The US Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program supported the project.  CU Professor Mark Pogrebin led the team of CU and CSU researchers, who surveyed prisoners in 2003, 2004.

We should keep in mind that 73 individuals constitute an extremely small sample size, totaling about four percent of the subjects of the landmark prison study done by Professors Wright and Rossi.  (See my post under the Category: “Research.”)

The Colorado study group may have been an available sample rather than a random sample, but we will have to wait for the book in July to look at their selection process.

Given these potential limitations, we can consider the self-reports of the prisoners to be representative to some degree of the Colorado population of convicted felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime.  (We should keep in mind that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.)

It will be instructive to find out if the book goes into other crimes committed by the research subjects.  The book does apparently touch on the role of drugs, especially Meth, in increasing violent criminal behavior.  (It is also illegal for drug addicts to possess firearms.)

According to the article, the Colorado findings suggest that “gun-control laws would have had little effect on the study subjects’ criminal behavior.”  The impressive CDC Study and the even more massive NAS Study, which indicate that there is no substantial scientific evidence that gun control laws prevent crime, support this conclusion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

Another interesting finding of the study in question is that some criminals would be deterred by liberal concealed carry laws.  Wright and Rossi found that criminals are risk averse and, in effect, do a kind of risk/benefit analysis when selecting victims.

Florida Scientist Gary Kleck found up to 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in the United States.  Economist John Lott postulates that “shall issue” concealed carry laws save lives and reduce crime.  (See David Kopel’s review of John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime, here.)

An interesting artifact of the Colorado Study is that “most inmates said that concealed weapons…” or “the perception” of concealed weapons in the hands of potential victims would lead to more violent behavior on the part of the criminals.  There are two possible problems with giving credence to this idea.

The first problem is that the criminals in the study group could have been motivated by bravado, attempting to convince the researchers (and themselves) that they were not intimidated by the idea of relatively widespread, spontaneous, armed opposition to their felonious acts.  The second, and more insidious possibility, is that the convicts knew that their responses might find their way into public policy debates on concealed weapons permits.  What better way for a career criminal to improve “business conditions” than to provide responses to researchers that might actually disarm potential victims?

Most criminals do not attack police officers in order to take their weapons.  Few criminals attempt armed robberies at gun stores or gun shows.  I personally give more weight to the much larger Wright and Rossi Study and the evidence of crime deterrence suggested by Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott.

One convict’s remark that he would shoot people he thought were carrying concealed guns should make it abundantly clear that CCW permit holders’ names must be kept private to protect them and society as a whole.  Another implication of this individual’s attitude is that we should incarcerate dangerous felons for as long as possible to keep them from committing future criminal acts.

According to the Post article, this small Colorado study seems to agree with much of the research supporting the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of American Citizens to self-defense against crime.  Defense against tyranny and genocide appear to be beyond the scope of the study.  It will be interesting to check out the book.

Def Mech

(No credible causal relationship between gun ownership and violence)

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln to “examine, experiment, and report” on “science and art” when asked to do so by any government department. A panel of NAS scientists began formal hearings on “Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms” during the summer of 2001. The study was funded in part by the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the anti-gun David and Lucille Packard Foundation.  (President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation.)

David Kopel, Colorado author and expert on Second Amendment issues, and co-author Glenn Reynolds criticized the study at its inception for the anti-gun bias of most of its members and the bias of its funding sources. Surprisingly, given the prejudiced atmosphere of the NAS study, the results, like those of the CDC Study, do not support the premise that gun ownership promotes crime or increases the overall risk of suicide.

The panel reviewed 253 scientific journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some of its own research. The committee found that they could not determine if there was a cause and effect relationship between guns and violence. The below quotation comes from the panel’s Executive Summary, which was published in 2004.

