Watch Global Lessons on Guns, a Fareed Zakaria GPS primetime special, this Sunday at 7 p.m. ET on CNN
By Frederick P. Rivara, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Frederick P. Rivara is the Seattle Children’s Guild Endowed Chair in Pediatrics and adjunct professor in epidemiology at the University of Washington. The views expressed are his own.
With the anniversary of the Newtown shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School almost upon us, it is worth revisiting a troubling reality noted in a commentary I co-wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association just a week after the tragedy – the 17-year effort to suppress research into guns.
Between 1985 and 1997, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded research examining the public health importance of gun-related injuries and the association between ownership of guns and risk of violent death – homicide and suicide – in the home and in the community. (In the interests of full disclosure, I participated in some of the research funded by the CDC.)
However, in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress essentially eliminated gun research funded by the CDC by inserting the following language into the appropriations for the Center: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
This restriction was later extended to include the National Institutes for Health. And the net effect of these moves? A dramatic reduction in research on guns and gun violence over the last almost two decades.
Some may wonder why this is important, questioning whether we really need more research and asking if either side of the gun debate really needs more information? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. And the fact is that such information is likely wanted by most Americans because, after all, surely we all want to know what works so we can base public policy on evidence?
More from GPS: Time to face facts on gun control
Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic movement in medicine, public health, and the social sciences towards evidence-based medicine, evidence based policy, and evidence-based criminal justice. With this in mind, we should be looking at what the science tells us about risks and protection, what helps, what harms and what has no effect, rather than making decisions based on what some talking head says.
True, the efforts of Congress have not stopped all assessment of the issue. But the CDC-commissioned report by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council of the National Academies on priorities for firearm-related research, released in June, simply highlights how much we still need to learn if we want a truly informed debate on guns.
For example, who owns guns, why do they own guns, how many do they own, and where do the guns come from? Why do young people in particular often own guns? If access to firearms was restricted, what proportion of people who are suicidal would use other means that are equally lethal? How often are guns really used to prevent a crime or prevent an attack that can result in serious injury or death? How effective are background checks in preventing gun ownership by those most likely to misuse guns? In the patchwork quilt of guns laws in America, with obviously porous borders, can stronger gun laws in one state make a real difference, or does it require uniform change in all states? Can advanced gun technology reduce misuse of firearms? If so, what about the estimated 300 million guns already in the public’s hands?
The president appears to have done all he can to further improve the evidence base on guns. Indeed, a month after the Newtown massacre, President Obama issued 23 executive actions to reduce the toll of gun violence, including a directive to the CDC to research the “causes and prevention of gun violence.” He also called on Congress to fund such research.
Sadly, our elected leaders in Washington have taken no action to follow up on this. And I am pessimistic that much action will occur. If the massacre of 20 children in Connecticut less than one year ago did not spur more action, I am at a loss to imagine what will.
The reason the CDC was stripped of all funding for gun related research is that they forgot to do research and began to do politically motivated hit pieces. This culminated in a widely published and quoted study that was proven to be invalid and fraudulant. The CDC forgot that its mandate is to fight disease and instead tried to become a political lobbying group.
We, as a nation, need to quit looking at the tree labeled "Gun" and start looking at the forest label "Violence". We know the causes – lifestyles that include gangs, poverty, drugs, hate, etc. Yet we continue to try and focus on a single inanimate object like it is the causes of all the ills in America.
James, if you want to look at the "forest", it exists for you to study. It is a society, almost indistinguishable from yours, just across an imaginary line, called Canada. Does that eliminate enough trees for you to hold some validity? Didn't think so, because it doesn't fit your "narrative". You are acting like the heads of the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition, but instead of a literal translation of the bible to justify killing those who disagree, you point to the second amendment like it cannot be discussed or examined. It was written by fallible men, in a very different time, and may I point out it has been amended (and re-amended, i.e. prohibition) many times. Would a literal translation and application of the bible or the Koran suit you? Didn't think so! Look at Australia, also similar to the US, where they banned automatic weapons a few years ago. There is a complete "forest", with a sweeping change to gun laws, where you can study the entire society and how it was transformed by gun laws! But you would rather stick with your Spanish Inquisition position and drown out anyone who dares to ask a question! Just as I thought you are just digging in your heels and dragging your knuckles!!!
Bill, I re-read your post twice and I am still not sure what you are trying to say. I am not saying we don't need to ask questions. Just that we need to ask the right ones.
As to looking elsewhere... The UK (2034 per 100K) has 5 times the violence of the US (466 per 100K), Canada(900+) almost twice the US. When guns are banned, outlawed, etc the violence just shifts. Thats called treat a symptom and ignoring the cause.
Bill- do you care to get honest about the wheres, the whys, and most importantly the whos concerning a vast majority of crime involving guns in the US? Lets get something straight, in case you're able to pry your head out of your rectum, you will realize that the US has a people problem, a culture problem, NOT a gun problem. I'll give it to you between the eyes, if we were to remove the "young black male" factor from the equation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.... understand?
Bill, your post is nothing but a rambling mess. You make accusations that are in fact untrue. Example you state James pointed to the 2nd Ammendment when James made no reference to it at all in his post. You call James' argument as the same logic as the Spanish Inquisition, but you are the one just sputtering nonsense and blindly standing behind it. James is correct in the following facts: guns are inanimate objects and the proplem is the culture of violence.
