Most Crime Guns Are Stolen

GFZ ... one of my favorite websites ... reports on a study of crime guns.
You'll never guess the results.

The gun control study that really happened and you never saw – Gun Free Zone:
 I like how they put that: Perpetrator was carrying a firearm owned by someone else. That shows you just how pervasive media spin is.  That category is stolen or straw purchased guns.

Yeah, but you and I will get blamed for the pervasiveness of "Gun Crimes".

If this is Tuesday, and I'm in a 3rd world hell-hole -- I must be in Brazil!

People like to think that, because Americans have the Second Amendment protection of their personal choice to own a firearm (and almost everybody can legally possess a firearm in America), it must be the Murder Capital of the World.

Right?

Wrong.

That uncomfortable Second Amendment allows us to own a firearm to protect ourselves.  So this must mean that we have more murders by firearm than any other country in the world.

Not necessarily:  "Struggling Countries" are often overwhelmed by members of their citizenry who are not reluctant to take advantage of their country's distraction.


Here' the summary of a Wapo article which counts "mass shootings"   Yes, America is right up there.
So, this proves that America is  the deadliest state in the world for murders by guns. 

Right?

Wrong!

Curiously, even American "Mass Shootings" combined with "Gangland Shootings" in America do not seem to compare with those in a country which has completely forbidden private ownership of firearms ... so the murder rate is only ascribable to those who DO own firearms.... more likely, those who have illegally acquired firearms to protect whatever *(criminal?)* endeavor in which they may have been engaged.

Some people might decide that forbidding firearms possession is a "mistake"  they may not be right, and a new Republic might be forgiven for trying to drain the swamp before drilling a new well.  But the point needs to be addressed sooner or later.

There's a country in South America which doesn't allow private citizens to own firearms.

 Brazil!

Gun Ownership Is Illegal In Brazil, So People Are Taught To Never Fight Back - The Advocates for Self-Government:

The average citizen in Brazil is not legally permitted to own a gun.  This should, by Liberal thought, result in "Less Guns/Less Crime".

Brazil proves that this is a fallacy: the crime problem in this country is certainly being addressed by its government, but a large, rich country such as Brazil has problems of its own ... which America shares, in part if not in whole

 Brazil is, in fact, the Murder Capital of the World!

Less Guns, More Crime?  Not so!  

(Note: the following is personal conjecture; it is not a quote, so no source is cited.)

There are plenty of people who point to countries with fewer guns as models which they believe the United States should follow. However, there are few who take notice of Brazil, a country with far fewer guns but which still struggles with gun violence and death.   No one seems to take note, but the numbers are there for those who want to see them.
The conclusion is likewise obvious: fewer guns do not necessarily mean fewer deaths by guns.  According to UN statistics cited by the BBC of Brazil, Brazilians own 15 million firearms compared to 270 million held by Americans. Yet American deaths by guns in 2010 numbered 9,960, while Brazil listed close to 36,000 such deaths in 2009. It is also interesting to note that the population of Brazil is nearly 200 million while the United States has over 310 million.  Clearly, the problem is much more immediate in this vibrant, growing country.

So the next time someone tries to convince you that "More Guns In The Hands of Untrained Civilians will result in more murders ..

POST SCRIPT:

I'm reluctant to go on the record as someone who is pointing a finger at a foreign government as 'responsible" for civilian deaths.  I have no personal knowledge of anything that occurs outside my local area.   I only briefly research, and suggest possible conclusions.  Nobody should take this commentary to be conclusive evidence of wrong-doing by any governmental entity, anywhere in the world.   I rely on published (Internet) sources 100% and I do not have access to the root data provided by these sources.

:

Read this. Bookmark this. Then read it again.

The truth is in the details, and BOY HOWDY does this guy get into the guts of the details of firearms and homocides!

Essentially, more guns do NOT cause more crime; even (especially?) Murders.

Suicides? ... well, guns are as effective as the Japanese method of putting your skull between a pile-driver and the pile it's driving, but much more convenient.

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide:

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. The correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

(And yes, I have talked about this before. I'll talk about it again, next year.)

