also have some of the highest rates of homicide per capita….Chicago, L.A., N.Y., and D.C. with its absolute gun ban has the highest murder rate of all…..
    Express whatever opinion you want……however the numbers dont lie….gun control doesnt work. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens puts them in peril and makes things easier for criminals! Do your DD and research whats going on in Australia after their ban…its sad to say the least…..

    • NameNotGiven

      Exactly. What the anti gun people do, and it is an other example of their anti science methods, is they compare demographically disparate states and not equal demographic jurisdictions and cities.

      So they will compare Hawaii to Louisiana. What they will never do is compare Chicago to Houston which have similar demographics. Chicago has total gun control and 35% more murder than highly legally armed Houston.

      By the way DC used to have a higher than average murder rate for its demographics slot. That was when legal guns were forbidden. Now that guns in homes are allowed (since 2008), its murder rate in homes has dropped to below the national average for equal demographic jurisdictions. Burglary and home invasions also dropped more than the average there as well as a result of increased la abiding gun ownership

      • Protectthe2nd!

        did not know that thanks for the info…. but I believe they still have the highest murder rate per capita. And here’s some other interesting numbers 16000 plus homicides of those 8500 or so gun related of those only about 340 caused by assault rifles…. about 1700 of them in southern Cal alone that’s right Feinstein….only 0.08% of legal gun owners committed a crime the lowest of any demographic group. And some more comparative stats for the same time period…. about 720 people die from random objects falling on their head whilst walking on the street…… about 444000 people die every year from cigarette smoke related deaths. 60000plus from alcohol related deaths….40000plus car related deaths…not excusing any death but seems like we legitimately have greater social issues to tackle.

  • just me

    It sounds like jarad voted for the horses ass and doesnt even appreciate what firearms did and still do for this country. I dont like what he said so lets outlaw it because I guess thats ok as long as the tax payer is getting the bill.

  • SF

    those points sound pretty well cherry picked to me-particularly this one:

    “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

    And if you read the FULL paragraph it continues with:

    “It is however unclear if prisoners will admit to gun thefts in a government-conducted surveys”

    To me, that says the unregulated transfers and complete lack of registration is a huge problem-much like how relatively few automobile fatalities are caused by stolen vehicles. Further, given that theft of a gun is a crime, but not the direct purchase of one, that really doesn’t say anything. It’s completely fallacious to say “well, if the person who has it didn’t steal it, it was clearly never stolen”

    Further: “Almost all guns used in criminal acts enter into circulation by an initial legal transaction. Background checks at the initial point of sale may be effective at preventing illegal access to firearms, but these checks are not required for all gun sales or transfers…the result of these inefficiencies is that illegal guns are readily available for those with criminal intent”

    In fact, the study then goes on to recommend that more information be gathered about purchases and ownership.

    It also goes on to discuss that the compromise laws over the past 20 years about funding research and collecting useful statistics have made data collection excessively difficult and relying on inaccurate measures-so any attempts to draw realistic conclusions have been handicapped from the start, thus rendering so many of the findings bordering on useless.

    And if you want to grab important snippets from the article:

    -46,313 murders between 2007 and 2011 via firearm “During that same time, firearms accounted for more than twice as many murders as all other weapons combined”

    Almost every point brought up in this article is disputed almost immediately after, or given important caveats that effectively negate it. The study pretty clearly suggests that better research and data gathering needs to be done and it clearly points out that laws over the past 30 years that were put in place clearly stifle any attempts to ask important questions.

    • Ravi32

      I don’t see how any of your examples lead to the charge of “cherry picking” by gunsandammo whatsoever.
      We already know 80% of crime guns are straw purchases which is a federal felony already. Most of the rest are theft which is already felony. ENFORCEMENT of existing laws is what is needed. The Bush administration DOJ successfully prosecuted many many times more straw purchase than Holder ha under Obama.
      And there has not been nor is there any impediment whatsoever to the collection of data. The problem that occurred with the research was the profound anti second amendment bias by CDC researchers leading to absurd conclusions in their now broadly debunked garbage studies.
      And of COURSE the CDC wants more money for more studies. They are bureaucrats!

  • Protectthe2nd

    This argument can be settled with one book…..Timothy Mcveigh and Terry Nichols were part of a group who consider it their version of Mein Kampf. They actually felt compelled to commit the Oklahoma city bombing after reading this book….Ive read it and Im white yet it sickens me to think that there are hateful Americans out there that really believe in what this book stands for. I can see these white supremacists licking their chops waiting for an absolute gun ban to take effect so they can conduct their version of the Holocaust.