I will further the argument with some more facts. Before the National Firearms Act of 1934 anyone in America could own military grade weapons, including artillery. Up until that point the typical firearms owned by civilians were typically better than the standard issued military weapons. From the Revolutionary War through the Plains Wars soldiers who could afford it would buy civilian firearms which were better than what they were issued. My question to you Bill, a civilian populace was better armed then the military from 1776 till early 1900s why was gun control not an issue back then? Could it be that James is right that an inanimate object can not do anything unless it is used by a person. You don't blame the knife if someone uses it to stab a person. So in the end its the culture not the gun.
James...we have 32,000 gun related deaths per year. Canada has just a few hundreds per year at worst. Canada and the UK might have more ipods stolen per capita but we bury more Americans than they do Canadians at a much gigantic rate. Gun advocates are blind people who refuse to see the truth. Guns are a nuisance to our society.
Actually for James – I can quote the more interesting statistics that are relevant and accurate. Homicide rates with a firearm are 0.55/100,00 in Canada while they are 3.36/100,000 in the US. That is a 6 fold differential in the rate. the problem with using stats for violent crime is that each country you list includes different categories of criminal action in their definition of violent. The US includes far fewer actions as violent than Canada, Australia or GB, so most objective research uses the homicide rate as the marker – that is the same definition across the countries listed.
Oh, okay, that explains it then. I'm sure you actually know what you're talking about.... Or maybe it was actually "politics" on the part of the gun nut crowd that just doesn't like to face the factual evidence that illustrates how incredibly perverse the gun rights movement is in the United States.
The last major "gun" study out of the CDC was the one that commonly provides the "If you own a gun you are 4-6x more likely to be shot with it that use it defensively". After the study was published, an number of academics not connected with the pro-gun movement set out to verify it. And they couldn't. in fact they proved it wrong and the author.. well lets just say that they refered to his work as questionable.
So the pro-gun movement reacted in a reasonable fashion and got the CDC stripped of funds to do "gun" research. Academia is still allowed to. But when academics publish papers, they are in peer-reviewed journals. So other academics look at their work. This is a type of enforced honesty. Look at Bellisle. He published a paper and book based on highly questionable work, got caught, lost his teaching position and had a prestigous award stripped from him. When the anti-gun movement went after Lott (auther of More Guns Less Crime) in reaction, what research he could not produce records of, he stood up admitted to, and did it all over. And provided unquestionable research that proved his point.
All anyone can ask is honesty. When you publish something that is less than honesty in a hotly contested, highly charged political environment, you have to expect backlash.
You lost this discussion with your infantile gunnut comment. Are you actually old enough to be here?
can you please provide an intelligent definition of a so-called "gun-nut'?
I think when someone says "gun nut" what they're envisioning is a very, very small number of people. They don't even notice the vast majority of gun owners because we don't have massive stockpiles of weapons or go waving them around.
James...do you even know what "peer review" is? The CDC study was attacked by pro gun "experts" working for the gun industry. John Lott was the author of "More Guns Less Crimes". That study was funded by the Winchester Foundation which was founded by the Winchester family. That is like Pepsi conducting a study stating drinking Pepsi cures cancer and makes you healthier. The fact was "peer review" of John Lott's study proved he faked the survey. John Lott was so desperate for recognition that he impersonated a woman (Mary Rosh) to praise himself. Mary Rosh wrote "He was the best professor I've ever had. He was initially against guns until his study revealed guns are good for us". He even had his family writing great reviews under false names. John Lott was the main attacker of the CDC studies which clearly contradicted the fake data he used in "More Guns Less Crimes". He was the hero of the gun lobby until an internet wizard found out the messages left online by "Mary Rosh" came from the same address than the house of John Lott. John Lott admitted he created "Mary Rosh" to counter the attacks against his study. Is that the best the guru of the gun lobby could do? LIE? The gun lobby has no problem with lies. Neither do most gun owners.
As there is no evidence pointing to the claim you suggest, your argument is as invalid as the train of thought that spawned it.
The way to respond to any study that is short of accuracy and questionable is to do a better study....NOT shut down all studying. There is no way to disguise extortion and bullying by the gun lobby by pretending one study caused it all. The decision to take away CDC funding for all gun violence studies is a grievous injustice to the American people who have a right to the truth. Interesting also that every time a gun study comes out that goes against NRA propaganda it is instantly dubbed "political". The gun lobby wants the truth buried no matter what they have to do to ensure it.
Well said, Mr. James.
Guns are not a disease.
No...but the romance and status they are afforded in American popular culture and lore certainly is a disease......
Very well said.
While I support research into violence including that from guns, the CDC should be focused on disease, not violence, and not politics.
If we consider the proliferation of violence across a society as sytemic, as is the proliferation of disease, is it not reasonable then to authorize the CDC to study the proliferation of violence, gun violence or any other for that matter?
James -Excellent and well written post.One of the few out their with clarity to see through this backdoor ant-gun agenda.
