White House report finds gun ownership actually saves lives!
You’ll have to read it quickly before Barack Obama gets back from his African vacation and purges this report!
(SHTF Plan.com) — Though statistics prove time and again that disarming a free people leads to more violent crime and the potential for mass government democide, it hasn’t stopped President Barrack Obama and his Congressional entourage from doing everything in their power to make it more difficult for Americans to legally own firearms.
Citing the Sandy Hook mass shooting last year, democrats on the hill have claimed that we must restrict gun ownership and strip the Second Amendment for the safety of our children and the general public.
But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”
To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:
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.
More from Slate.com (hardly a pro-gun source!) in the article Rethinking Gun Control:
2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “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. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”
5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “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,” says the report. “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.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.
6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 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 firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”
7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “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,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “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.”
10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.
Hmmmmm. Imagine that. It’s exactly what 2nd amendment supporters have been telling the anti gun crowd for years. All the stats have always been on our side
Yep it has been but do you think they will believe it
Well, Obama himself ordered the study. So one would logically conclude that he would take the word of his own study. However, logic doesn’t always apply in instances such as this. Most likely it will be quietly swept under the rug, along with every thing else that hurts his agenda, and will certainly never see the light of day on a major news network.
And another relatively inconvenient truth sees the light of day. Ya this is a shock to a few people riding around the country in a bus paid for by NYC taxpayers.
Now how they’ll try to spin this one? Bet we’ll know soon!
US: “Ta dahhhhhh!!!!”
MAIG: “That’s all folks. Move along……Nothin’ to see here……”
EVERYONE ELSE: “Huh? What’d they say?!?!?”
O yes. You know about that bus don’t you why don’t you call them up and see. When they’ll be visiting us ok. Ill call them too . –“”–
Iam. Soooo sorry. I forgot to give you they’re phone number.
678 234 6306.
It’s about time SOMEONE in Washington came forward with actual facts instead of continuing to spin “estimations” however they can to make gun owners look like a bunch of drooling trigger happy hill billies!
You’ll see, very quickly, how they’ll try to twist this to meet their position.
One thing that stands out is suicides. Now the facts may be right, however what needs to be examined is the reason for the person feeling there is no other option. I’m sure many are due to the economy.
This gun grab is not about public safety or protecting our children. It’s all about politics. The facts and statistics have always been on the side gun rights activists. Another new law will not make us safer. There are hundreds of laws currently on the books that are not enforced now.
And I thought America couldn’t become even more stupid…
How come Europeans don’t need guns to defend themselves?
How can you not be conscience-stricken when you sell pink guns to 5-year-olds who go around shooting their 2-year old siblings?!
You misspoke there. I think you meant to say “How come Europeans don’t *have* guns to defend themselves?”
The youngest age to buy a gun is 18. Yes, there is a company that makes tiny pink rifles for parents to teach their children at a young age. I wasn’t so lucky – my tween body struggle with a rifle designed for a full-grown man.
The really scary thing is that majority of pink guns are designed and marketed towards adult women.
Although I suspect most of them are bought my husbands & boyfriends as gifts for their uninterested women. Most women shooters I know hate the pink guns, but my wife does wish for a deep plum purple.
You are stupid and to quickly answer your question European dont and cant protect themselves moron hence why they have hire violent crime rates
Marie, I believe Europe has a higher rate of violent crime than the U.S. does, or at possibly about the same (depending on the source). They just use knives and other means to kill and assault each other. Perhaps if the citizens had guns, they might be better able to protect themselves from all of the violent people over there.
Tom, in the UK violent crimes are all “crimes against the person” (including simple assault) and all sexual crimes; in the US only murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forced rape, robbery, and aggravated assault are counted. I imagine (from multiple visits to multiple major European cities–in which I felt more safe than in ANY major US city downtown) that all EU countries tabulate violent crime the same way as the UK. Gun deaths, of course, are WAY lower in Europe. To be fair, theft is considerably higher in Europe.
And yet, the UK’s handgun violence rose 40% after their 1997 handgun ban, and decreased starting in 2003 when they hired significantly more police.
Imagine that: law enforcement, not laws, reduces crime!