“In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

The NAS panel predictably recommended more research. The committee also concluded that there is no definitive information regarding defensive uses of firearms or the positive or negative effects on crime of concealed carry laws. James Q. Wilson, the only relatively neutral member of the panel, according to Kopel and Reynolds, issued a minority report in which he argued that John R. Lott’s extensive research does establish that “shall issue” concealed carry laws reduce homicide rates.

Like the CDC Study, the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey, and the Kates and Mauser Study of international gun ownership and crime, the NAS exhaustive review of the literature in the gun control field does not find a credible cause and effect relationship between honest gun owners and violence. You would think that if there were causation, nearly 400 scientific studies, books, and government reports would have found one example.

The committee also looked at possible methods of government intervention into the “problem” of guns, crime, and suicide. Restricting access to guns? Needs more research. (Keep in mind that Prohibition didn’t work. It fostered the rise of criminal gangs, corrupted police, and promoted general lawlessness.) Prevention programs? Don’t seem to work and seem to increase children’s interest in guns. (What does this say about sexual education programs?) Criminal justice system solutions, such as policing, sentencing, and Project Exile? Need more research. Keep in mind that murders occur in prison.

If restricting access to firearms has had an effect on U.S. gun crime, the anti-gun NAS panel was apparently not able to find it in almost 400 sources. If firearms cause crime, or if gun control laws work, why did this massive review of research fail to find credible evidence? The variables are complex, but if the proof were there, would not one study out of almost 400 have discovered it? Will the NAS continue to review literature in the gun control field until they find even a single study that gives them the results they seek?

Def Mech

However, the Interior Department, led by former Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, wants to review “environmental impacts.”  I’m not sure what impacts they are looking for, since according to the recent article in The Washington Post, “Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns,” there were only about four hundred violent crimes and animal attacks out of 270 million nationwide park visits in 2006.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that every one of those human and animal attacks was met by an armed citizen firing a gun.  That would be somewhere between four hundred and  twelve hundred bullets fired per year in the park system.  (Many full-blown shooting incidents seem to involve the firing of about three rounds, although there is probably no “average” gunfight.)  Of course, most of the human attacks would be fended off according to research done by Professor Gary Kleck without a shot being fired.  That cuts the absolute maximum estimated numbers down to about four hundred defensive shots fired per year across the National Park System, if every victim were armed and prepared for self-defense.

The actual numbers would be much lower, because every potential victim would not have bothered to get a concealed carry permit and could not legally carry in a Park.  Some of the lead would stay in the bodies of the attacking humans or animals, reducing the environmental impact still further.  We’ll see what the Interior Department has to say about the potential remaining lead and noise pollution.  But, “if it only saves one life,” as the the other side is fond of saying, it would probably be worth it to allow citizens a reasonable chance to defend themselves in “their” national parks.

According to research by Wright and Rossi and John Lott, other park visitors would benefit from the deterrent effect.  Criminals would be less likely to attack anyone in the park system, if there were an increased risk that a potential victim might be armed.  (See my post under the Category: “Research,” “Gun Control Research-Wright and Rossi-armed citizens deter criminals,” 01-29-09)

Interestingly enough, there is no mention in The Washinton Post article about the concealed carry permit requirement.  If you read the story, you might well get the idea that the gates of the parks were being thrown open to any citizen who might decide to exercise his natural right to armed self-defense.  It is this kind of media bias that makes it so difficult to get the truth out in the debate on guns.  (See my post, “Brady Campaign may abort self-defense in National Parks,” 01-04-09, Category: “Concealed Carry.”) (See also, “Will volunteers abandon national parks due to legal concealed carry?”  12-25-08, Category, “Concealed Carry.”)

We must set aside the fact that concealed carry permit holders have an overall excellent record of sobriety and decorum with regard to bearing and using firearms in self-defense.  That informational tidbit didn’t make the article either.

You might want to contact the Department of the Interior and encourage them to continue to extend this  limited Second Amendment protection to the National Park System.