That is not what happened James. What happened was that the findings of those studies went against the best interest of the gun industry and the NRA so the goons of the gun lobby in Congress ordered their funds to be eliminated. If the CDC finds that third hand smoke from cigarretts cause cancer they will recommend more restrictions on smoking. Therefore, the tobacco industry will accuse them of using public funds to help the anti-smoking groups. The CDC studies found a corelation between guns at home and an increase in the chances of suicide and homicide. They recommended reducing households with gun will reduce suicides and homicides. Some politica anti-gun groups used those findings to attack the gun lobby. The gun lobby blamed the CDC. Nothing was done except killing the CDC funds. Today we have around 32,000 gun-related deaths per year. We hava had an epidemic of mass shootings in the US lately most of them by legal gun owners with their legally owned killing machines. Every decade we lose around 320,000 Americans to gun violence. That's a whole city of US citizens killed. When is our "gun holocaust" going to stop?
It should be crystal clear to any thinking person that you're wrong. Over 300,000 Americans killed by guns per year? That's 1/10th of a percent of our entire population. That's to say you believe that 1% of Americans are killed by guns over a 10-year period? That over a 70 year average lifetime, 7% of people were shot to death? You're off by an order of magnitude at least.
Actually, the research that went against the gun corporations was, sadly, largely falsified and driven by political idealism not realism. They decided to make their study much more forceful at the cost of it being true and they hurt themselves and the cause of gun control for decades with that mistake. Honesty always works better.
read his post again, he said 300,000 per DECADE, not per year....
Cayeres209- wow, really? I'm actually impressed at your complete ignorance and deliberate deceit. The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2012 lists 8,855 homicides in the US using firearms. It bears mentioning that those numbers include people shot by police, people shot in self defense, and suicides using a gun. Now, the report that President Obama commissioned the CDC to conduct following the Newtown shooting showed that guns are used for legal self-defense and crime prevention anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million times annually. Please correct your willful ignorance and use actual facts in the future.
Gun holocaust? First the Jews will get angry with you for comparing anything to their myth. Second, when blacks quit killing people those numbers will drop dramatically.
Yah right....the gun wing nuts will find any way possible to prevent information and knowledge from overcoming their ignorance.
More guns = more gun violence and gun related deaths! Period. The US is the gun capital of the world and the gun violence capital of the world. More people are killed by guns in the US each year than are killed in nations at war. THINK!
Most thinking people are more concerned with "violence" not gun violence, not karate chop violence or any other specific descriptor of violence. Most thinking people know that removing every gun from the country would not make them any less likely to be a victim of violence. Let look at the who's and why's of violence and find out why they are violent. This is lefty legislation logic, take away guns and the VIOLENT PEOPLE will no longer be violent, meanwhile you just stripped 100X more law abiding citizens of their right. Sandy Hook was committed with stolen guns from a deranged person.
Wow. More people killed by guns in America than by all the nations out there at war? Your myopic world view of (apparently) America only and ignorance of what is happening on the world stage are truly stunning. Yes, in your perfect world no nuts could possibly get their hands on a gun and do something terrible, but also no one would be able to defend themselves from home invaders, rapists, etc. Kind of a trade off, don't you think?
Why is everyone focused on the extremes anyway? Seems like people either thing "get rid of all guns" or "give everyone a gun when they turn 16!" I think that improvements can be made, but using solutions that fall WELL in between those two outlooks. Another thing I don't understand...why do so many people refer to anyone who owns a gun as a "gun nut?" I've never owned a gun in over 40 years of life, but I've known many people who do. None of them would I describe as a "gun nut." To me, that's someone like the Sandy Hook guys (I won't even post his name), or one of the other few, sick individuals who have done bad things. No matter how horrible these things are, people DO need to balance in their minds the fact that these are a VERY small percentage of people. Other than that, you have gun violence by criminals and known criminals who shouldn't even have guns by our current laws. Why don't we take the easy win and focus on those folk first so we can reduce the MAJORITY of the gun violence that takes place? Is that too logical? Other solutions and angles are obviously too emotionally and politically charged to tackle and as a recent survey shows, the majority of America doesn't really care about those issues. So lets focus on the criminal elements first and make some real headway on the problem. Then we can make some progress in other areas having done some real good. Make too much sense?
What we need is for the gun cult fanatics to face the facts and admit the truth (Guns kill). If they would simply use their brain and/or common sense for a change, there would be no debate. I keep seeing the same old stupid and sick argument that guns don't kill. I know there cannot possibly be even one person in this whole world dumb enough to believe such garbage. There is NO way someone can kill a room or theatre full of people with a club, knife or wet noodle before being taken down. They can ONLY do it with a gun, Nor can they kill someone 20 feet away with a club, knife, etc.. If anyone cares to challenge these facts, simply show up with your knife and/or club and demonstrate how you will kill me. I guarantee you will NOT succeed without a gun that WILL kill.
I wonder who Fareed Zakaria is going to plagiarize this time...
That is a much more important topic than discussing gun laws! I agree with you that we should never discuss gun laws, it would be like pointing out problems with literal acceptance of every verse in the unquestionably perfect second amendment, oops, I mean Koran. You wouldn't question some islamists' right to kill infidels, would you? The same goes for the second amendment. Speaking of infallible amendments, do you prefer the prohibition amendment or its repeal?
You're right only bankers, celebrities, and politicians should have the right to self defense! They're lives are more important than peasants like us!
When I read a rant like this, I question your mental health. Seriously.
After reading your idiocy, I have discovered an argument against the First Amendment, though.
Anyone and everyone he can.
