Results of Obama’s own CDC study on guns support other side

Handguns on display

The results of a Center for Disease Control study on gun violence that President Barack Obama ordered to great fanfare in January are in, and they’re something he would rather have swept under the rug. They’ll also crush the messaging in the Democratic anti-gun playbook.

President Obama played ringleader to the national hysteria following the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. When Congress didn’t seem to act fast enough for him, he signed a list of 23 executive orders on gun violence — to create the illusion that something was being done.

Initiative 14 on the list directed “the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” The Federal agency oddly justified its role by concluding gun violence is contagious, but as Bizpac Review reported shortly after the results were released, the study actually concluded that firearms aren’t the culprits that the left wants us to think they are.

Nonetheless the gun-grabbers plowed ahead, and even went to so as to write a “how-to” playbook called “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” which emphasized employing emotion and ignoring fact.

The left’s reliance on emotion for pushing gun control now makes perfect sense, because the further one digs into the CDC report, the more one realizes that facts are not at all on their side according to The New American.

Concurrent with the 23 executive orders, the president called upon Congress to act on measures to stiffen background checks and ban so-called “assault rifles” and “high-capacity” magazines. The CDC study concluded that such measures would have little if any effect on gun violence.

The CDC found, for example, that the majority of gun-related deaths were due to suicide — not to ghetto-roaming gang-bangers, armed liquor store robbers or brain-addled mass shooters.

“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,” the CDC report said.

In addition, the CDC found that firearms are used more for self-defense than they are in the commission of crimes, noting:

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.

The report also indicated that both accidental firearm deaths and mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are actually on the decline.

Of the three measures the president called for Congress to take up, only one — stiffer background checks — actually made it to the Senate, where it was easily defeated. But the CDC found that this would have had very little effect on gun violence, as criminals almost always obtain firearms outside the commercial marketplace. They borrow them from family and friends, or purchase them illegally on the street.

The one bright spot for the president was the 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, these rates are horribly skewed by state and local gun laws. “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC,” notes the Guardian Express, “the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” Those are, of course, jurisdictions that have chosen to enact the country’s strictest gun laws.

The New American noted that these latest CDC findings mirror those it published in 2003, which found, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws”:
— Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
— Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
— Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
— Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
— Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.

The CDC’s findings shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to Second Amendment supporters. The National Rifle Association has been preaching this message for years. The president will also have learned a valuable lesson before he calls for another report: If you may not like the answer, don’t ask the question.

Comments

37 thoughts on “Results of Obama’s own CDC study on guns support other side

  1. Kenneth Clark says:

    Wonder how that worm in the apple is tasting about now?

    1. Gnowark says:

      to me, it’s pretty damned SWEET!

  2. Gnowark says:

    Sorry, the US only is about HALF the average murders, because the “Gun
    Control” countries overwhelm freedom based countries (Mexico 22.7
    murders/100K (total civ. gun ban), Global average 7 homicides/100K, US is ONLY 4.8 murders/100k).
    THAT is why we believe carrying more and more guns by the HONEST
    CITIZENS impedes the criminal element. Even Obama’s January CDC begun study
    (remember those 23 Jan. initiatives by ExecOrd) concludes more guns= less crime. Why do YOU (seazen) believe the BS of
    gun control advocates?

    1. Mgh999 says:

      The facts! They burn!

      Next thing you’ll tell me is Mexico has only 1 gun store in the entire country…oh wait, it does!

    2. Lemmie says:

      “US is ONLY 4.8 murders/100k”

      Most western industrialised nations have a rate of 0.7 – 1.7 per 100k. The US rate is around 4x higher than most of them.

      1. Chuck Stamford says:

        “There was one startling conclusion which, taken at face value, seemed to
        give the president what he was looking for. The study reported 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, Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity
        Institute, produced a map that compared gun violence rates in the major
        metropolitan areas of the country to rates of foreign countries. As
        Graham Noble of Guardian Express noted, “If
        one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and
        Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line
        with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most
        restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for
        the president to celebrate the report’s findings.”

        http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

        1. Lemmie says:

          Yeah, I’ve been chatting with Graham Noble about that in the comments section of his post.

          Here’s my response…

          US Population – 311.6m – 2011

          14,612 murders & non-negligent manslaughter

          14612/3116 = 4.69 per 100k (4.07 if excluding non-negligent manslaughter)

          A total around 4x that of most western industrialised nations.

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-6

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

          California
          Population – 36,836,745
          Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 1,792

          Illinois
          Population – 11,192,664
          Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 721

          New Jersey
          Population – 8,821,155
          Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 380

          Washington D.C.
          Population – 617,996
          Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 108

          Population once 4 areas deducted – 254,131,440
          Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 11,611
          4.57 per 100k.

          The US would need to cut its total number of Annual murders by over 10,000 to, “be in line with any other country”. Don’t believe me, or the FBI UCR data? Mike Huckabee posted something similar a few days ago and Politifact had a crack at it – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/29/mike-huckabee/mike-huckabee-says-if-you-cut-out-high-gun-homicid/

          1. Chuck Stamford says:

            I think what the Guardian report had in mind was the following (all numbers are homicide rates per 100k):

            Nicaragua 5.9 – Boston 6.2

            Philippines 8.9 – Los Angeles 9.2

            Honduras 68.4 – New Orleans 62.1

            Guyana 11.5 – Chicago 11.6

            El Salvador 39.9 – Detroit 35.9

            Guatemala 34.8 – Baltimore 29.7

            Brazil 18.1 – Washington D. C. 19.0

            Columbia 27.1 – Miami 23.7

            South Africa 17.0 – Atlanta 17.2

            source: http://wizbangblog.com/?attachment_id=51218

            We notice that if we drop the homicide rates of these (and other) major metropolitan areas that are consistent with countries with very high homicide rates, the US homicide rate is significantly reduced, and while the claim that dropping only those metro areas where gun regulation is highest may not get the US homicide rate in line with the rest of the Western world, dropping the major metro areas with very high rates, regardless of gun control laws, does. The point is that homicides in the US are concentrated in major metropolitan areas, of which the US has scores, while most European countries have none the size of the largest in the US, and certainly nothing like the size of population living in a major metro environment that seems so conducive to high homicide rates.

            This may be better illustrated by comparing population percentage living in cities in the US to other countries in Europe (as of 2012):

            US = 79%

            UK = 80%

            Ukraine = 69%

            Switzerland = 84%

            Spain = 77%

            Russian Fed. = 74%

            Romania = 55%

            Portugal = 38%

            Poland = 61%

            Norway = 80%

            Netherlands = 66%

            Lithuania = 67%

            Italy = 68%

            Ireland = 60%

            Hungary = 69%

            Germany = 73%

            France = 78%

            Finland = 68%

            Denmark = 72%

            Czech Rep. = 74%

            Source: http://kff.org/global-indicator/urban-population/

          2. Lemmie says:

            That doesn’t stand up…

            US Population – 311.6m – 2011

            14,612 murders & non-negligent manslaughter

            14612/3116 = 4.69 per 100k (4.07 if excluding non-negligent manslaughter)

            A total around 4x that of most western industrialised nations.

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-6

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

            Table 6 gives you data for Metropolitan areas.

            Boston
            Population – 621,359
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 63

            Los Angeles
            Population – 3,837,207
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 297

            New Orleans
            Population – 346,974
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 200

            Chicago
            Population – 2,703,713
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 431

            Detroit
            Population – 713,239
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 344

            Baltimore
            Population – 626,848
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 196

            Washington D.C.
            Population – 617,996
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 108

            Miami
            Population – 404,901
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 68

            Atlanta
            Population – 425,533
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 88

            Total for selected cities
            Population – 10,297,770
            Murders & non-negligent manslaughter – 1795

            Total US population once selected cities removed – 301.3m

            Total Murders & non-negligent manslaughters once selected cities removed – 12,817

            12817/3013 = 4.25 per 100k.

            Removing the 9 cities you referred to managed to drop the country from 4.7 per 100k to 4.25 per 100k. Still massively higher than most western industrialised nations.

            Table 5 gives you data for States. You have 7 States with Murder rates of under 2 per 100k – Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Utah & Vermont. Look through… it’s not just about cities, it’s whole States.

            http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

            Look at the European rates. 45 Countries and States. 23 of which (over half) have a rate of 1.2 per 100k or lower (around one quarter of the US rate).

            You talk about the percentage of population living in cities. You have the US with 79% and the UK with 80%. The UK (England & Wales) murder rate for 2011/12 was 0.98 per 100k. It’s not just about cities. I’m not saying it’s just about guns. The US does have a significant problem with murder though.