Def Mech

Senator Stabenow didn’t mention television or the mainstream print media in her call for “accountability.”  Of course, TV, newspapers, and magazines are dominated by Liberal anchors, editors, columnists, and reporters who often disguise “Progressive” propaganda as news reportage.

You may wonder what a Second Amendment blogger is doing talking about First Amendment issues.  “Understand!”  (BHO, “The Chosen One,” uses this so often to imply that his opinions are fact that I like to throw it in every once in a while just to let everyone know how “happy” I am to be under his “rule.”)  Understand! The Bill of Rights is a rich tapestry that protects the fundamental freedoms of all Americans.  Once you begin to tear at any part of the fabric of this most precious national treasure, you risk unraveling the miracle that is our republic.

The Democrats are not the party of free speech.  They are the party of super delegates, of no secret ballots in union elections, of press conferences stacked with Left-wing reporters, and of government research funds used to push political agendas.  Government funding of “Global Warming” studies, “Economic Stimulus” money that rewards “Shadow Party” organizations like ACORN, and funding for gun control studies through the Centers for Disease Control are all examples of ideology driving junk science through the use of taxpayer dollars.

(Read “The Shadow Party,” by Horowitz and Poe to understand what happened in the last election.  Substitute BHO for HRC and you will be enlightened as to how Obama inherited a “turn key” situation of ready-made, top-down-funded, “grassroots” organizations that carried the water for him in 2008.)

President Obama is reportedly on record as being opposed to “The Fairness Doctrine.”  He does, however, seem to support “Localism.”  This term is Liberal code for creating many small radio venues to provide “voices” for women and minorities who will somehow be more “responsive” to the needs of the people than large radio networks that host Conservative programs.  You can interpret this to mean the breakup talk radio as it exists and the replacement of the current system with Libral Radio probably funded by your tax dollars.  National Public Radio obviously isn’t enough for the Left.  I wish we had just one publicly-funded Conservative radio network.

The genius of Socialism and other oppressive statist ideologies is their ability to use tax dollars extracted from productive people to control and disempower the same citizens that they tax.  As we have recently discovered during financial disclosures from several potential Democrat candidates and appointees, some Liberals seem less than enthusiastic about paying their own taxes.  (I guess taxes are just for “ordinary citizens,” not for the Liberal Elite.)

Ironically, Liberals also seek to expand the number of citizens dependent on the public dole, thus broadening their constituent base.  “When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.”

All supporters of the Constitution and lovers of freedom must be alert to any potential infringement of every liberty recognized by the Bill of Rights.  Eternal vigilance is, indeed, the price of freedom.

As Patrick Henry said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”  Walt Whitman echoed Henry’s sentiment.  “There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance-Tyranny may always enter-there is no charm, no bar against it-the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.”  (And women.)

The First Amendment is almost as vital to the protection of our liberty as is the Second Amendment.   Let us defend the entire Bill of Rights and work to regain those freedoms that have been taken from us over the years.  Gun control and control of free speech don’t help our society.  They promote corruption, disregard for law and order, tyranny, and genocide.  Support the Bill of Rights!  (See my recent post, “The African-American experience with gun control,” under the Category: “History.”)

Def Mech

This bill is designed to divide gun owners into those impacted by this legislation and those not yet affected by the new Left-wing drive for the disarmament of the American People.  “Good” gun owners are supposed to feel safe, satisfied, and “lucky” that they haven’t been targeted, yet.  The Left is banking that the “good” gun owners won’t fight the restrictions on the owners of “bad” guns.

Then, once the “bad” gun owners rights have been trampled under the jack boot of socialist gun control, the Left will be ready to go after the “good” gun owners, just like the Fabian Socialists did in Great Britain.  They disarmed the British one gun type at a time.  Understand!  The British Olympic Pistol Team must train in Switzerland, because they are not trusted to possess a handgun in their own country.

If you own a “good” gun and don’t fight for the rights of all gun owners, you will stand alone, once the Liberals eliminate the “bad” guns.  You can’t expect people who have been stripped of their rights to help you defend yours.