Shannon Watt vs Gun Violence

Some gun owners are violent people.

Let's get that out in the open; some gun owners just want to hurt people.

But the MAJORITY of gun owners don't fit that description

Shannon Watts is one of many writers who are delivering a tremendous amount of effort espousing her anti-gun violence message, and I agree that "Gun Violence" is an issue which needs to be addressed.

After Sandy Hook This Mom Started a Grassroots Movement Against Gun Violence That’s Spread to All 50 States - Health:

With her nonprofit Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts has mobilized a women-led army of volunteers.  This story is part of Health’s #RealLifeStrong series, where we are celebrating women who represent strength, resilience, and grace.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who ... through mental incapacity or felonious inclination ... should never be allowed to be near a firearm.  These people need to be restricted.

ALSO ... there are millions of sane and responsible (but untrained) people who have never handled a firearm, but yet MAY chose to do so from ignorance or vanity because they think they are automatically "okay" to own and shoot firearms.  Well, they have the right, but too often they do not have the skills or the trained expertise to do so safely.

And yet,  there are millions of Americans who are sane, responsible people; trained and experienced  in safe gun-handling practices, who can be reliably expected to be ALWAYS safe and ALWAYS responsible with a gun in their hands.

Ms. Watts focuses on those who are either incapable or untrained in her screeds against firearms ownership.  She performs a valuable service in warning against firearms, but she lumps the untrained, the insane, and the competent together ... and in doing so, she does a disservice against the majority of firearms owners who ARE responsible, who ARE trained, who ARE experienced and competent.

Yes, everyone wants firearms to be used only by responsible owners.   But most firearms owners are law-abiding, and understand that there is a responsibility implicit in possession of a gun.  (Again, I do not include felons in this mix.) 

 Sometimes, new gun owners only need training and experience:  the NRA (National Rifle Association) and other firearms oriented organizations often provide these training opportunities, and often at little or no cost to the students.

Those who denigrate the NRA  generally ignore the fact that the NRA is one of the very few organized sources of firearms Safety TRAINING; usually, the detractors of the NRA consider it no better than a political wing of selfish profit-oriented firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is not the Political wing of Gun makers .. it represents people who use guns for a variety of reasons, which include hunting, competition, training AND Political Representation of their 2nd Amendment rights on the National scale.

I'm not asking Ms Watts to "tone down her rhetoric";  we all need to be aware of the dreadful consequences of a gun in the wrong hands; and I think that most legal firearms owners are very aware of their EXTRA need to be thoughtful of the consequences of their actions.

However, when she lumps felons, mentally unbalanced people, and responsible firearms owners together in the same cauldron of mere "possession", she does a disservice to those who never (and would never) deliberately use a firearm in an illegal or unsafe manner.

In our discussion of responsible firearm ownership, we need to be careful  to distinguish between the insane, the irresponsible, and the responsible American.

I've not read every opinion that Ms Watts has written (who could?!) so perhaps I am doing her a disservice by calling her to task.

But it would be a responsible action if she would acknowledge that there are a huge number of Americans who can (and do) use their legal firearms safely and responsibly ... and have never allowed their guns to shoot innocent people.

Gun owners are not typically violent people, by nature.  But in dire straits, they sometimes are willing to use their firearms in defense of home, self, family and other innocents.

Those who do not readily accept that concept are those whom I choose refer to as "People Who Have Never Been Mugged".

I've never been mugged.  But I've been "shot at", and so I can testify that in that circumstance, it's more of a comfort to have a gun than not to.

You mileage may vary.  Let me know the next time you wish you had a gun to defend yourself, your home, or your family.  I'd really like to know how you defended yourself against gratuitous violence.

Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.

Live updates: Shooting at high school in Parkland, Fla.; multiple injuries reported:

America has a gun problem and the blood it on the hands of NRA and GOP.

That's the news, and that's the tenor of accusations flowing across America today.

It's the kind of thing that happens with a Republican controlled congress, and with the active intervention of the National Rifle Association because .... you know, the gun rights thingie.

At least, that's the twist the Democratic sooth-sayers are touting.

