The White House asks the CDC to do some research to help drive the narrative on gun control. They went ahead and did the study, but the results lead to narrative fail:
Furthermore, the key finding the president was no doubt seekingÂ â€” that more laws would result in less crimeÂ â€” was missing. The study said that â€œinterventions,â€ such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed â€œmixedâ€ results, while â€œturn-inâ€ programs â€œare ineffectiveâ€ in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economyÂ â€” from friends, family members, or gang membersÂ â€” well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
Read the whole thing.
5 thoughts on “Doesn’t Fit the Narrative”
I can’t decide which is the most unbelievable:
1) That the President had the gall to direct the CDC to violate federal funding restrictions on “gun research”;
2) That the CDC did their study anyway; or
3) That the CDC produced a report that seems to be a clear, objective, and comprehensive analysis of the real data.
Of course, we all in the gunnie community knew what an unbiased analysis of ALL the available data should show – it’s just surprising that the CDC actually DID such an analysis.
(In retrospect, #1 isn’t all that unbelievable.)
I have to agree with this – #1 is NOT a surprise nor is #2. The only surprise is #3; I can’t imagine that they would actually publish those results. But then again, I have not seen them anywhere else. Perhaps I overlooked the published report???
But if I can be made a felon for giving another law-abiding family member a firearm as a gift without letting the government know, that is a good thing, somehow.
This is probably an old enough post that no one will notice, but this story on today’s Tribune web edition just made me furious. So, which CDC should we believe?
“Ratio of U.S. youth murders committed by guns increasing: study”
It’s a Reuters’s story, but, whatever.
And how many of those innocent yutes were street corner pharmacists? Or part of an unlicensed social club? Aged 18-25? I’m too tired and pissed to read through it.
Comments are closed.