I used to be decidedly anti-gun but recently my position is evolving.
The problem with banning guns is that criminals would have no difficulty obtaining them any more than laws against the possession of illegal drugs prevent people from getting them. Criminals don’t care if they break the law to get some advantage over their law abiding fellow citizens. That’s why they are criminals!
I got into quite a discussion with a neighbor of mine (a former cop) on the subject of gun control. I had always accepted the liberal line that high rates of gun ownership contributed to violent crime. So, I found some stats on the countries rank in gun possession and personal safety. I only had 30 cities in 11 countries where I could find the data. I expected that there would be a negative correlation, i.e., the higher a city ranked in gun possession, the lower it would rank in personal safety.
So I was surprised to find a moderate correlation of 0.551. Now Switzerland is a unique case since every able bodied Swiss male is issued a SIG SG 550 assault rifle. So I took out the Swiss data but still got a pretty strong correlation of .494. I am forced to conclude (at least on a preliminary basis) that high rates of gun possession do not necessarily lead to a decrease in personal safety.
So what is the current thinking among criminologists and law enforcement about how much does a high rate of gun possession influence personal safety?
In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into non-confrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon.
However, I don’t see a valid reason for anyone to own an assault rifle equipped with multiple high capacity magazines. There are some neighborhoods that are so dangerous, that owning a gun is frequently a person’s only hope for safety. For them I think a small caliber revolver would do.
not sure I follow you.why is a small revolver ok,but only criminals can have high capacity,as you stated they have no problem with illegal items
So, what you're saying is there's no point having any laws as there will always be scofflaws.
Why the focus on "assault rifles" when they are involved in less than 1% of gun crimes? Whether one "needs" one or not, realize the term "assault rifle" refers to a collection of mostly cosmetic features, none of which affect how powerful or deadly the gun is.
As for that tired old argument of "why have laws at all if they don't stop criminals", I'll state the obvious yet again. Laws serve to keep the honest people in line and provide a structure for punishing those who cause problems for society. Laws don't stop criminals from doing bad things, but they do define what counts as a bad thing and allow us to lock up the troublemakers.
If someone is willing to give up their own life in the act of committing a crime, there is no law that can stop them.
Let me give you a reason for my "assault rifle"
In 20 years in the military I was stationed all over the world and the USA. I got to enjoy Andrew when it hit Florida and Rodney King riots while stationed in California. It was my semi-auto (assault rifles are military rifles) and those of my neighbors that kept looters away from our homes, no shots fired, just standing firm with them in hand was enough.
While your firearms might have stop some looters from stealing 20 flat TVs in your neighborhood 20 first graders were killed with firearms in Newtown. Guns are used to kill around 32,000 Americans per year and save just around 250 lives per year. Guns suck at saving lives but they rock at killing people. Do you know why? Because guns are deadly weapons designed to kill people not to save lives.
Robert, your post was factual and to the point right up until you got to the last paragraph, then you let the libertarian in you escape. SInce your actual familiarity and experience with firearms is probably nil then you really arent the right person to determine what type of firearm someone needs to defend themselves. I would ask you and the Nancy Pelosis and Chuck Schumers of the world this simple question, its 3 am, a window in your home has just been broken, you hear somene enter your home, you dial 911 but as we all know when seconds count the police are only minutes away ( Im an ex-cop by the way), the burglar is now climbung the stairs to your bedroom, you and your family are huddled in your bedroom, on your nightstand is a "small caliber revolver" or a 15 shot 9mm pistol, which one are you grabbing? And please be honest.
It's 3am you get woken up to glass breaking. by the time you pull your gun out of it's safe storage location, and travel to wear you safely store bullets. as only an idiot stores bullets in the gun unlocked.. that theif has either walked off with all your tv's and computers or attacked you.
I keep baseball bat near my bed for such reasons. I own several rifles and shotguns. even handguns really are not useful for self defense. most theives what your stuff, doing time for murder sucks a lot more than robbery. 70% or so of all thefts occur during the day too. when you your wife, and kids are most like to be away.
So that 3am breaking and entering doesn't really happen much anymore. at least not on purpose.
Bob, do you live in Austrailia? Your answer defies the norms for a gun owner. First of all handguns are a primary self defense weapon specifically suited for home defense. Especially as opposed to a basebal bat which requires you to be in closer proximity to any bad guy. Modern trigger locks allow a handgun to be stored loaded and readily available with plenty of safety factor built in. As for 3am burglaries we still get plenty here, you reach for your bat, I and my family will reach for a handgun, preferably one with a hi-cap magazine.
Bob, the idiot is you if you have a home defence weapon unloaded and with ammo in a different spot. Seriously, if you are over 21 how did you live so long. I have gone through several occurrences where I was forced by a criminal to end his life, I hated to do it, but better them than me or a family member. You post sounds like a anti-gun troll.
Bob, I can't speak for all gun owners, but I do keep a double stack automatic pistol in a safe next to my bed. It takes just under 3 seconds to open the safe and retrieve the loaded and chambered pistol. There is one round in the breech and 15 in the magazine. The only thing that you need to do to enable the pistol is to thumb off the hammer block safety, then aim and pull the trigger. I also keep show spare magazines , also fully loaded in the same safe. Note that this is a Fort Knox Original Pistol Safe that is child proof and very secure, not a cheap so called pistol safe. An unloaded gun is worthless for self defense. Just be sure to lock it up properly and have the correct type, hammer block, of safety that will ensure that the pistol can not fire if the safe is dropped. BTW: You obviously know nothing about guns, self defense and gun safety. Please go comment on topics that you have at least elementary knowledge of. II have kept guns in my home, properly secured, for over 35 years and have never worried about someone I have not authorized having access to them.
