1. Why the results themselves will disappoint the gun prohibitionists, the fact that they come from CDC will also put another of their spin points (otherwise known as lies) on the scrap heap. Namely that the feds are prohibited from doing “gun violence research “. We know that the prohibition was on advocating for gun control, not on objective research.

  2. The Gubment works hard to suppress politically incorrect research…
    I thought everyone knew that…..

  3. Mas, Thanks for the heads up. My guess the reason for just now hearing about it was because the previous administration chose to hide or suppress this report. Go figure!

  4. Why weren’t the research results disseminated?

    I can only think of one scenario that would serve to explain it:

    The people who head the CDC are not operating as scientists: not dedicated to following the facts wherever they might lead, and drawing the most logical conclusions from them.

    Their failure to acknowledge and publicize Kleck’s results exposes them for what they *really* are: first and foremost, bureaucrats, who see their ‘job’ as pleasing their bosses: who have made it clear what kind of ‘answers’ they’re willing to accept.

    They recognize their bosses for what they are: liberal politicians, more concerned with achieving a desired result— disarming the American people, who they neither understand, nor sympathize with— than with knowing and acting on what’s true. The CDC rank-and-file know that if they want to get promoted, they’d best toe the party line.

    It’ll be interesting to watch and see who publicizes this new data, and who tries to sweep it under the carpet.

  5. “One wonders why this research was never publicly disseminated by the CDC…”
    Given the government’s agenda to disarm the populace one needn’t wonder at all.
    If one should wonder one might wonder at how/why the study wasn’t destroyed upon completion and subsequently buried under six-feet of lies.

  6. …and how many other government agency pro-gun studies are sitting in government archives somewhere?

  7. Yep, and soon to come along will be the Southern Poverty Law Center trying to dispute the claims, in addition to all the other organizations who look to criminalize gun owners or non-gun owners who support our slowly eroding civil rights, specifically, the second amendment.

    Stay safe.

  8. It wasn’t published because it would destroy our treasonous Progressive government’s jihad against the Second Amendment.

  9. Miracles do indeed occur, Uncle Mas. Now let’s see the CDC, no friend of ours historically, put that there study in print pardner.

  10. Actually, it does not require a “Study” to determine that the majority of firearms incidents, involving the use or threatened use of a firearm against another human being by the U.S. Civilian population, are defensive incidents where an innocent civilian acts in self-defense. Such a conclusion can be determined directly from simple logic and reason.

    Consider that only a fraction of the U.S. population are actually criminals. Let us loosely define a criminal as a person who has a felony conviction on his record. I have seen statistics which place this figure at about 8.6% of the adult U.S. population. For example, see this link:

    Let’s be conservative and round up this figure to 10% of the population to account for the chance that there are undoubtedly criminals, at-large, who have not been caught and convicted yet. So, we can say (broadly) that about 10% of the adult population are criminals and about 90% are honest citizens.

    While I suspect that the criminal portion of the population owns firearms at a higher rate than the non-criminal portion, still, it is clear that far more firearms are owned and possessed by “Honest Citizens” then by “Criminals”. While I doubt that the ratio is as high as 9 to 1, it must still be some multiple value. Probably at least 4 or 5 to 1. (Nailing down this ratio would be an interesting study in itself 🙂 ).

    Therefore, given the much higher rate of firearm ownership of “Honest Citizens” versus “Criminals”, it “stands to reason” that the number of legal, self-defense uses of firearms would be several times that of the number of criminal uses. The shear numbers of firearms in the hands of each group would guarantee that.

    If the “gun-grabbers” ever succeed in disarming honest citizens with their firearm prohibition measures, we can expect this situation to reverse. Criminals will own firearms at a much higher rate than honest citizens and the overwhelming number of incidents of firearms usage, by citizens against another human being, will be cases of criminal uses against unarmed citizens. We can count on this outcome since the firearm prohibition measures, being advocated by the Leftists, are all designed to disarm the honest citizen rather than criminals.

    So, the current results of the research by Gary Kleck and the CDC are just “common-sense”.

    The fact that the CDC suppressed this data is instructive. We often think of the American Left, especially in the media and in our schools, as using disinformation to sell the left-wing narrative. However, this case points out that the ability to suppress the facts can be just as powerful as the ability to publish propaganda.

  11. Be Thankful for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

    I am inclined to believe the 9 to 1 ratio.

    • “I am inclined to believe the 9 to 1 ratio.”

      As I noted, it is an interesting question. The ratio of the adult population that owns firearms is disputed. The leftists tend to produce studies that “downplay” firearm ownership. They typically place the ratio at only 1/3 or less. See this link:

      Given the natural reluctance to announce, to a survey-taker, than one is a firearms owner, I suspect that the true ratio is closer to 40%. Some claim it is as high as 50%.

      Since felons are prohibited, by law, from owning or possessing firearms (unless their 2nd Amendment rights have been restored by a court), then the ratio, in firearms ownership, between the honest citizens and the criminals should approach infinity as the number of armed criminals drops to zero. Clearly, gun control laws do not work on criminals since I guarantee you that the number of armed criminals, in America, is not zero.