          3. Chuck Stamford says:

            The US does not have a substantially higher murder rate than the of other industrialized countries once you remove the half dozen or so urban settings with atrociously high murder rates.

            Once you get out into rural America there’s no outstanding problem other countries don’t generally also have. I don’t believe this phenomenon can be explained by guns alone, whether they are overly restricted or nearly unregulated. Rather, it’s a phenomenon, in my opinion, driven by other problems inherent in modern city life in the US, to drugs and the culture of violence they breed, the pace and stress of city life, and poverty mainly, but not exclusively.

            Finally, the stats don’t distinguish between gun related homicides resulting from a criminal attack, and gun related homicides from a person defending themselves from such an attack. In countries where there is no legal gun ownership, we lose one whole category without any actual notice of it.

          4. Lemmie says:

            I hope you’ve realised by now that I’m approaching this with interest and a relatively open mind. I’ll go wherever the numbers take me.

            “The US does not have a substantially higher murder rate than the of other industrialized countries once you remove the half dozen or so urban settings with atrociously high murder rates.”

            I think I’ve pretty comprehensively demonstrated above that in fact it does. On my last post I removed the 9 that you quoted in your last post and it took the rate from 4.7 down to 4.25. Not a massive difference when most western industrialised countries have rates of 0.7 – 1.7.

            “I don’t believe this phenomenon can be explained by guns alone, whether they are overly restricted or nearly unregulated. Rather, it’s a phenomenon, in my opinion, driven by other problems inherent in modern city life in the US, to drugs and the culture of violence they breed, the pace and stress of city life, and poverty mainly, but not exclusively.”

            This I agree with.

            I did have a look at rural areas though, and surprisingly (to me as well) it’s not clear cut.

            Check out – http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

            Each state has listings for non-metropolitan counties. I’ve picked 10 States (States taken from a list of States with, ‘the most lenient gun laws’) and worked the numbers…

            Wisconsin probably demonstrates your point most clearly – rate for the whole state 2.4, but in rural areas 0.89. Kentucky & Alaska it’s actually reversed – higher rates of murder per capita in rural areas. Overall, far too many states have rates above 3 per 100k even in rural areas. Remember, over half of European countries and states have a rate of 1.2 per 100k or under.

            Wisconsin
            Population – 896,418
            Murders – 8
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 0.89
            Rate for whole State – 2.4

            Idaho
            Population – 300,448
            Murders – 6
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 2.00
            Rate for whole State – 2.3

            Kentucky
            Population – 1,310,002
            Murders – 57
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 4.35
            Rate for whole State – 3.5

            Louisiana
            Population – 768,729
            Murders – 36
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 4.68
            Rate for whole State – 11.2

            Montana
            Population – 444,556
            Murders – 10
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 2.25
            Rate for whole State – 2.8

            Oklahoma
            Population – 631,140
            Murders – 29
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 4.59
            Rate for whole State – 5.5

            Arizona
            Population – 278,422
            Murders – 8
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 2.78
            Rate for whole State – 6.2

            Alaska
            Population – 251,849
            Murders – 12
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties)- 4.78
            Rate for whole State – 4.0

            Texas
            Population – 1,688,199
            Murders – 58
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 3.44
            Rate for whole State – 4.4

            Utah
            Population – 160,515
            Murders – 5
            Rate per 100k (non-metropolitan counties) – 3.13
            Rate for whole State – 1.9

            “Finally, the stats don’t distinguish between gun related homicides resulting from a criminal attack, and gun related homicides from a person defending themselves from such an attack.”

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

            “This section also includes information about justifiable homicide—certain willful killings that must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

            The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.

            The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

            Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. Justifiable homicide information can be found in Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, “Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2007–2011” and Expanded Homicide Data Table 15, “Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2007–2011.””

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

            So Justifiable Homicides aren’t included within the Murder Stats provided by the FBI UCR data.

  3. Jerry says:

    How many times do we need to come to the same conclusion. Those who don’t like our constitution can pack up and get out.

  4. Cody Gage says:

    It’s not a study. It’s an outline for future research that mentions results from other sources.

    One of those results anout defensive gun use is 108,000. So in essence it says defensive gun use by victims is 108,000 to 3 million. With a difference of that much it’s safe to say we have absolutely no idea what the real number is.
    That’s why it was mentioned on the outline, so we can find out the real number.

    Here is the “Study” being discussed.
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

Comments are closed.

Related Posts