Latest CDC Gun Violence Study Continues Beating Long Dead Horses


Anti Gun Vaccination
Anti Gun Vaccination

Manasquan, NJ –-( On May 16th, the CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention issued another Anti Gun report; why such a Dept even exists is for another day, although its no big secret that many elite gun banners consider owning firearms to be a “social disease” and therefore somehow falls under the CDC’s purview.

The CDC’s twisted logic over firearms got so bad once before that in 1996 Congress had to cut off funding.

In the 1980s, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided guns were a “public health” issue and began funding more and more research on guns and gun control. Some of what was produced was valuable social science, but a great deal was “junk” science, patently designed to create prohibitionist talking points. Those involved were not shy about discussing their gun-ban goals.

Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

A newspaper article on two other leading anti-gun propagandists, Dr. Katherine Christoffel and Dr. Robert Tanz of the Children’s Hospital in Chicago, explained their “plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes … turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard.” (Harold Henderson, “Policy: Guns ‘n Poses,” Chicago Reader, Dec. 16, 1994.)

Many of the propaganda articles were widely disseminated by a credulous media eager to tout supposedly scientific proof that guns were bad.

The most popular of these articles was built around a one-sentence factoid that asserted the dangers of guns far outweighed the protective benefits.

Under the Obama Administration, this devious and deceitful practice has once again risen from the ashes, first with the thoroughly debunked “study” published by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania that was released last fall under the auspices of the National Institutes for Health, now this latest anti gun screed, masquerading as scientific “fact

The report purports to show that the firearms homicide rates are higher in urban cities ( we needed a tax payer funded study to reach this conclusion ?) and goes on to argue that one of the strongest correlations is “concentrated disadvantage, where everyone in a given urban area is poor and or unemployed”.

Sounds suspiciously to me like a politically correct way of blaming minorities. But even worse, but not at all surprising, is the fact the study doesn’t make sense on a fundamental level.

Following the authors and supporters logic, if you start with a concentration of socio or economically disadvantaged males who are “at risk”  and then remove all firearms from that group, the area or community will be 100 percent safe and free of crime. Which explains why no one is ever killed, raped, beaten or robbed in prison right?

The Anti Gun acolytes that readily crow that anything neatly presented counts as a scientific fact are not interested in stopping violent crime or reducing murder rates, they’re simply afraid of the firearms themselves and will sink to any level to attempt to “prove” their feelings are validated by scientific study.

They all suffer from a severe case of delusional hoplophobia, when was the last time you heard a dedicated anti gunner bemoan the fact that according to FBI Stats, scores of people are murdered or seriously injured by knives, feet, bare hands or numerous other weapons ?

Put another way by using another current day “epidemic” to illustrate. If a person and or group is truly concerned about obesity, would they continue to focus only on hot fudge sundaes or Happy Meals, while ignoring everything else? If they did they would rightly be called out over their single minded obsession with that one thing. It would be crystal clear they had a fetish with the object of their attention that had little if anything to do with what they publicly claimed to be working toward.

Anti Gun zealots claim to be trying to save lives, and who doesn’t want that ? Firearms owners certainly would agree with that single idea, after all, one of the biggest reasons to legally carry a firearm for self defense is so the carrier has the ability to save their life or the lives of loved ones if and when threatened by a criminal predator. But for the Anti’s, they all start from the presumption that ALL firearms are “evil” or “scary ” and then spend every minute they have trying to convince the rest of us to agree with and honor their skewed point of view.

They lie, they misrepresent, they call 19 year old adults “kids“, they talk about accidents, suicides and homicides all lumped in together, with nary a whiff of the facts surrounding the individual cases, like the fact that the vast majority of firearms related homicides in the US is criminal on criminal while in the commission of crimes. They certainly NEVER mention the far greater number of crimes prevented and lives saved because the potential victim was lawfully armed and able to resist.

They flat out refuse to even consider ANY other idea besides more legislation and tougher gun laws, which amounts to punishing the law abiding for the actions of the lawless.

Every proposal from the gun grabbers inevitably comes down to creating ever more categories of persons that should be barred firearms ownership, or ever expansive classes of weapons that should be banned. They talk about 100 year old semi automatic rifle mechanisms as “assault rifles” or “explosive hollow point bullets” or label common and venerable hunting rifles as hyper accurate “sniper rifles” or inexpensive firearms that people could afford to purchase for self defense as “cheap and easily obtainable Saturday Night Specials” Or they talk about make believe “cop killer bullets”, heck, at one Long Island Anti Gun News conference a couple years ago, one of the panel triumphantly crowed about the urgent need to ban ” heat seeking bullets” !


And don’t even think about mentioning firearms safety as a part of Public School curriculum, despite the fact that the NRA Eddie Eagle program has been enormously successful and won awards, or the fact that as recently as the 50’s kids routinely took their rifles and shotguns to school, either as part of an organized and school sponsored shooting team, or so they could go small game hunting after school and we never had a school related shooting.

The Anti Gunners dismiss out of hand any discussion about the provable benefits of law abiding citizens being armed to protect themselves. Apparently they see no moral hazard in actually enabling the victimization of innocent people at the hands of criminals.

The ONLY viable solution from the viewpoint of an Anti Gunner is less guns in fewer hands, yet these exact same people will derisively snort and laugh out loud if you suggest to them that an effective way to deal with runaway teenage pregnancy and promiscuity rates is less sex by fewer kids.

About Dan Roberts

Dan Roberts is an ardent supporter of grassroots gun rights. More articles, commentary and information by Roberts available at

Dan Roberts

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cheryl Minnick

Hypocrites all of them. Who are they kidding. More than 3000 unborn children are murdered everyday by their mothers via abortion in the US but, that's ok with the obamacrats.


Richard, its unclear if your comment was directed at me or the idiot woman in the press conference ?

Richard Kaup

NOT heat-"seeking", they are incendary tipped and carry their own heat source, thusly aiding in aim of next shot placement. Especially useful w/automatic firing, but hey – get it right if you're going to pontificate.