    The first people they’re planning on killing ironically are the same liberals and minority groups that are proposing Gun Bans…..To think our first black President playing right into their hands, I cant imagine how many of these groups exist that are just waiting for a chance to decimate whole areas populated by minorities and then attempt a total take over of our nation…..
    You liberals are always out there trying to make the world safer place but its not so simple and the facts are that as long as human nature, which consists of things like hate, envy, ignorance, free will, bigotry and so on exist there will also always be opposing groups and some that are extreme that harbor sinister ideals and have evil plans that make perfect sense to them….something that gun control would only exasperate!
    Having gun control would create a murderous rampage against the citizens of our great country, plunging us into Tyranny or another civil war with the masses unarmed and defenseless (and just for starters) against such bigots who are bent on carrying out their plan of racial cleansing which would be just the beginning of our hell!
    If you were ever against the 2nd amendment and for gun control I promise you will change your mind after reading it…
    Remember please do not buy this book NEW as I do not advocate financially supporting hate groups or hate for that matter! Your local library should carry it….it’s called “The Turner Diaries”….. Read it and then we’ll see how many of you liberals Still feel the same! Theres a reason why today, we as a nation are one of the few on earth that have not had any major upheaval in our society or system of Govt. in the last 150 years and have also had a continuos and prolific Democracy governed by the rule of law, and backed by the people who are protected by its constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights which consists of such laws as the 2nd A…”The right to bare Arms!”

    Just think about that for a second before you knock it!

  • Bevin Chu

    You could say Obomber “shot himself in the foot.”


  • Bevin Chu

    May I suggest that fellow gun owners not use the gun grabbers’ biased terminology. Don’t go along with them by talking about “gun control.”

    Use more honest terms such as “civilian disarmament,” “victim disarmament,” “people control,” “gun confiscation.”

    I’m sure others can come up with even more creative alternatives.

    • JDon357

      Excellent point. The Liberals are great at naming unpleasant, un-American initiatives names that would make Hallmark proud. Like the “Affordable Care Act”. Sounds so nice. Much better than – Socialized Medicine Tax Program.
      (Yes, the Supreme Court upheld it because they concluded our health insurance premiums are no longer ‘commerce’ but ‘tax’ expenditures.

      • Bevin Chu

        For example, if you didn’t know already, what the f**k would you make of “Affirmative Action?” Action that is affirmative. What the f**k is that? Could be literally anything one considers worth ramming down others’ throats.
        Truth be told, both wings of the Demopublican Party are equally guilty of this sort of Orwellian Newspeak.
        The biggest difference between Bush and Obama is that one is white and the other is black. Agenda wise, both are corporatists/fascists.

  • freedom?

    And there is also plenty of research showing secondhand smoke is not dangerous, but of course there is no big organization like NRA to get them published. Why is CDC involved in gun research – Center for Disease Control – where is the Disease in owning guns? I’m confused.

  • NicePiece

    Obama is a Brit in disguise. No really. His agenda to disarm the populace could be in preparation for a new Imperial invasion. Doesn’t the flag of Hawaii have a Union Jack on it? Hmmm…cup of tea anyone?

  • skippingdog

    What a misleading article and claim. The CDC report does nothing more than set out areas of potentially valuable and informative study, particularly where there are claims that have nothing more than anecdotal support. To claim that a literature review that accompanies a research proposal “proves” anything demonstrates just how ignorant and agenda driven the writer is.

    • JDon357

      So, the long awaited CDC report only ‘sets out areas of potentially valuable study’. Is that what your English teacher said your 10th grade report did when she gave you that ‘F’ ?

  • KenMacMillan

    All those links in this article and none of them lead to the CDC report.

  • Joos

    It is mindblowing how “liberal haters”, almost without failing, have spelling and grammar issues. Why is that? And almost inevitably, a racial slur creeps up,along with references to Karl Marx, and the cherry on top: the threat to “kill” someone. And above all: hate. Like dogs, snarling and growling from their corners.

    As we all know, dogs snarl and gnarl when they are scared and feel insecure. They are stressed out because they perceive everything as a threat. Confident dogs don’t. Men are not very different.

    I know that no one who invokes Marx in connection to Obama has actually read Marx — had they, Marx would be the last thing on their minds. Google “Marxist” as a start. Hopefully, “materialistic dialectic” talk won’t give you a headache. And btw, it has nothing to do with consumerism. Absolutely nothing.

    Let’s face it guys. Gun-obsession is not the let’s-get-all-fuzzy-inside-with-the-American-homesteader-narrative-of-I-am-just-protecting-my-family. That same gun-owning/family-protecting father, if he had a chance to hook up with someone other than his wife, would not hesitate to do a little “shooting” on the side. So much for the family protection. Gun obsession is really about something else.

