President Obama Funds Pro 2A Study - Ignored by CNN WaPo and Fox

[SoCal P320]

President Obama spent $10 million of our hard tax earned dollars and found that there are 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses per year (DGU also includes showing a firearm to a criminal who then runs away)

This is such a underutilized gem in case anyone is arguing with an anti gun liberal.


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.”

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...lated-violence

[SoCal P320]

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“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,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

What a gem.

[Librarian]

Full doc available here: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_...lence_2013.pdf

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Full doc available here: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_...lence_2013.pdf

Thank you sir!

[Tehjosheh]

this sounds like a good study with some very useful conclusions. I am all for learning more and I hope that this data can be used to advocate for our rights.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

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.”

It's important to remember this study was a survey study, which means they only reviewed the current research. So they reviewed lots of other studies to come to there conclusions. i.e. this is the current state of gun research.

The one I quoted above is interesting given the recent Berkeley study. It means most other studies don't agree with the Berkeley conclusions.

I recall there were also some negative parts to this report. It wasn't all roses I think.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by Tehjosheh

this sounds like a good study with some very useful conclusions. I am all for learning more and I hope that this data can be used to advocate for our rights.

Originally Posted by abinsinia

It's important to remember this study was a survey study, which means they only reviewed the current research. So they reviewed lots of other studies to come to there conclusions. i.e. this is the current state of gun research.

The one I quoted above is interesting given the recent Berkeley study. It means most other studies don't agree with the Berkeley conclusions.

I recall there were also some negative parts to this report. It wasn't all roses I think.

Disarming a rabid anti-gun Liberal becomes cakewalk when you say

" President Obama funded this study. President Obama finds that.... "


Rabid anti gun liberal ends up turning into a compliant puppy.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

It's important to remember this study was a survey study, which means they only reviewed the current research. So they reviewed lots of other studies to come to there conclusions. i.e. this is the current state of gun research.

The one I quoted above is interesting given the recent Berkeley study. It means most other studies don't agree with the Berkeley conclusions.

I recall there were also some negative parts to this report. It wasn't all roses I think.

The vast majority of people don't actually read into the studies though. We just follow the opinions of those that we trust.

I think it's fair to say that most liberals trust President Obama so this really helps a lot.

It's pretty sad that this study has been so kept in the dark by mainstream media.

[Sutcliffe]

That would be hysterically ironic.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by Sutcliffe

That would be hysterically ironic.

It was indeed one of his executive orders on gun research.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

Disarming a rabid anti-gun Liberal becomes cakewalk when you say

" President Obama funded this study. President Obama finds that.... "


Rabid anti gun liberal ends up turning into a compliant puppy.

I see the mistake. You believe they use logic, facts, and data to reach a conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. They use "feels" and "becauses". The reason they get quiet when exposed to logic and facts is due to the severe allergy they have to truth, which causes a temporary case of anaphylaxis and paralysis. Soon enough a "feel" comes along, and they revert back to the blithering moron you were previously conversing with.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by njineermike

I see the mistake. You believe they use logic, facts, and data to reach a conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. They use "feels" and "becauses". The reason they get quiet when exposed to logic and facts is due to the severe allergy they have to truth, which causes a temporary case of anaphylaxis and paralysis. Soon enough a "feel" comes along, and they revert back to the blithering moron you were previously conversing with.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I know what you mean. Mary Poppins music might be necessary.

[baffomet]

Tagged.

Thanks!

[Discogodfather]

There is no more research, only partisan political squabbling and money motivates everything. No one cares what the truth about gun ownership is except gun owners.

If the gun debate was about guns, the debate would be over in 3 minutes looking at simply readily available data. It's not about guns.

[RangerJoe]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

Disarming a rabid anti-gun Liberal becomes cakewalk when you say

" President Obama funded this study. President Obama finds that.... "


Rabid anti gun liberal ends up turning into a compliant puppy.

" President Obama funded this study. President Obama finds that.... "


Where is this line in the PDF doc?

[dfletcher]

Well, I'd suspect the former President would file this study under the heading of unintended consequences.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by RangerJoe

" President Obama funded this study. President Obama finds that.... "


Where is this line in the PDF doc?

Post #2

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“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,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by dfletcher

Well, I'd suspect the former President would file this study under the heading of unintended consequences.

He did expand unlicensed conceal carry to our national parks right?

He could have snuffed this study if he wanted to. But if it was unintended consequences, then he did have the honor to publish it and let us know.