@AUSTaxpayer – your post reads like gun P O R N. You obviously have more than a little love affair with your weapons. Scary stuff. I'm glad you're not my neighbor.
So well said Bob. Unfortunately that is the kind of facts and logic the gun fanatics ignore. They all know if they accept the facts and the truth, the debate would be over and we would have effective gun control. Therefore, they will never accept or admit true facts nor use common sense and/or logic.
It should be a sign of how gun owners are viewed when gun control-friendly administrations want them studied by a branch of government that deals with "diseases". I'm guessing the result of said research would be something along the lines finding ways to get guns away from law-abiding citizens, and as always, have no real answer for criminals, mentally ill and gang members. I'm with James on this one, responsible gun owners are tired of being burned by politically motivated "independent research".
Didn't this same guy get pinched for plagiarism not that long ago...along the lines of the same topic...
The author of this piece was Frederick P. Rivara. That article is about Fareed Zakaria. Not the same guy.
A weak argument. Government certainly isn't the only source of funding for research; there are plenty of private organizations that are more than happy to fund the sort of studies you claim aren't being done.
It seems a lot more likely that they're not being done because the people doing them don't like where the results are heading.
So: Most countries that ban the ownership of guns ( I say most because lets discount 3rd world countries) Have substantial rises in violent crime following the the confiscation of guns. Why doesn't the CDC and everyone else focus on the root cause of violence?.
You are aware that there are differences in how each country reports "violent" crimes. Also, you are aware that not all violent crimes result in loss of life but all gun massacres usually do.
Did Australia ban automatic weapons about 10 years ago? What were the results of that? Anyone care to admit that a full and complete case study exists in a society not unlike the USA? And enough time has passed to measure results!!!!!!!! You are welcome, everyone on both sides of the aisle.
Automatic weapons in the US have been under strict control since 1936 with the passage of the National Firearms Act. In the 90+ years since then only 4 homicides have been committed with them.
Yup, but what about the homicides committed using large magazine semi-automatic weapons? The scale of potential carnage to civilians from single shot or small magazine weapons to large magazine semi-automatic weapons is probably on the same order of magnitude as from large magazine semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic weapons. Your comment is incredibly disingenuous.
Get your facts right. Australia did not ban automatic weapons, They banned SEMI-AUTO assault style weapons in 1996.
This article would be far more compelling if it included links to analysis from the '85 – '97 research. What did we know then that we don't know now? How does this gap of information prevent us from making good policy decisions? Are there any examples of good policy being created because research WAS available?
Ultimately, the stalemate won't end until gun control advocates can buy the votes and make measures palatable (profitable) for enough members of Congress.
You are so right Traabhimself. Since the politicians have been bought and paid for by the NRA, gun dealers and manufacturers, we need to come up with a larger amount of payoff than they do.
I wonder if the NRA would be so reluctant to prevent gun focused research by the CDC if empirical evidence suddenly uncovered a link between gun ownership and brain cancer. We already know that gun ownership makes some people very stupid; maybe that is just the first stages of some form of brain cancer.
Those people were stupid long before they got a gun, to blame an inanimate object makes me doubt YOUR sanity.
Actually the CDC was given $10M and did a study, but the answer didn't fit the liberal agenda, so now they're trying to pretend it didn't happen, and trying to make the perception that the problem is a lack of funding. CNN is complicit in this coverup by running this one-sided editorial. You can easily find out what really happened with the CDC study on the internet, example – http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/27/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/
Idiocy like this is why people are turning on Obama supporters and their agenda in droves.
you moron, the studies were done back in the 80's and 90's. Always so quick to try to pin something on Obama!
First of a lets educate ourselves on some of the basic nomenclature:
Automatic Weapon, means fully automatic, as long as you continually depress the trigger bullets will fire until you run out of ammo. Im sure this is not what Bill P meant since as James stated they have been regulated since the NFA act of 1938. This is usually the type of weapon militarys and some police depts use.
Australia did not ban "automatic weapons" but they did ban "semi-Automatic" weapons, those that for every time you depress the trigger you fire 1 bullet.
Since their ban went into place, mass shootings have gone down yet violent crime continues to rise.
It's no different than the mass media showing a video clip of a fully automatic AK-47 every time a shooter uses a SEMI-AUTO assault rifle to commit a crime like a mass shooting. IT starts with the public understanding the differences in firearms capabilities, and it starts with the CORRECT description of their use. If you don't know the difference, then don't post a reply.
Phil, you just did what you told others not to do. You called it a semi-auto "assault" rifle when in fact by definition an assault rifle is fully automatic, or did I misread your post?
Agreed, like the Navy Yard shooter, some news reporter (pinhead) said it was a full auto AR-15 12 ga shotgun with a 100 round magazine. Pretty sure it was CBS
knowledge has never been the friend of the conservative right wing on any subject matter. Why would they want to change that?