Gee, Bob, “Visiting” European cities is NOT “living” in them. I lived in Europe for many of my adult years. Amsterdam was very scary after the Malakkans of South Africa found a loophole in the law that allowed them to come to the Netherlands and not be affected by the existing laws. As a result, my friends/high school mates and I were terrorized by them while we were on a Tram downtown in Den Haag during a time when we were participating in the annual Model United Nations. So unless you have “lived” EXTENSIVELY overseas or in Europe, please do not assume to be an expert on local European violence.
Lu R, I mentioned my merely visiting European countries and not living in them “EXTENSIVELY” to admit I am not an expert, not in an attempt to demonstrate my expertise on European violence. My point is that comparing rates of violence between countries is like counting apples and oranges unless you are sure that violence is defined the same way when figures are tabulated. (This can be checked on the computer in my comfy American chair.) From my limited, tourist-eye view, I suspect that most Western European countries tabulate violence more like the UK and less like the US–but I defer to your greater understanding and experience.
Many of us believe and uphold the founding principles of America and don’t want them changed. If you want to be in a country with freedoms taken away from you, then move to a country like that. Don’t force us to change. Many brave men and women have fought and sacrificed to keep our freedoms. If you don’t like it, no one is forcing you to stay.
Some statistical cherry-picking here. The comments above state that people with guns can repel assailants better than those without. So they are safer in that one unlikely occurrence. To see if that person is actually safer with a gun, you have to figure in the collateral risks of gun ownership: accidents, theft, etc. Also, the article summarizes a summary of the study (which is significantly less declarative in nature than the bullet points). Finally, the report above leaves out the following numbered points: (titles are paraphrased) 1. We have a huge gun problem in the US, 8. Carrying guns for self defense is an arms race, 9. Denying guns to those with restraining orders saves lives. The other one left out addresses the ratio of handguns to rifles.
Firearm accidents are less than 1% of all fatal accidents in the US. The risk of a firearm accident (for most people who are careful) are very small compared to the many benefits of firearms.
“1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem” Who is trying to dispute that? What we try to dispute is the frequent claim that the firearms are the CAUSE of the violence. When we look at the phrase “gun violence”, we see the problem is “violence”, not “gun”. Guns are merely the preferred tool of violence. Those who wish to do violence will always acquire guns somehow, or they will simply find another way to achieve their goal.
“8. Carrying guns for self defense is an arms race” between criminals. In other words, drug dealers are more likely to carry a gun if they’re worried about their customers carrying guns. Likewise, it makes sense for the average citizen to carry a weapon if they’re afraid of both the drug dealer and the drug customer. However, I don’t think there’s any logical reason to believe that the criminals are carrying guns as a defense against non-agressive average citizens carrying guns.
“9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives” Very few people dispute this, but on the other hand, our courts need a major overhaul regarding the issuance of restraining orders. In my home state, many divorce attorneys advise women to get a restraining order during the divorce, even in cases it is not needed or justified. It’s a move designed purely to gain the court’s favor by portraying oneself as an abused spouse. Abusing the system like that is wrong.
And about that ratio of handguns to rifles: notice that Americans own more rifles than handguns, but handguns are predominantly the choice of criminals (and the choice for legal self-defense). Also notice that the big political push for the past few decades has been an “assault” weapon ban, which primarily focuses on rifles. Out of 8353 homicides with firearms in 2011, only 323 were committed with *all rifles* including “assault” rifles. Remember that the next time a politician tries to ban them.
Here! Here! Good answer!
I can respect your points, Cymond, and I totally agree that handguns are the bigger issue than “assault” rifles. I posted because I had a problem with the omission of all ten points in the original post. An even better post would have ignored the Slate posting and took a closer look a the actual report.
Folks, you need to do some reading when it comes to comprehensive issues such as this one. First, the report mentioned in the post has no findings because it was simply an exploratory committee to develop questions for actual researchers to answer. Here is a transcription of the conclusion of the report, word for word.
“The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial, not a conclusive or all-encompassing, set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or research strategy can provide all the answers. This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=10
Additionally, Europe is a continent full of countries with varying laws and definitions of what violent crimes are. You can’t simply compare Europe with the U.S. Well, you can, but if you do, you do so because you are ignorant in regards to analyzing data. In fact, according to criminologists (you know, the experts), you can’t even compare the U.K. with the U.S. Below is a transcription of politico’s findings.
“The meme said “there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.,” compared to “466 violent crimes per 100,000″ in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/