[SonofWWIIDI]

Great article and funny that his idea to prove "guns are bad, mmkay" backfired on him.

But it is old news. July 2013. And the lamestream media never covered it beyond an anecdote.

[LBDamned]

Yes, it is old... And it was covered - however it didn't get traction (of course)... But this isn't a new revelation.

[harbormaster]

Bet the authors of that study got fired. LOL

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

He did expand unlicensed conceal carry to our national parks right?

He could have snuffed this study if he wanted to. But if it was unintended consequences, then he did have the honor to publish it and let us know.

Ahh. The old "carry in national parks" red herring. That only happened because it was an amendment to a must pass bill and he was forced to sign and allow the carry, or veto and piss of all of his base. BTW, fun factoid, while in the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama introduced an anti gun bill so bad it didn't pass. In Illinois.

From http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/...un_control.htm:

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

[skyungjae]

feelings > facts

[abinsinia]

Here's another one that I didn't recall seeing, but found while researching,

Obama erra CDC report,

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/report...-0069-3140.pdf

The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel.

Study was done at California ranges.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Ahh. The old "carry in national parks" red herring. That only happened because it was an amendment to a must pass bill and he was forced to sign and allow the carry, or veto and piss of all of his base. BTW, fun factoid, while in the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama introduced an anti gun bill so bad it didn't pass. In Illinois.

From http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/...un_control.htm:

So do you think every democrat would have signed and not vetoed?

Who knows, maybe someone took Obama to the range between 2000 and 2004. Whoever that was, it's time to thank them for their service.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by harbormaster

Bet the authors of that study got fired. LOL

Looks like he got promoted. Dr. Alan Leshner was President Obama's appointed chair on this study. Here is Alan Leshner speaking after the Las Vegas Massacre.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politi...t-ask-congress

“It’s a national embarrassment that we don’t know in any detailed way the answers to so many of the major questions you need to really tackle this problem,” said Alan Leshner, CEO-emeritus of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS. “Gun violence is not something you can solve by just intuition and common sense or ideology.”

Looks like all mainstream media wants to bury President Obama's report and the words of his appointed chair Dr. Leshner.

[SoCal P320]

Here is Dr. Alan Leshner's biography. The guy President Obama appointed to chair this $10M study on firearm usage.

Alan Leshner has been chief executive officer of AAAS since December 2001. AAAS was founded in 1848 and is the world's largest multi-disciplinary scientific and engineering society. Prior to his arrival at AAAS, Leshner was director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). He has also served as deputy director and acting director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and has worked in senior positions at the National Science Foundation. He was a professor of psychology for 10 years at Bucknell University. Leshner received a bachelor's degree in psychology from Franklin and Marshall College and master's and Ph.D. degrees in physiological psychology from Rutgers University. President Bush appointed Leshner to the National Science Board in 2004. He also sits on the Advisory Committee to the director of NIH and represents AAAS on the U.S. Commission for UNESCO.

I get why CNN and WaPo would sweep this under the rug, but who was sleeping at the wheel at Fox News?

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by LBDamned

Yes, it is old... And it was covered - however it didn't get traction (of course)... But this isn't a new revelation.

To me it's simple

Dr. Alan Lushner, a very established and accomplished scientist, trumps 20 something Ellicott Matthay. Her Nevada/Gun show study is getting a lot of news coverage. Why is Fox News sitting around like a transvestite figuring out what bathroom to go to? They need to take action.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

So do you think every democrat would have signed and not vetoed?

Who knows, maybe someone took Obama to the range between 2000 and 2004. Whoever that was, it's time to thank them for their service.

It was a must pass bill. They signed because the carry portion wasn't the main issue. The main bill was the credit card accountability bill, which, along with the ACA, was something that spent all their political capital on. This was a bill the democrats had been trying to get passed before. Had they not voted to approve, they would have been crushed even worse come next election, and Obama was backed into a corner. The original 2009 bill was passed by congress 357-70, but never made it to the senate because they ran out of time. The amended bill from 2010 was passed 279-149, meaning about 90 democrats either said no to the carry issue or abstained. Obama had to sign it. His statement on the bill after signing it didn't contain a single word even mentioning the carry issue.

If you think Obama and the democrats who voted for it either wanted that provision or approved of that provision, youre beyond naive. Obama hammered congress for not passing strict gun comtrol laws, including reinstating the federal AWB, following Sandy Hook. He is not now, has never been, nor will he ever be, our ally.

[baekacaek]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I recall there were also some negative parts to this report. It wasn't all roses I think.