In this case, lack of knowledge is the best friend of the liberal left. They specifically use terms that mislead, and use studies that have been debunked because those studies support their arguments. They rely on the lack of education of the American people to sell their politics.
The NRA and pro-gun movement lobbied Congress to stop all funding for the CDC and "gun research" because (1) the CDC got caught publishing political hit pieces whose research was questionable at best, and (2) the CDC needs to stick to its job.
Academia did, does, and will continue to do "gun research" with funding from sources left, right, and center. The difference is when an academic publishes a study in a peer-reviewed journal, the study better hold up or his peers will slash it to ribbons. A kind of peer enforced honesty. In the past we have seen this tear down researchers who choose to let politics rather than the data guice their work. In the end, honest research is all anyone can ask for.
Let's be fair here. Lack of knowledge, omitting or spinning facts is standard procedure for any person or group with an agenda. It's human nature, we even fool ourselves with the same method, I believe the term is "confirmation bias". We notice evidence that supports our views and disregard that which is contrary. It certainly isn't specific to any particular political party or view.
Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.
Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed by Vaillant as an immature defence, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.
You might want to check with the mental health to get checked out.
For example, who owns guns (American CITIZENS exercising their 2nd Amendment RIGHT do) why do they own guns (because it is not the job of the police to protect us), how many do they own (NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS), and where do the guns come from (PURCHASED LEGALLY from an FFL holder? Why do young people in particular often own guns (again, because it is not the job of the police to protect us)? If access to firearms was restricted, what proportion of people who are suicidal would use other means that are equally lethal? How often are guns really used to prevent a crime or prevent an attack that can result in serious injury or death (look at the data from the 35 states that allow their law abiding citizens the right to carry a firearm for self defense) ? How effective are background checks in preventing gun ownership by those most likely to misuse guns (is a criminal really going to purchase a firearm through an FFL holder, and go through the NICS check)? In the patchwork quilt of guns laws in America, with obviously porous borders, can stronger gun laws in one state make a real difference (no because criminals do not obey any laws, thats why they are criminals!!), or does it require uniform change in all states? Can advanced gun technology reduce misuse of firearms? If so, what about the estimated 300 million guns already in the public’s hands?
Criminal get a lot of guns through "starw purchases". Those guns were legally bought but then they were transfered to criminal hands. Criminals more than a million guns in burglaries from the homes of gun owners. Those guns were also legally obtained but then "transfered" to criminal hands because gun oweners do not secure them properly. Criminals could even buy guns without a criminal background check in private sales. That sale was legal and the guns ended in criminal hands. Thanks to the gun lobby our gun laws have more holes in them than all the salt and pepper dispensers in the entire planet.
Sadly the premise of the article is wrong. There has been federally funded research subsequent to Obama's executive orders, it's results were just published this summer. “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” Among it's conclusions: 1. Armed individuals are far less likely to be injured by an attacker; 2. Defensive (legal) uses of firearms are exceedingly common; 3. Mass shootings/accidents represent a very small number of deaths and both are in decline; 4. 'Gun Free Zones', assault weapons bans, and other interventions have a negligible if any effect; 5. Gun buybacks have no impact on crime rates; 6. Most gun deaths are suicides and not homicides (61%).
Plenty of research being done.
Stop it guys you are posting fact that anti-gun people won't know what to do. They can't handle the truth or facts.
I'm so shocked who says Crimanls don't follow the law they are always good outstanding citizens that we all should be like LOL!!!
Thank you for this article Fareed Zakaria. Between yourself, Piers Morgan & Christiane Amanpour, we beg you to please help us, the truly peaceful, non-violent, loving, humans of the United States........ this hotly debated "Gun Control" issue has gone on long enough...... it is really time for all of us sensible people to step in an make "grass roots" change happen....... after the awful "Newtown" incident, where so very many innocent Kindergarten children were brutally and violently murdered..... America truly sunk to a new low.......... very very low indeed........... all we need to do is "Copy and Paste" from Australia's Gun Control laws, learn about how they came about, after their awful "Newtown-like" incident, and admire the courage that their politicians displayed, at the State and Federal Levels....... and then just DO IT.........!!! The Nation of Australia has already done the hard work and research for us! We know that crime from gun violence went down by 99%, in Australia, after their new guns laws were passed and enforced, in 1996. We have the data! We can start be over turning the archaic Second Amendment and promptly revising it to read: Americans do NOT have the right to bear arms, even for sport. Period. End this silly 100 year old debate now. Please. That Second Amendment was made at a completely different time in US history, when Virginia farmers needed to be armed to fight the British Red Coats, that wanted to take the newly formed USA back under their control......... we don't need all Americans to be armed anymore........ it is leading to a further sinking, of the entire, once beautiful Nation, into a Mogadishu.......... let's face it guys........... Australia passed super-tough gun laws, that say: No Australian civilian or Foreign traveler in Australia, is allowed to posses or carry or conceal any gun whatsoever and any ammunition whatsoever, no matter what the make, model or vintage. The ONLY persons allowed to carry any weapon or ammunition, in Australia, are Australian Military and Australian Police. That's it. Keep it simple. Not confusing. Not complicated. Just simple. That way, scared little war mongering losers, or insecure little humans that want to feel macho by shooting an innocent deer in the Catskills or an innocent bear in Alaska, can go and stuff themselves! We Americans have had enough. There is a good reason that Australia has been voted "The Happiest Place on Earth" by the world community, and America has been voted "The most awful, Gun violent Place on Earth, where innocent Kindergarteners get slaughtered"............. please, please help us to really get this movement off the ground............. let's put the NRA where they belong....... out of business and looking for a job............... they have held us at "Gun Point" for way too long........ so that they could get rich from gun peddling........... the sickos that they obviously are............. shame on them............... as the wise Rabindranath Tagore once said: "Into that Heaven of true Freedom, my Father, let my Country awake"
You don't sound like an American, you sound hateful of many Americans. What's stopping you from moving and leaving the rest of us alone? Instead you want to condemn the old, weak and defenseless to be victims of violent crime as they have been in Australia and elsehwhere when citizens were stripped of their means of self defense.
