ATLANTA - A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons, found no proof that such measures reduce firearm violence.
The review, released yesterday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC said the report suggests that more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.
Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun-control laws.
Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies was conducted by the federal government.
In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."
"I would not want to speculate on how different groups may interpret this report," said Dr. Sue Binder, director of the CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It's simply a review of the literature."
Most of the studies were not funded by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.
A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong anti-gun measures.
"It's hard to study whether gun-control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."
The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before it could comment.
Firearms injuries were the second-leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which figures were available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year.
About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population.
The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow or poorly done.
"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."
Well, nobody's going to buy the results of this particular study, simply because it's a study on gun violence from the freakin' CDC. Jeez, who thought THAT one up? What's next, the ATF sponsoring a hard-hitting fact-finding mission on the mating habits of the North American great cats?
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka
"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by Nate The SnakeWell, nobody's going to buy the results of this particular study, simply because it's a study on gun violence from the freakin' CDC. Jeez, who thought THAT one up? What's next, the ATF sponsoring a hard-hitting fact-finding mission on the mating habits of the North American great cats?
Actually, if you go to their website, they actually talk a great deal about "safety", not just health issues. they also talk about violence protection. Surprised me too.
You Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture.
I'm at work and thus not able to do all the looking up that needs doing, but I have to believe that if you exempt out food from a VAT, you will have to have the rates at a VERY high rate otherwise in order to come close to the current amount of tax income...