The CDC Releases Its Comprehensive Report on Gun Violence; Why Isn't the POTUS Parading It Around?

Remember back in January 2013 when President Obama issued 23 executive orders to address guns and gun-related crime (It was number 14 here)? One of those orders was for the Center for Disease Control, along with other federal agencies, "to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health."

Surprise! The 113 page report was released earlier this month by the Center for Disease Control, in conjunction with the Institute of Medicine. This was researched, written, and published by a non-partisan federal agency (controlled by a democratic White House) in a scientific and controlled manner. The President was the one who ordered the study. So why don't you see him on national television quoting from it and rubbing it in the faces of gun owners across America?

Because while it isn't a full endorsement of firearm ownership, it definitely did not say what he wanted it to say. The following are a few examples, taken from the report, that make gun control legislation seem just plain ludicrous.

1.) "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." (Page 13)

I don't like to speak in absolutes, so I'll just ask a rhetorical question and allow the reader to use his or her own logic and rationality to answer it: Of the 204,716 people who committed suicide with a firearm in that 10 year period, how many do you think would have still found another way to kill themselves, through hanging, poisoning, cutting, drowning, falling, crashing, etc. even if they did not have access to a firearm? I have my answer, and it makes it seem ridiculous to even count suicide as a reason to restrict firearm ownership.

2.) "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. Specifically, since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in a day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons." (Page 13)

I should also add, that as John Lott pointed out, all of these events except for one have taken place in so-called "gun free zones." While the rate of occurrence of public mass shootings is statistically insignificant and makes for nothing but good political fodder, the frequency at which these shootings take place in gun-free zones is certainly statistically significant and warrants further research and reevaluation. 

3.) "Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade and violent crimes, including homicides, specifically, have declined in the past 5 years." (Page 13)

But overly sensationalized news stories create the perception that we are in the midst of an urgent crisis that can only be solved by more government intervention. Yes, because the government that has shut down numerous times over the past five years and is unable to actually reach a consensus and make a decision about anything is in the best position to decide what's best for you, right?

4.) "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurence [...]. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are AT LEAST [my emphasis] 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." (Page 15)

So even on the low side of the estimates, guns are used by good guys to protect themselves and others nearly twice as often as they are used by a criminal. That alone is a pretty amazing statistic.

5.) "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." (Page 16)

So you're telling me that rolling over and playing dead isn't a good self-defense strategy? If you're reading this right now, you probably already instinctively understand this concept, which is why you're browsing a website dedicated to reporting crime victims who defend themselves with firearms coming out on top.


There are certainly parts of the study that don't give full endorsement to the widespread ownership of firearms, which makes sense. The people who wrote the study ultimately get their paychecks signed by a guy who wishes the entire report provided evidence that we should initiate an outright ban of all firearms. While the study insists that firearm violence is a significant problem in the United States (I'll concede that point, but would attribute it to other causes), it appears to be exactly the opposite of what the President was hoping for, which is most likely why you haven't heard of this yet.