My dear Rae, I am more American than you will ever be......... I love America.......... the sad fact is, any Tom, Dick or Harry in America, can now get a hold of an AK-47, an AR-15, a Glock-20, even if they are of unsound mind, they can steal the gun from their mom or dad, go to an Elementary School, and murder 25 innocent Kindergarterners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And all because that sick and demented human had ACCESS TO GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you understand that???? Do you get it???? Man, how would you like it, if your child was one of those innocent Kindergartners??? How would you like it if you had to place a wreath of flowers or your 5 year old child's grave??? Wake up my friend........... America has lost its way.......... we have become a Gun toting violent nation.......... not so different from Mogadishu......... where everybody is armed and dangerous.............. do you want that??? Do you want an America where every 2nd day, a child gets killed because some idiot had a gun that he "procured" from somewhere, his mom. his dad, his friend, who cares........ and then he murdered YOUR child??????
First what is wrong with hunting for food? do you not eat meat at all or any products that come from animals because if you do you may want to go down to where cows, pigs,Chicken and etc are killed it isn';t very nice and that is done without guns.
Second how about we actually fix the problems in the US not just pass more laws that fix nothing. How about we start with Morals and people taking responability for there actions. Stop all this crying and whining and get back to are roots and learn to take care of ourselves again. Stop asking the goverment to do stuff for us and do it yourself.
The guns aren't the issues but if we are taking away things that can kill people, lets take away knifes, bats, hammers, vehicles, Bomb making material, everything else that can be used by people to kill people.
The problem is far more deep rooted then a material Object it starts with the Families and the way kids are raised and the way people act nowadays.
Daniel I challenge you to go to any shooting competion at your local Gun club and I will bet you they are the nice people you will every meet, willing to help you in any way they can.
My dear Jon, let me help you to see the light............. what is wrong with killing an animal for food??? So that's your justification for 400 million guns floating around randomly in USA??? Let me enlighten you with some stark facts about our wonderful human existence.......... bad enough, we humans slaughter over 1 Billion cows per year, so that we can eat Steak and Hamburgers, bad enough that we humans slaughter over 3 Billion chickens per year, so that we can eat Chicken Salad, Chicken Burgers and Chicken Parmegaan.......... Don't you think that we humans are killing enough of God's creatures, in slaughter houses, all across our planet.......... that we really don't need to place a gun in the hands of 100's of millions of humans, so that they can continue to slaughter even more animals, to feel macho about what good marksman they are, or get a picture of themselves standing over a Lion or a Tiger, in the Serengeti of East Africa, so that they can mount that poor animal's head in their living room, so that they can show off to their friends about what great "shikaars" they are?????? All of us humans need to grow up, and realize at some point, that we have sunk way way low, we have gotten soooooooooooooooo lost............ in our desire to own a gun............... wake up, my fellow humans................. grow up................. by getting rid of your need to own a weapon that can kill animals or humans.............. that will be a great step in your progress towards being more civilized, more peaceful, more loving, more kind, more gentle................. and definitely less violent..............
Hmmm, youre so much more of an American than the rest of us only you want to repeal the 2nd amendment because it doesnt suit you. You want to blame a tool because you dont understand it and because Adam Lanza is dead and you cant blame him you fixate on inanimate objects. And your correct, a sick individual had access to firearms, but instead of focusing on that aspect of gun control you look elsewhere. Punish the thousands for the sins of the few.
My dear Cory, let me help you to look beyond your nose, to see the truth, to see our sad new American reality for what it really is.............. throughout history, humans have made laws......... these laws and their subsequent amendments, were also done by humans, who saw the need for the law or the amendment to be made, for the need of the hour, the need of that particular moment in history.............. you see my friend, Thomas Jefferson was merely trying to protect his newly created United States, when he decided that those Virginia Farmers should be armed, with Lee Enfield 202 rifles, so that they could fire at the British Red Coats, and preserve the Union that was his brainchild........ and the brilliant John Adams saw his viewpoint, as strongly supported it............. Australia has shown us the way, my friend........... Australia has shown us a new path.............. a path that can lead to our new emancipation............... by freeing ourselves from gun violence, we can actually evolve as humans............. think about that............ would it not be a awesome world, where we humans actually chose to be less violent............ less prone to killing each other by use of a gun............. what an awesome ideal for all of us to move towards........... to aspire to................ think about it.................
Daniel Daronda is my hero!
Thank you, my peaceful friend..... thank you........... it warms my heart, to know that at least one other human being has agreed with me........... well, you know my friend, every single movement on Planet Earth, started with one or two human beings who were able to see thru the fog, look at the truth, see how we as a human species may have lost our way....... and then tried valiantly to make some change happen............ so that all of us can live in a better world of tomorrow........... thank you again.............
The best reason why the government should not fund research into controlling guns is below. The last 4 words of it is the most important...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Funny how there are over 22,000 government imposed infringements on the one right that actually has the phrase "shall not be infringed".
that tired old argument just doesn't cut it anymore. I know it is all you fearful, weak-minded individuals have left to hold onto, no matter how tattered, but you need to come up with something else.
You're foolish on that response too.WUT
After reading many of the posts and responses, it becomes clear that the terms used to describe various weapons are subject to individual poster's personal vocabulary (belief). Some posters even correct others as to the definitions of terms. The truth concerning the definitions is that It is not that simple. There is much "overlap" in terminology and sometimes "context" needs to be known. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon. As one can see, even Wikipedia needs thousands of words to define the "ambiguity" of the terms being used.
Including suicide in violent crime statistics for guns greatly skews any outcomes.
"Assault weapon" was an invented term used to scare low information voters because it sounded like "Assault Rifle" while itself having no set definition so it could be applied to anything and everything. (Assault Rifle being the translation of the German Sturmgewehr, one of the early battle rifles with full auto capability from WWII)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.....HINT LIBERALS. Disease. Not inanimate objects that require a human.
Obamatrash: stay out of my life, my wallet, and how I defend myself in my own home.
Bottom line is if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.
try another argument Chuck. that one is jaded and doesn't get you much mileage with a thinking crowd.
no,still valid.YOUR view is invalid now
How would you know what a thinking crowd is about?
It does seem a little odd that the CDC would be doing research directly into gun use. However, if they were doing research into mental illness and homicides or suicides committed by people and happen to find some correlation there, I suppose that could be viewed as "gun control research."
So while I don't know if the CDC should have jurisdiction over this kind of research, this research should be done and there shouldn't be caveat language that says it can't be funded or its results released if it indicates anything that would limit the availability of guns. That's counter-intuitive.
Typical liberal anti-gun writing. Never willing to discuss the real issue, mans violence on man. It's just the gun where the focus always goes. For one moment try to be honest with yourself, and others.
Follow this link – en.wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
What you will see is gun laws have no true effect on gun crime. You will see some states with strict laws have high and low rates of gun crime, and you will see some states without strict gun laws have high and low rates of gun crime.
Now some will say I'm racist for the following but they say such because they are afraid to face the truth and instead simply demean and attack the messenger who delivers the true..
What you will absolutely see is the states with the highest black populations, or states with large black populations in urban areas, have the highest rates of gun crime regardless of Brady Gun Score. The wiki page gives the Brady Gun Law rankings too, it's a very easy page to get an idea about things.
Now away from the black issue- the easiest two states to compare are Texas and California as both are similar in size, population, and make-up of population. Notice that California with its very high Brady Score has more violent gun crime than Texas with its very low Brady Gun score?
The truth is very easy to see, and that is we have major problems in our black American population. I for one think the answer to these problems is a change in culture. We can't say more education, more opportunity is the answer because there are white areas (say West Virginia) without much education and or opportunity and they don't have the same levels of violence.
And I do not think "whites are great, blacks are terrible". Asians, Hispanics, Arabs, Natives, all have low gun rates. The high rate of gun violence is strictly a black thing. I lost the stats but per 100k as best I can remember the white murder rate is 1.9 per 100k, in Europe it is 1.5 per 100k. There are six U.S. cities with large black populations (Gary, Detroit, Phili, and 3 others I can't recall) that have a higher murder rate than all but 2 countries in the world; higher than Iraq, South Africa, Mexico...
It's time blacks change, we all get conquered at one point or another and civility and civilization is forced upon us and it's time for them to accept such.
The primary reason behind the move to stifle the research can be summarized by three very simple letters....N.R.A.
The elimination of gun research funded by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and prevention), is not right. There is need for much research because people need to know more about what works for them and what dose not. The importance of research can not be over emphasized, there is need for so many questions to be answered and this can only be done through the help of research. Also it is not just about doing research, it must be functional, reliable and authentic. AITEOBHOR JOSEPHINE OMOMHENE. CALEB UNIVERSITY IMOTA LAGOS.
Perhaps the following current Millennium International research with respect to "gun accidents" (i.e. "unintentional discharge of firearms") may be of interest to you and/or your associates/sponsors ?
Bob Stocker B.Eng.(Hons) Adv. Dip. Public Safety QPSM National Medal
Perhaps the following current Millennium International research may be of interest to you ?
Bob Stocker B.Eng. (Hons) Adv. Dip. Public Safety QPSM National Medal
The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with world leaders, newsmakers and analysts who break down the world's toughest problems.
CNN U.S.: Sundays 10 a.m. & 1 p.m ET | CNN International: Find local times
Buy the GPS mug | Books| Transcripts | Audio
Connect on Facebook | Twitter | GPS@cnn.com
Buy past episodes on iTunes! | Download the audio podcast
Check out all of Fareed's Washington Post columns here:
Obama as a foreign policy president?
Why Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Hillary Clinton's truly hard choice
China's trapped transition
Obama should rethink Syria strategy
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,863 other followers