    Most gun owners are wieners on the inside (there are notable exceptions). Get a group of men into the room, and ask gunowners to self-identify. Before that, do a mental check of the guys you can tell are not getting any looks from ladies, do not command respect with their presence (too ugly, too awkward, too uneducated, too shy, too take-your-pick: it is a guy who has been dealing with self-confidence issues for a very long time). I’ve done this thousands of times now and continue to do it (my line of work allows me to do this). The overlaps are stunning.

    You really want to protect your family? Improve your self-defense? Your survival chances? It is about self-survival, in that we do agree.

    1. stand up straight; remain standing straight (lose the slouch)

    2. change your haircut (it’s most likely been the same for way too long)

    3. burn all the clothes from your closet, sell your guns, and invest in a quality, fitting wardrobe (wear your true size, which doesn’t hide what you look like without it. In other words, burn whatever is baggy and loose. Burn whatever a high schooler would wear. Remember: you are a man, not a child. High schoolers get picked on in a shoolyard. So do men who dress like that. If you are an adult who pays bills, Ed Hardy, Tapout, Vans, etc, have no business in your closet. Neither do tshirts with cartoon or animal characters. Have your significant other pick out your clothes. Never buy clothes you can find at truck stops. Women hate them, trust me. It is, at least partially, all about women, right? We are talking about self-survival. Survival means access to females too.)

    4. lose the gut

    5. work on your self-confidence (whatever it takes)

    6. if you are uneducated, educate yourself

    7. enroll in a self-defense class; join a gym (you will get singled-out for attack based on your looks, and your demeanor — your entire package). Fit and confident looking men rarely get robbed or harassed, not surprisingly.

    8. when you look yourself in a mirror, tell yourself: “I’m a man.” (and remember: most women find men who are into guns, terribly unsexy and unattractive)

    9. work on strengthening your community. meet your neighbors, business owners. stop treating your house as a “fortress”. it is not, has never been, and never will be.

    10. stop hanging out on gunsandammo sites, and spend it showing your family that you love them: it’s the best “protection” you can give them

    11. drop the porn

    12. forget about zombies. join the living. live.

    • JDon357

      “Let’s face it guys. The people who like guns cheat on their wives.”
      Your credibility is even lower than your ability to carry a cohesive argument to a logical conclusion.

    • Come & Take It!

      It is mind-blowing to read the rambling, idiotic statements of a person who criticizes other people’s “spelling and grammar”, and then goes on to use poor grammar and sentence structure complete with a lack of capitalization throughout their entire idiotic rant. You are a true idiot.

  • Joos

    What a sausage fest this gun and ammo business. Angry one too. I wonder why.

    • JDon357

      Jooos, You must be reading different comments than I am. The angry, disparaging ones I”m reading are coming from the anti-2nd Amendment sausages.

  • Joos

    This gun-and-ammo community is the only one in the world which actually considers a “zombie apocalypse” as a viable probability (however faint and/or symbolic) and in THE SAME sentence defends their constitutional rights.
    Seriously, did I stumble into a high school cafeteria?

  • Rory Gibbons

    Jared he’s not an Idiot, he’s a intelligent man, only problem is it’s “criminal intelligence.” the man is a crook.

  • dfb69

    If this report showed what the left wanted it to show it would have been ALL over the news and Obama would have crowed about it

  • Maurice E. Gilbert Sr.

    This dunce “directs this or that” on a whim; but he doesn’t care – it’s not his money!!

  • Tom Harvey

    Most of the stuff in thes article was put into the study because Gary Kleck was on the board that wrote the study. Other items show that measures watered down by people who don’t want them to work don’t work very well. The study shows that strong measures are needed to deal with gun violence.

  • Clifford Browning

    Read the study for what it is. All facts can be reworded and refigured to fit the statement of the person presenting them. The study hasn’t really told me and many others more than what we already logically broke down in our heads to be true. As far all these politics. You are all stupid, republicans fuck shit up, democrats fuck shit up and all you grown men arguing like children calling people stuff like libtards and staring at fox news get on my nerves. You don’t like the way things are and blame others then get out and do something about it. Untill then shut the fuck up

  • John Thompson

    This is the report I have telling my friends to read for the last year or so

  • John Thompson

    This is the article everyone should read . It will help to prove that Obama and the others are lying when it comes to their reason for gun control. This is a magazine article that was written about the CDC gun violence study. After seeing the results, it is easy to see why Obama hasn’t mentioned it

    • nonotreally

      Go read the actual report,

  • thepeople

    If you remove guns from law abiding citizens who will commonly use them for protection then who is left with the guns…. ohhh maybe the fucking criminals who can buy them off the streets it is impossible easy to acquire weapons no matter the time or place so for instance guns were recently banned or certain types in Australia and guess what happened home invasions went up robberies went up and hmmm maybe because people realized no one had a gun hidden in the house anymore and yes are president sucks for any liberal who wants to remove guns from the normal average citizen I urge you to try.