Def Mech

Professors Wright and Rossi initially believed that strict gun control deterred crime. The results of their research led them to the conclusion that armed citizens have a beneficial effect in reducing criminal behavior and that harsh laws, such as handgun bans could result in criminals using sawed off rifles and shotguns with more deadly results. 88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”

A 1986 review of the professors’ work, Armed and Considered Dangerous, by Raymond G. Kessler of the Department of Criminal Justice of Memphis State University, concluded, “Although Armed and Considered Dangerous is not free of methodological problems, it is the best policy-oriented study of criminals and their guns available. Gun control proposals that seemed relatively straight-forward a few years ago must now be reconsidered.”

Wright and Rossi reported that:
81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

Based on this government-funded research by Wright and Rossi, it would appear that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Daly, Kathleen, Under the Gun, Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1983.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., The Armed Criminal in America, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.

Wright, James D., Rossi, Peter H., Armed and Considered Dangerous, a Survey of Felons and their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1986.

In an Orwellian twist, a person under 18 may only effectively possess a firearm in an act of self-defense, after magically gaining access to the gun in violation of the law, having had no previous legally sanctioned training in the use of firearms.  (This looks a lot like the D.C. gun ban which requires either precognition of a break-in or criminal agreement to a “time out” that allows the gun owner to assemble/unlock a weapon for defensive use.)

One of the problems with registration is that it is often a precursor to confiscation.  It has happened in Britain, Australia, New York, Louisiana, and California, to name a few places where the rich and powerful decided to disarm “The Great Unwashed.”  As Dianne Feinstein wistfully remarked over her real desires regarding the Clinton “Assault Weapons” Ban, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”

Or, as “Conservative” Charles Krauthammer said in a Washington Post article about the Clinton Ban quoted on the site listed immediately above, “…Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” 

Probably the most ironic thing about registration schemes is that criminals can evidently not be forced to register or turn in their weapons under such a law.  In Haynes, the courts established that convicted felons, or other “prohibited persons,” who may not own a gun, can not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.  These ploys only restrict the rights of, and provide inconvenience for, law-abiding citizens.

H.R. 45 requires the licensing of anyone who owns a handgun or semi-auto with a magazine well.  To obtain a five-year license, a citizen must submit a passport photo, and an application with a thumbprint.  Persons desiring a license must pass a test designed by the Attorney General.  (Think Reno Lieutenant Holder!  Ouch!)  The initial application requires a fee now capped at $25.  Of course, the requirements can always be tightened and the fees can be raised.

We might expect any misdemeanor conviction or even traffic offense to become a ban to ownership.  We might also expect psychiatric exams to be required to own an affected weapon.  In some places, gun ownership requires certification by prominent citizens as to the character of the applicant.  Understand!  The rich and powerful will always have recourse to armed force through preferential laws and bodyguards.  

This draconian proposal bans possession of any firearm by a person under 18.  The discrimination against youth all but guarantees the death of the shooting sports and the ownership of guns for self-defense from crime, tyranny and genocide.

The bill imposes increased restrictions and reporting requirements on already heavily-regulated licensed dealers.  It establishes a national registry of affected weapons.

H.R. 45 also makes it a federal crime to fail to report the theft of a firearm within 72 hours.  Understand!  The gun must be locked up to keep it away from anyone under 18.  The police would undoubtedly do detailed investigations of any thefts to see if they could bust the owner for improper storage.

Under this bill, the Attorney General will conduct studies to present to Congress regarding the use of handguns and semi-autos in crime.  We have here the typical Liberal positive feedback loop that goes something like this.  The restrictions don’t reduce crime, therefore, we need more restrictions.  Those restrictions don’t reduce crime, therefore, we need more restrictions.  Those restrictions don’t reduce crime, therefore…  Positive feedback loops are like addictive behavior, shrieking feedback in sound amplification systems, or computer viruses that overload hard drives.  They are ultimately destructive of the very systems that they were originally intended to benefit.

