538 researcher's discovery about guns

[sarisataka]

41. Unfortunately it is not a damning report

and refutes many of gun control's favorite talking points. Just a few selections:

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.

Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.

This speaks to your claim that banning certain guns will reduce crime

There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).

Gun control zealots are unwilling to accept any report that does not support pre-determined conclusions 100%. That is why it is ignored.

I fully support allowing the CDC to do unbiased research and let it reach whatever conclusion is supported by the data.