According to the Center for Disease Control, there is insufficient evidence that gun laws are effective at reducing gun violence. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r031002.htm Firearms Laws The Task Force review of the effects of various laws showed insufficient evidence to conclude whether firearms laws impact rates of violence. Among the areas under task force review were: bans on specific firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearm laws. A finding of “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness” means that, based on the current body of literature, the Task Force is unable to determine whether the intervention was effective or not. The task force agreed that additional scientific studies relating to these interventions might help to provide clearer answers. The task force is a nonfederal panel of health-care and community-based prevention experts supported by the CDC. It directs systematic reviews of scientific research across the entire spectrum of public health issues and makes practice and research recommendations based on its findings. CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press. • "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue." • "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
I was pleased to see that CDC report. The Obomination was counting on that heavily to further their cause during the post Sandy Hook campaign, and the results pretty much ended it.
Yes and drainage ditches are certainly not navigable waterways, but the corps of engineers is taking control of them........"big government IS the problem"...R Reagan
11 year old study, done during the Pro-Gun Bush Administration. - - - Updated - - - "we do not yet have sufficient evidence about firearms laws to determine whether or not they affect rates of violence,” said Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., MPH, MBA, chairman of the Task Force on Community Prevention Services. “This information provides both a specific approach to reduce violence as well as identifying areas of additional needed research."
The people who want firearms restrictions in the USA are primarily violent criminals and their political allies.
the people who want no universal background checks for gun sales are primarily violent criminals and their political allies.
I am not a violent criminal nor am I political ally. I do not want universal background checks. Your blanket, end-all statement is now invalid.
Background checks as they are would become universal gun registration. With the feds history of phone tapping and e-mail recording, why should we give them our universal gun information and trust them to dispose of this info as current federal law requires? I would be fine with universal background checks if they only included background checks on the buyer and included no gun information. People with FOID, CHL, or military ID would be exempt from background checks because all of those IDs require a background check. Of course most libs would not be happy with my idea because it is criminal control and not gun control.
Center for Disease Control? did they think gun laws would prevent disease I agree with them, but weird group to be doing such a study, how about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, shouldn't they be the ones doing the study and the CDC working on cures and what not.... maybe the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms should do a study on the effectiveness of vaccinations next .
those are soft words of tyranny.......................... Can we see if.....? If you have nothing to hide...... This will only hurt a little bit......... It's for you own good. Those are meant to be intimidating. Like I said, words of soft tyranny. How are you going to control a thief once he's in the house? Whose business is it what I have? Or why I have it?
For those that want universal background checks why not use that for the first amendment also. Want to buy a book you need to get a permit then you must go to a gov authorized dealer, then you must be fingerprinted to make usre that you dont have any critera that would stop you from owning a book ( a critrea that can change at any time at at the wishes of the gov). They then record the book that you buy. You must wait 7 days to pick up the book and you can only buy 1 book a month. You can not transport the book from state to state and or even into certain cities in the state. At any time the gov can say the book you have is illegal and they can take it, If you refuse they can jail you.
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense. Not exactly sure what the angle is supposed to be on this or what makes them credible on the matter.
criminals do not follow the law, only law abiding citizens do, thus background checks only effect law abiding citizens
Maybe you should write a letter to Obama and ask him. He is the one that tasked the CDC with the firearm study as part of his 22 executive orders after his gun control defeat in congress.
gun ownership is a constitutional right, your basically saying we need background to see if you have the privilege of owning a gun background checks are the first step to making gun ownership a privilege rather then a right even ex-criminals and people suffering from mental diseases if living on their own have the right to protect their homes and families .
Actually is was 23 EO's. Number 14... http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/
well that's definitely a dumb one... makes no sense to me maybe he was trying to show a link to disease and the cdc found no such link? imagine that...... we already go after ex-criminals and people with mental issues, next on the list people with diseases, who knows, time to just say "no" to background checks we need to arrest people for gun misuse, not just for owning guns to protect their homes and families .