Understand!  Major research surveys of multiple studies (almost 400) done by the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of the Sciences and the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey indicate that there is no significant evidence that gun control reduces crime, or that gun ownership causes crime and violence.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

All in all, H.R. 45 gives the anti-gun organizations that supported Obama and the Democrats much of the substance of their wish lists for the new administration.  H.R. 45 infringes and lays the groundwork for much further infringement of the rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide recognized by the Second Amendment and numerous state constitutions.  Contact your legislators to oppose this bill!  Tell your friends who value liberty that H.R. 45 jeopardizes their hard-won birthright of freedom!

Def Mech

The two young men, one of whom had long pink and purple hair, obviously believed Obama, when he said that he supported the Second Amendment and that he wasn’t going to take any one’s guns.  I have trouble with that rationale, since Obama has never voted for individual self-defense rights, as far as I can tell.  He has sponsored anti-gun legislation, made anti-gun rights statements, and favored gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C.  He picked anti-gun Joe Biden as his running mate and appointed anti-gun Emmanuel and Holder to key positions.  I hope the young men are right about Obama.

The reluctant voter opined that Obama will be too busy with economic issues, health care legislation, and foreign policy problems to tinker with the Second Amendment.  This gun show visitor anticipates a deepening oil crisis as seasonal consumption increases and supplies dwindle.  I have trouble with this belief as it relates to the Second Amendment.  There were at least fourteen anti-gun bills in Congress in 2008 that can be renumbered and effortlessly reintroduced for the approval of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate and the Signature of “The Chosen One,” if he decides to pay the likely political price for such actions. (See my post, “If Obama wins, you lose legal gun rights. He only has to sign the bills.” 10-30-2008, Category: “Elections.”)

The loquacious Liberal, so affectionately nicknamed, because he was willing to talk about the issues, felt that pro-gun rights organizations serve only as promoters of gun and ammunition makers and dealers.  It is his view that no one is going to try to take guns away from American Citizens.  Like many Liberals, he displayed a remarkable ignorance of the history and science of the debate on individual liberty.  He was unaware of the research by Gary Kleck out of Florida on the estimated 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in response to criminal attacks.

He was also unaware of gun confiscation in New York, New Jersey, and California.  You can’t blame this individual for not being aware of these issues, since they are seldom if ever mentioned in the Liberal-controlled Mainstream Media.

He also didn’t believe in the NRA and Firearms Coalition of Colorado characterizations of the often draconian and unrealistic elements in many anti-gun rights bills.  I personally read many of the bills and have concluded that the NRA and FCC descriptions are usually spot on.

This gentleman was also skeptical about any sort of centrally-controlled plan by rich and powerful people to put Obama in the White House and establish a permanent Liberal dynasty in American politics.  He politely accused me of paranoia.  I responded by saying that my paranoia doesn’t mean there isn’t a threat.  I hope I am merely paranoid.  The Constitution and the country are much safer, if I am only paranoid.  I urged this man to read The Shadow Party by Horowitz and Poe.

The loquacious Liberal was upset over gun crime.  I assured him that honest gun owners support prosecution of illegal gun use.  I should have mentioned that NRA-certified instructors do most of the police firearms training in America.  I neglected to mention important scientific studies, which indicate that gun control laws don’t seem to reduce crime and that guns don’t cause crime.  (CDC Study, NAS Study, Small Arms Study) I did mention to him that Prohibition corrupted the police, fostered widespread disobedience of the law, and promoted the rise of criminal gangs made wealthy by black market alcohol sales.  He agreed that we do not seem to be winning the War on Drugs.

This man did understand that gun control isn’t working in Mexico.  He admitted that gun control divides citizens into classes-those that may legally defend themselves and those that may not.  Strangely, he didn’t seem to be bothered by the distinction.  He did seem to have some sense that the Individual Rights Movement has as a goal the prevention of tyranny.