  • Bob Bowden

    Except that this is just a review of the 1996 report to be used as a guide to what should be studied in the new report. The new report isn’t out yet and is expect to take 3 to 5 years to make.

    • nonotreally

      Exactly, the article wrongly identified this report as a study and then cherry picked the report for this article.

  • CaKe

    Sandy Hook was closed in 2008? Even the neighbors are speaking out about this lie!

    • zeus234

      I’ve read about all there is on the subject of SH and can almost guarantee the whole thing was set up from the get go. Sadly nothing will ever happen no matter how much evidence points to said set up.

  • Jonas

    I don’t know, looks like it backfired on the NRA, not Obama. Obama didn’t sign an order saying “CDC, find me evidence that guns are bad”. He told them to research it, and research it they did. As far as the presidential office is concerned, this went exactly as planned. But hey, I don’t actually know Obama’s stance on guns. Maybe he is actually anti-gun and this really is a backfire for him.

    It backfired on the NRA because this is nearly two decades they will never back that they could have shouted this sort of study from the rooftops. It backfired on America, because this is two decades we won’t get back of having information relevant to forming proper policy for public safety.

  • ThinkLonger

    It does appear the CDC has only just begun this study. It will be interesting to see their results. I have been reading “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. He seemed to do a huge amount of research, looking much deeper than most other studies I see. I hope the CDC will be as thorough. In the end I agree with the 2nd Amendment. If guns are banned, shouldn’t other things like sports cars, which are also “Not Necessary”, and can also kill a crowd of people, baseball bats, golf clubs, swimming pools, etc be banned? If saving the largest quantity of lives is the goal, banning guns is not a good choice. In fact it could end up costing more lives. Also think of all the effort and money spent to attempt to prevent the tiny fraction of deaths caused by “Mass Shootings” vs many other preventable deaths. Sure it seems horrible to think of not preventing these incidents, and I don’t think it should be ignored, but if it means diverting efforts that could save 5000% more children that drown in pools or die in car accidents, or other events, would you want to be responsible for that? This topic gets way too much focus by the media, which in turn affects the public, who are then mislead to think this is by far the major killer of innocent people. This in turn convinces Obama and a lot of politicians to think “If I side with the public, they will like me” In reality many more kids are drowning, getting killed in or by cars, falling… Since it’s just 1 or 2 persons at a time however, the public thinks it’s not a big issue and the media doesn’t often report “another person died in a car accident” events. Personally, I am very thankful for those that legally carry and believe they are taking on a great responsibility and are serving our country. Why would we want to prevent that?

  • Brutus974

    Hey, if you want to kill yourself and buy a gun to do it… guess what, you have a “gun in your home.”

    The statistics are meaningless unless you remove that data.

  • shah9775

    Guns are also used by hunters and so they cannot be banned altogether. Yes, the licensing process should be strict and only people really in need of guns should be given the license the have one, however banning them altogether is an impractical solution and it will not reduce the crime rate as can be judged by the CDC results. I hope the Obama government doesnt ban trail cameras some day :P

  • AJcoog

    The NRA fears gun science because the NRA is not a science-based organization. Thus they cannot explain, why, with the millions of guns we now have in this country, we are not “safer”. By NRA standards, all it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is good guy with gun. A maxim which has proven false over and over. Moreover, if the idea that guns make us safer, why do they insist everyone should have on? Why would everyone need a gun? If everyone has a gun, does that not make everyone a potential bad guy, and everyone a potential good guy, and all that remains is a wild shoot out? The truth is, the NRA could care less about safety, and more about creating paranoia which prompts an insane urge to buy a gun; it’s an urge provoked by creating paranoia that feeds on itself. In truth, we are not safe, so long as we are paranoid, and the targets we aim at are not the bad guys, but at each other. There are no mythical good guys running around stopping the bad guys. But why not? You’d think with all the “legitimate” gun owners in this country, bad guys wouldn’t stand a chance. (That’s what we keep hearing from the “legitimate” gun owner. ) They keep telling us “If it were me, at that shooting….” Yet almost every week we hear about a shooting rampage and there’s no ordinary gun-owner hero in sight. There is the occasional lucky one, but he’s a rarity, not the rule which is odd, since all these gun owners are allegedly all about “safety.” Why not more? That is NRA’s gift to America. A lie that is NRA’s version of truth, wrapped up in a diseased marketing formula designed to keep people paranoid, and keep the guns flowing for sale. That is why the NRA fears science. They would be exposed for the death merchants and fear-mongers they are.

back to top