You're clearly not grasping the difference between responsible use of a firearm and wildly firing into a crowd.
Don't exactly remember the date or location, but a few months ago a good guy with a gun firing on a bad guy with a gun---was shot down by police.
There's an entire congregation and community in Texas that would disagree with the quote in your post. Relying on the people who arrive to investigate and report on what happened instead of the people directly involved or in the immediate area is foolishness.
Yeah Texas. There's a state to emulate. 31st in health care, 34th in education, 37th in safety from crime. Or is it 39th in education? Yahoo! Like when there's an airplane crash. The passengers can always tell you more about it than the National Transportation Safety Board, FAA, and FBI investigators.
No. Like when the plane is in trouble because the pilot is incapacitated and 20% of the passengers have flight experience and there's no reason at all to continue to the crash site instead of the airport.
Does this make sense? No need to investigate why the pilot was incapacitated, how, or why and could it happen again? What does 20% of the passengers having flight experience have to do with why the pilot was incapacitated? And what are you talking about, about going to the airport instead of the crash site? Passenger: "Well, we were flying along and the engine quite. Then the plane went into a dive and people were screaming and things were flying around the cabin." "The next thing I knew I woke up in the hospital". Pilot: "Well, we were flying along and the engine quite. It wouldn't restart. Then the plane went into a dive and I couldn't pull out of it." "The next thing I knew I woke up in the hospital". Useless investigator: Okay that's all we need to know. I'm done here. ....And what is the deal with investigative agencies, DNA samples, fingerprints, black boxes, etc. anyway? We don't need them at all, just talk to "the people who were there."
CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states. The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “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.”
As this is not the original study and as it clearly has an agenda to push, note the title: CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’. Could you supply us with a link to the original study?
Click Report CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
Thanks. I downloaded the PDF. Here are some highlights. Now we get to the part you quoted and what it says is that if you use a gun for self defense, it is generally more effective than using a knife, baseball bat, chair, bare hands, or other means. It doesn't address the rate of injury from not resisting to the rate of resisting with a gun or other means. (In other words you just hand over your wallet instead of trying to punch the criminal). Further: And of course we know that the CDC is very limited as to what research it can do in regards to guns. As I noted before. So what the study says is that firearms are dangerous and even if used for self defense the dangers of gun ownership may, and probably do, out weight the benefits.
I finally got a carry holster for my EDC that I actually like, so much weird shit on the market these days,,, but I came across a standard issue leather holster for the 1911 at a yardsale that had its cover flap cut off. Now all I need to do is rig up a nice thumbsnap over the hammer to make extra-sure it doesn't slip out. Definitely feels better than having a 1911 riding loose in my pocket Some here will be happy to know *I did not buy* the M1A scout rifle he had for $950 on the table
My quote is in post #1525 , CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’ Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states. The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “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.”
No it references a direct quote: And it says that firearms are "a pressing public health problem". That's from the report you cited, not my words.