Executive Order Ploy Backfires

BosnMate

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
8,441
Golden Thread
0
Detector(s) used
Whites MXT, Whites DFX, Whites 6000 Di Pro
Primary Interest:
Other
Excellent post!!!
 

Article from link is below.

Obama’s Executive Ordered Study Report On Gun Violence Slaps Him In The Face


If you recall, back on January 16, 2013, standing with little children, Barack Hussein Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people and issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. Among those was number 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Well friends, that study did happen and it destroyed Obama’s position on guns and gun violence.

Well like all things in government, the people tasked with the study simply directed the study to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. However, many people have not heard about the report. Could it be that much of the information in the report didn’t quite “jive” with Obama and the anti-gun crowd?

Actually, that’s exactly what it did. In fact, not only did they not hold any water for Obama’s claims regarding gun violence, it poured it on him, pretty much backing every Second Amendment lover’s argument that has been made.

The report, titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence, which identifies the particular topics of gun violence to be researched over the next few years, made the point that the majority of deaths that take place annually by the use of a firearm are not related to crime, but to suicide.

“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,” reads the study.

That’s obviously not a good thing. However, it indicates that many Americans suffer from both a spiritual and mental health issue. With that said, let’s not then run to government to deal with mental health issues. I’ve warned before and I’ll warn you now: That would be a very bad move.

Here’s the great news in the report though. It points out that virtually every study which “assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” discovered the same thing. Those using their guns for self-defense “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Oh and remember how we’ve been told by the Obama administration and the socialist gun grabbers that guns aren’t used that often in self-defense? Well, the report shows that isn’t true either.


“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”

Yeah, not as uncommon as the propagandists would have us believe.

In all fairness, the report does point out that “some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).”

While the report does maintain that this will always be a controversy in the field, the study does state that “the estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys,” while the “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim,” reads the report.

The report does have a downside. It indicates that we have the most firearm related deaths of any western nation. However, the good news is that the study claims that is rapidly declining.


“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” However, “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.”

Additionally, the report goes on to inform about other declines. “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report continues, adding that accidental shootings were declining as well.
The report also states that “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

While everyone recognizes that there will always be crime and violence and yes, even gun violence, the fact of the matter is that gun control is not the answer, except to make sure you control your own gun and hit your target. For sure there will be more data added as the study continues, but already what they do have from the past indicates something that is completely opposite from what this administration has presented and there is no doubt that any information that comes out of the study will be thoroughly scrutinized.

The report also referenced video game violence to see how it might contribute to gun violence, but said that more research would need to be done and no research to the present has been conclusive.

Anyone wondering why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein aren’t running to the state run media to air out this little report? It’s because they have egg on their face.

One last question that is on my mind is, how much did will this study end up costing the American taxpayer?



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

Read the ACTUAL report and decide for yourself.

I promise both sides can read the same report and make all kinds of claims that it supports their argument.
 

Read the ACTUAL report and decide for yourself.

I promise both sides can read the same report and make all kinds of claims that it supports their argument.

So why isn't this report on the news if they can spin it to look like big O's a winner? What parts of the report supports your claims? The parts I posted support my ideas, I'd be interested in yours.
 

So why isn't this report on the news if they can spin it to look like big O's a winner? What parts of the report supports your claims? The parts I posted support my ideas, I'd be interested in yours.

I dont have time to read the whole thing but I did read the 10 page summary.

The part that is referenced in the OP's post is but a very tiny aspect of the overall topic discussed in the paper. Typically the summary states several topics and their importance and then it says (in a very fancy way) "that more research is needed".

An interesting aspect of the summary is on page 8 which discusses changing technology and how "changing a product is more effective than changing behaviors". It specifically states that "technology can render a gun unusable to an unauthorized person". It also discusses the factors that lead to firearm violence and says that they can all be studied as seperate research topics.

Interestingly it also states that a direct link to firearm violence and video games/media has not been established and further research is necessary.

Again, read the actual report.
 

I did read the report, and it does not support more gun control....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

I did read the report, and it does not support more gun control....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Never said it did, TH.

You guys are just as bad as the sheep that you rally against on a daily basis. You get swept up in your side and the propoaganda that is cleverly disguised as "alternative media". This stuff is nothing more than opinion papers and blogs by people with differing viewpoints.

I would bet that 10 people could read the report and you would have 10 different opinions of what the report means. In no way shape or form should anyone base their opinion on this report by the article above which only seeks to attack Obama.

MY POINT: Stop relying solely on what other people tell you when you get your news/info, etc. Don't believe anything unless you see it with your own eyes FROM THE PRIMARY SOURCE!

If you were already leaning in one direction and you read the article in the OP's post, you would instantly believe it without a second thought.

The right way to receive such information would be to read the report FIRST on your own without outside influences. Then make your own decisions and form your own opinions. I promise you, such opinions could not be challenged by anyone. You would also be receiving all of the information in the report, not just what the author wants you to see.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom