The following short article appeared on page four of our local Cedar Rapids, Iowa Gazette:

No Proof that gun laws reduce firearm violence, agency says

Atlanta (AP) A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws -- including mandatory waiting periods of bans on certain weapons -- found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review, released Thursday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC said the report suggest more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control.

The task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunitions, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness"

In other words, they've proven what has been known even before all the stupid laws went into effect - namely, only the already law abiding will obey the gun laws. Criminals have no intention of obeying or being hindered in illict activities by them.

It also reveals very clearly that they were looking for a specific result, and, when they didn't get it, they decided it only meant more studies need to be done. You can bet they would throw more money at it if they thought it would further their agenda!

There's a new book that has just been published about the positive ECONOMIC influence that firearms have on our society. The research included self defense use of firearms. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the book, but saw it in last month's Blue Press by Dillon Reloading.

As we can see the CDC yells, DO OVER!!!!!

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time. So much for these studies.


I agree, Alyeska. I also remember a study someplace that figured out the actual cost of 1 criminal's crime spree AFTER he was paroled. Everything right down to the actual law enforcement cost to recapture him. It was in the middle six figures if I'm remembering correctly.




Regards

"What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time. So much for these studies."

Unfortunately, it's also "so much for objectivity and honesty of scientists"


Dan

A longer version offered by CNN web site today. Note the comment, ' "It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq." '

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws -- including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons -- found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review, released Thursday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.

Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws.

Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies were done by the federal government. In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."

"I would not want to speculate on how different groups may interpret this report," said Dr. Sue Binder, Director of CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It's simply a review of the literature."

Most of the studies were not funded by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.

A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures.

"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."
The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it.
Call for additional studies

Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year.

About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population.

The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done.
"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."
Among the problems:
-- Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

-- Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means."

-- Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.

-- Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.

-- Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence."

It's known in political parlance as "back-pedalling"


Study a subject. If the study results don't re-enforce your particular agenda, proceed to discredit your OWN study. Amazing.

I guarantee, if the study pointed in the other direction, It would have been something like the "most exhaustive and enlightening study on guns/gun laws in the modern era." Or some such defacation.


I guess 20,000+ gun laws "are not enough" according to Mr. Hammbone.


Regards

Insight on the News - Feature

The Last Word
By Woody West

U.S. Gun-Control Laws Don't Save Lives

Blessed are the experts who keep our complex hive buzzing - or most of the experts, much of the time. But these necessary specialists, in their noisy swarms, also can obscure social and political questions that are intricate enough to begin with. Thus, there is a point when the shaman of the social sciences should be disregarded and mother-wit mobilized.

For instance, it does not require overcredentialed academics to commit study after study to conclude whether the graphic violence that is routine on television and in the movies has an effect on young viewers: It unarguably affects them. At the very least it dangerously denies the pain that always is part of violence in the real world.

An even more obvious area of attention is firearms. To those of liberal piety, gun control is not just the first commandment but all 10 (they have tossed the Biblical version over the side anyhow). Rid America of the curse of firearms, they loudly proclaim, and no one ever need lock his doors at night. That's nonsense. Gun control as these zealots conceive it would be effective only in disarming the law-abiding.

In the fierce argument over firearms control, a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report will cause heartburn to the ban-the-gun brigades. As the Associated Press reported, "A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun-control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence." The analysts also noted after their review of 51 gun laws that "firearms-related injuries" in this country have declined since 1993 despite the fact that "approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year."

Those of us with limited confidence in centralized power will not be astounded by the report, nor by the CDC's conclusion that it can reach no more declarative judgment because many of the gun-control laws it reviewed were inconsistent, overly narrow in scope or poorly executed. That the CDC even undertook this three-year review was a liberal ploy that has led to classifying gun violence as a public-health issue. It doesn't follow that government do nothing. But it must legislate with a sensible perspective of limitations and proportionality. That's a difficult chore, of course, given the ingrained tendency of democratic legislators to leap at the loudest noise.

With gun control, however, there literally are thousands of restrictive laws on various U.S. statute books, and yet the cry constantly is for more legislation. It's a sure indication of how futile laws can be when, on a given issue, more and more statutes on the same issue are passed to try to find a workable equation, and yet nothing changes. Some basic gun regulations clearly meet the criterion of social consensus - denying possession of a firearm to thugs and loonies. As a corollary, it's hard to argue against a modest waiting period so a jurisdiction can find out if the purchaser has, say, ever shot up a neighborhood tavern - though many view even these cautions as thin-edge-of-the-wedge.

Beyond those few basically reasonable constraints, American opinion doesn't exhibit much obvious agreement on firearms. Therefore, whatever restrictive measures manage to become law through the antigun lobby's muscle likely will be flawed in one of the ways that defeated the CDC's efforts to reach a definitive perspective.

Guns historically are an intimate part of our culture. This might change in decades to come as we become ever more thickly urban and as hunters become not your next-door neighbor but more a curiosity. Until that day comes, the grim foes of all firearms will bleat for more controls and compliant politicians will try to add to the pile of laws.

There's another facet to this issue - the spread of "right-to-carry" laws. There now are 36 states in which permits to carry concealed weapons are available to the ordinary citizen with a clean record (Missouri last month passed its law over the governor's veto). The premise of right-to-carry or "shall-issue" statutes is impeccably logical: Predators may be more circumspect if they have reason to think their intended "victims" might have a loaded pistol in pocket or purse - or, if the thugs aren't that smart, it may not be the law-abiding citizen who gets hurt.

Opponents of right-to-carry laws volubly have contended that if significant numbers of individuals legally can carry weapons there would be a high body count as a result of poor judgment or accident. That does not seem to have been the case in the two states which have had such laws the longest, Florida and Texas. Meanwhile, proponents contend incidents in which crimes are prevented by armed citizens are underreported - indeed, ignored by the media. John R. Lott Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a strenuous supporter and student of these laws, notes tellingly that no state which has enacted a right-to-carry law has repealed it. (In fairness, the CDC review also faulted studies of the effectiveness of these laws.) Those obsessed with the simplistic notion that guns equal crime will continue their crusade. But the popularity of right-to-carry laws more likely will continue to find a resonance.

Guns and violence are terrifically heated issues. Might it be that the slogans of those who oppose further regulation might have something when they say that guns do not kill people, people do, and that the best gun control is a firm grip on one's weapon? Until the shamans come up with definitive answers, of course.

Woody West is an associate editor for Insight magazine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following short article appeared on page four of our local Cedar Rapids, Iowa Gazette:

No Proof that gun laws reduce firearm violence, agency says


Same reason we can't quantify how many crimes are prevented by a police officer's presence or by someone carrying a gun legally. How can we tell how many convicted felons are denied gun purchases 'cos they can read the forms? I KNOW a lot of crimes are prevented that are never reported - simply letting a perp see you are armed stops a confrontation before it gets serious. They ain't buyin' guns from legal gun dealers, 'cos they're buyin' them on the streets every day. They're buying them outa' the trunks of cars parked in liquor store parking lots, at flea markets on weekends, and all over some high crime neighborhoods. If criminals can buy'em, so can Terrorists.

WE need to insist our Law Enforcers focus pro-active efforts aimed at finding who is sellin' guns illegally and put them in jail. Ditto - anyone buying a gun illegally. There's plenty of NON-CRIMINALS buying stolen guns every day too. The trade in stolen guns or criminals buying guns on the street has gotta' be stopped.

GOOD LUCK!

guns dont kill people, people kill people...thats all there is to it.