CDC Gun Violence Study Didn't Give Obama White House Outcome It Wanted - Investors.com Among other findings, defensive use of a firearm is at least as frequent as offensive uses. Persons injured with their own handgun used defensively are less common than persons using other defensive means. Gun turn ins are ineffective. No evidence that restrictive gun laws decrease gun crime. I know, stuff we all have figured out for a while, but it is great that the CDC is concluding it as well.
I believe it, but would like to read the CDC report as a way to fact check before I spread it around to others. Nice. Were you able to find a link?
This looks like all of it Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence It's 123 pages, so I haven't read all of it yet.
Ok, I read the Document, and it makes NO Conclusions, but compiles previous Studies, into a comprehensive Report that pro-ports to setup a program of Inquiry, and Research into the Questions on cause, and remedies, that may, or may NOT, shed some light on the Issue of Weapons Violence, and specifically Gun Violence, in the USA. It is NOTED, in many places, that gathering Research Data, in some cases, is SPECIFICALLY Regulated and or Prohibited, by Federal Statute, and Federal Privacy Constitutional Restraints, and these Academics whine, that without this data, they can't really know what the real causation's and interactions are, and what Legal, and or Legislative Remedies, may or may NOT be effective. In other words, This Report sums up what they do Know, what they would Like to Know, and what they can't find out, without violating Federal Statutes, in place, and Federal Privacy Constitutional Restraints. All written in the best Wording, Academia can foster.... Lovely..... Oh how I miss my Days as an Academic....NOT....
Pretty much what i was going to say (and yes, i read the whole damn thing). This isn't necessarily good for 2A, it's just not overtly BAD for 2A. It could have been almost 60 pages shorter if they hadn't spent 5 pages at the front with CYA and cut the whining out.
Forgot to say that the whole report reminded me of meetings about future meetings to set up a committee to determine the best way to go about analyzing findings that haven't been gathered yet.
The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity. - Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
@melbo - but who better to deconstruct the Constitution than a Harvard Law graduate in Constitutional Law?