Probably why CNN or Fox didnt report on it. It wasnt a killing blow for anybody. Just another inconclusive “guns can be bad but also can be good” tie

[Jimi Jah]

The NRA and FBI have this data. Could have saved 10 million dollars.

[MachineGuntongue]

Version 7.1 here

http://www.gunfacts.info

Covers related and debunks ___fill in the _______.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue

Version 7.1 here

http://www.gunfacts.info

Covers related and debunks ___fill in the _______.

Wow. Good stuff. This can help us survive the next year.

Dems are coming.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by njineermike

It was a must pass bill. They signed because the carry portion wasn't the main issue. The main bill was the credit card accountability bill, which, along with the ACA, was something that spent all their political capital on. This was a bill the democrats had been trying to get passed before. Had they not voted to approve, they would have been crushed even worse come next election, and Obama was backed into a corner. The original 2009 bill was passed by congress 357-70, but never made it to the senate because they ran out of time. The amended bill from 2010 was passed 279-149, meaning about 90 democrats either said no to the carry issue or abstained. Obama had to sign it. His statement on the bill after signing it didn't contain a single word even mentioning the carry issue.

If you think Obama and the democrats who voted for it either wanted that provision or approved of that provision, youre beyond naive. Obama hammered congress for not passing strict gun comtrol laws, including reinstating the federal AWB, following Sandy Hook. He is not now, has never been, nor will he ever be, our ally.

Apparently the NRA and Brady Bill advocates disagree with you.

Obama chided for allowing guns in national parks, wildlife refuges

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...wing_guns.html

BIG SKY, Mont. (AP) -- Family in tow for a tour of national treasures far from Washington, President Barack Obama is trailed by criticism from gun opponents and parks advocates for allowing firearms into such majestic places as Yellowstone.
"There is still time for Congress and the president to take steps to keep loaded firearms away from the valleys of Yellowstone, the cliffs of Yosemite, and the Statue of Liberty -- but they need to act quickly," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

A bill that Obama signed in May permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it. The new law, which takes effect in February, will replace rules from the Reagan administration that generally require that guns in national parks be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

Politically, the move thrilled gun-rights advocates such as the National Rifle Association and outdoorsmen. They generally lean conservative, which may help Obama's soft standing with centrists and independents. But it certainly didn't set well with some of Obama's core Democratic constituencies, environmentalists and gun-control backers.

So the NRA was happy Obama signed this bill. And Brady Bill President was disappointed he signed the bill. If you are right, they should have both been neutral, since he had no choice BUT to sign it. If McDonalds has no choice but to sell me a Big Mac, why would I be THRILLED I received a Big Mac? I would only be THRILLED if the outcome was uncertain.

I'm gonna believe the NRA and Brady Bill President on this one. President Obama didn't have to sign the National Parks Carry Bill. He signed it because in some ways he was a centrist and he expanded my gun rights in ways that few people would like to admit. The bipartisan gun rights activists got me extra rights. Seems like that worked.

[MachineGuntongue]

Originally Posted by SoCal P320

Wow. Good stuff. This can help us survive the next year.

Dems are coming.

This covers every argument I've ever come up against and more. Thoroughly covering all the common ones, fully referenced..

It was pivotal at changing the way I view politics as well. And media coverage.

I used to believe the "20 times more likely to be hurt if a gun in the home" nonsense. No more ignorance allowed.

[SoCal P320]

Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue

This covers every argument I've ever come up against and more. Thoroughly covering all the common ones, fully referenced..

It was pivotal at changing the way I view politics as well. And media coverage.

I used to believe the "20 times more likely to be hurt if a gun in the home" nonsense. No more ignorance allowed.

Yup. There's no way around the Dem Walkers. We have to unite the Houses and fight them with Valeryan Facts. Dems are coming.

[1bulletBarney]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Obama hammered congress for not passing strict gun control laws, including reinstating the federal AWB, following Sandy Hook. He is not now, has never been, nor will he ever be, our ally.

QFT ^^^^

Just know that anyone who can somehow try to paint a picture of Obama as anything less than a absolute anti 2A warrior is either delusional or a troll, or both...

Obama's appointments to the SCOTUS is all the evidence needed to be clear where Obama stands on the 2A, might as well be all inclusive and say he hates the U.S. Constitution. Obama may have termed out of office but I fear he may have succeeded to destroy America as we once knew it to be...

[XDJYo]

Bump for a good topic

[gumby]

Excellent info, thanks.

[chris]

holy necro thread