      If the ratio of ownership was identical for both groups (say 40%), then the ratio would (indeed) be 9 to 1. The worst case would be 100% ownership by the criminals and only about 40% ownership by the honest citizens. That would drop the ratio down to only about 3.6 to 1. If the 1/3 leftist-ownership value is accepted for honest citizens and 100% is used for the criminals, it would drop it to only about 3 to 1. I don’t see it being any lower than that (realistically).

      Still, I think 9 to 1 is too high. That is why I placed it at 4 or 5 to 1 in my previous comment.

      As a side note, I believe that Gary Kleck placed the ratio of defensive use of firearms to criminal misuse of firearms as 3.6 to 1. Hmmm… I wonder where I have seen that number before?

  12. I read about this long buried/hidden document several days ago. The very fact that this study has remained hidden is a testament of the power of bureaucracy/deep state over elected officials. That, or those republicans claiming to be pro-gun are complicit in keeping studies like this from the public.

    The media will dedicate zero interest in bringing this to light. The NRA and other pro 2A organizations would do well by sharing the cost of purchasing full page adds in every major news outlet touting the findings of the CDC study. Hopefully this would force the story into the broadcast narrative, at least to be debated. Otherwise, it will be relegated as a “so called study” touted by the far right NRA’ers, if any attention is paid to it at all.. Even if they purchased such ads in just the NY Times and Washington Post, these are the two that cable news seems to always pay attention to. Of course, these two outlets may well refuse to publish such an ad.

    Otherwise, don’t expect anyone but the choir to hear the preaching.

  13. For some reason our leadership seems to enjoy ignoring facts and just likes to keep getting themselves re-elected.

    I really hate to say it but I’m sure we’re going to see strong gun legislation in the near future. We can all set see it coming down the road. I suspect the Democratic ti gain control of the house and maybe the senate.

    Our current leadership under Paul Ryan is seriously lacking pro gun support and passage of reciprocal carry.

  14. It is off-topic but another mass shooting has just occurred here in Nashville. It occurred at a Waffle House Restaurant located about 2.2 miles from my residence.

    It is the same old story. The shooter is a nut-job that should have already been in a mental hospital but was allowed to continue to run loose. Gun control laws that were supposed to keep firearms out of his hands failed miserably again.

    Of course, this shooting also took place in a gun free zone. See this link:

    All the leftists politicians, including our own native-Tennessee leftist, Rep. Jeff Cooper, are already calling for more restrictions on “Assault weapons that are only good for killing people”. I’ve written to Jeff Cooper on several occasions but it is useless. He has been totally corrupted by the Leftist Washington Establishment. Rest assured, I will continue to try to vote him out-of-office ever chance I get. Unfortunately, Nashville is a blue stain on the otherwise pristine red State of Tennessee so it is not so easy to get rid of this worthless politician who does not represent me or the values of Tennessee.

    Getting back to this shooting, the only thing different is that this nut job is still running around loose. Hopefully, he will be apprehended soon. I take comfort in the fact that I am well-armed and ready to defend my home if this “squirrel-fodder” is still in the area.

    • One critical correction to my post above. The name of my Leftist Congressional Representative is Jim Cooper. His first name is certainly not Jeff. May Col. Cooper forgive me for mixing his name up with that of a Leftist politician. No doubt he is spinning in his grave at such blasphemy.

      I must be truly getting old and senile myself to make such a slip of the keyboard. In any event, everybody please note this correction.

      • TN_MAN,

        Hurray for the hero, James Shaw! He was not afraid to confront the evildoer with his bare hands!

      • Everybody has a brain cramp now and then. It could have been worse–Alice Cooper, for example.

  15. TN Man, I am sure that Col Cooper forgives you and understands the slips on the keyboard. If I had a nickel for everyone I’ve made I’d be a rich man. I believe we all understand.

  16. The “gun ratios” will never be accurate, because in most families, there is typically one owner of multiple guns, whereas there may be multiple responsible gun users in that household that have been granted access to firearms to defend themselves. So in a family of four gun users, but one gun owner, you have a 1/4 ratio. Isn’t that the case in most of our homes?

  17. Mas,

    Here’s an off-topic request, if you are interested. I’ve been wondering;

    1) How often is bullying a motive in school shootings?

    2) Is there an effective way to stop bullies?

    • Haven’t seen the stats on that, Roger. The culture of the school and the community is what will reduce bullying, methinks, but that’s not my area of subject matter expertise.

      • Thanks, Mas. I asked that because I remember hearing that the 1999 Columbine killers were horribly bullied. They went to school seeking revenge, the bullies ran away, so the killers ended up shooting people who never bothered them.

  18. Dennis, I couldn’t agree more with your proposal. What does it take to get that idea to the “right people?”

    When we’re given something that powerful from the CDC, we can’t let it be wasted.

    Somebody with clout – DO SOMETHING!

  19. Why was it buried/misfiled? Didn’t fit the narrative.

    Possibly the most disillusioning experience of my life was my review of the literature while doing my thesis. The pressure of “learned publications” to find material and the pressures on academics to publish long ago led to a breakdown in peer review-at least in the soft sciences. The standard became biblical: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

    Don’t be childish, the folks who give grants for research frequently make it known what results they’re paying for.