All of these people apparently believe that a Democrat Party funded by George Soros, Move on, the Joyce Foundation, the Bell Campaign, the Brady Campaign, and the Violence Policy Center will not seriously try to weaken the rights recognized by the Second Amendment.  The four seem to think that the Party with 14 draconian anti-individual rights bills in Congress will somehow forget about the goals embodied in those proposed regulations.  The gun show patrons in question must think that the Obama Transition Team’s four point anti-gun agenda will somehow get lost in the political shuffle.  Maybe it’s all just rhetoric and window dressing. (My post, “Anti-gun Obama takes off the mask!” 11-08-2008, Category: “Elections.”)

You know, I hope those four are right.  I would like nothing better than to be able to report at the end of Obama’s first term that there were no attempted infringements of the natural, fundamental rights of the American People to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

I hope I’m wrong.  I hope the NRA, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Gun Owners of America, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition, and all the other Second Amendment civil rights organizations are mistaken.  Unfortunately, I don’t expect to be surprised, given the records and pronouncements of Obama, Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, Holder, Emmanuel, et al.  Too many leopards would have to change their spots.

Def Mech

The research found that the so-call “Gun Show Loophole” (private sales without background checks between individual citizens) did not impact murder and suicide rates in the month after the shows that were studied. Admittedly, one study doesn’t necessarily provide conclusive proof, but 3,400 shows seems like a decent sample size.

Evidence contines to mount in support of the intuitive conclusion that restricting the rights of honest citizens doesn’t have a beneficial effect for society with regard to the felonious use of firearms. This is not surprising to objective, serious students of the fundamental, individual right to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny recognized by the Second Amendment.

Had this study come out favorable to gun control, you probably would have seen it in the Mainstream Media. By the way, the “Ruler-Elect” wants legislation to close what seems to be the non-existent “Gun Show Loophole.”

Def Mech

If you believe that scientific research is the most logical way to understand the reality of the world, then you pay attention to studies done by groups and individuals. You also give weight to surveys that attempt to draw conclusions by reviewing numbers of studies.

The survey in question was done by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to determine if gun control has made a difference in the crime rate in the United States. There are some important things to remember about this study, which was published in 2003.

The CDC is a governmental organization that generally favors strict gun control laws. The panel doing the review of studies on these laws was largely made up of advocates for restricting or banning the citizen ownership of firearms in the United States.

The purpose of the survey was to evaluate gun control laws with regard to effectiveness in controlling crime and violence. Given the institutional and individual bias in favor of restrictive gun laws, the conclusions of the CDC study are remarkable.

The CDC panel reviewed 51 studies regarding the effectiveness of gun control laws. Based on that review, they could not say that gun laws had prevented a single crime. The survey included, among other issues, studies of the effectiveness of gun and ammunition bans, licensing and registration laws, child access laws, and waiting periods. There was some slight evidence that waiting periods to purchase a firearm may reduce the suicide rate in older persons.

You would think that out of 51 scientific studies there would be more evidence of the effectiveness of gun control, if gun control were effective in preventing crime and violence. It is a tribute to the honesty of the CDC panel, given their preconceived ideas that they were willing to issue this report at all. The survey did say in somewhat Orwellian fashion that “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.” (Just because 50 studies failed to find a significant result, it doesn’t mean that the result isn’t there.)

The panel recommended additional research. This CDC survey is corroborated by the results of an even more exhaustive review done by the National Academy of Sciences that will be discussed later. See below for a more literary citation on the CDC survey.

Thacker, Steven, M.D., Dixon, Richard E., M.D., First Reports evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violence: Firearms Laws, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease Control.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

It looks like the folks at the CDC will keep looking until they get a study that matches their expectation. The new administration will almost undoubtedly lend a sympathetic ear to funding requests for studies and surveys to lend weight to calls for more gun control.

Def Mech