No word yet on where he got the gun, what kind of gun etc. 
Best guess: he stole the inadequately secured firearm from his parents.

There's enough blame to go around, though; pundits are bound to blame it on the NRA (that has already started, although there is no evidence that the kid was a member of the NRA) ... but there's enough "wrong" to spread it around to the parents, teachers, legislators, etc.

Nobody has thought to blame the kid for being a total ass-hole.

Yet.

Probably, nobody ever will.

When you look at the historic mass murderers ... channeling that guy who shot Lincoln (I still refuse to name him, or other murderers) ... there is one thing they have in common:

RAGE!

They have a "My Life Sucks!" attitude, and rather than accept their own faults ... they decide to take their rage out on the people around them.  Unfortunately, when the person is a teen-ager, the people around them are other adolescents.

Kids.   Just a bunch of other "Lonely Teen-Agers".

The victims are children who are so wrapped up in their own adolescent crisis that they can't recognize one of their own who has gone "over the top".

Well, nobody who has survived their own teen-age angst can tell the difference between someone who is a 'lonely teenager" and a "mass murderer", either.  They all look, talk, walk and act the same.

All the blame that has been, is and will be spread around is probably just bullshit, anyway.

NOBODY can tell the difference between adolescent angst and the rage to kill.   It all looks the same, from the outside (you and me) and from the inside (the teenager's school-mates). 

And was the kid a loner?  Christ, at that age, half the kids in High School are "Loners".
If you're not one of the "elites", you're an "outsider". 

Hell, I was an outsider in High School.  My nickname was "The Zipper" ... or "The Shadow", because I was so skinny that when I turned sideways to the sun, nobody could see me.   (

I took a little pride in that; at least I had an identity; perhaps this kid didn't even have THAT; he might have benefited if he had a sense of belonging ... and a bunch of people might be alive today)

Hell, maybe the kid just wanted to go home, where he belonged.



Dion: "Lonely Teenager"

PS: No, I'm not going to make any "PRO" or "CON" statements about Gun Control here, other than to observe that in the mood that kid was in, he could as reado;u used a knife, machete, or a club to attack his victims.

It's Not Guns ... It's Men!

It's not guns, it's men. 

(Do not say "WHEW!" yet)


The Greenfield (MA) Recorder has an opinion article by Rob Okun which announces that the problem with violence in America might not be guns; he posits that the problem is Men.

My Turn: Men, we can, and should, do better:

... there’s a common denominator among all of the shooters that we in the pro-feminist men’s movement are blue in the face from shouting from the rooftops for decades: They’re all men.

Well, he may have a point there.  I don't know anything about the "Pro-feminist men's movement", and I haven't seen a whole lot of blue-faced guys at pistol matches for the past .. oh, I don't know ... THIRTY YEARS! 

But he may still have a point.
After all, how many mass shootings are committed by women?

Zero?  (Ignoring that the person who provided guns for the Colorado school shootings was a woman.   Women as enablers?  Who knew?)

(Almost everyone!)

I suppose it's legitimate to posit that women are more likely to be "enablers" than killers in the Pro-feminist Men's Murder Class (Dylan, et al).  Which may not be the author's point, but it's what I get from his writing.  Still,  I'm a bit concerned about this one tiny point he makes:

 It’s time for Congress to fund the Centers for Disease Control to conduct a study of how boys are socialized, starting with preschoolers. I’ve proposed this to an aide to Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Please, senator, introduce the legislation. 

Ouch!

Given that the CDC has been partially defunded because of their biased political stance against firearms,  this is like throwing baby chicks to the alligators;  gobble gobble gobble.   Let us ignore that the CDC lost a TON of funding from the federal coffers a decade or two ago because of their obvious anti-2nd Amendment bias.  The Namby Boys still haven't forgiven the NRA for that.

 What else? The NRA considers most men tacit supporters, and unless they hear otherwise, they have us right where they want us — silent,

Tacit?   Us?

I'm not sure what men are "tacit supporters" of.   I had to look it up.  Most men I know aren't "tacit" supporters of anything;   They are either indifferent, against, or balls-to-the-wall for it.   Life's too short to be "tacit".   And as for the NRA, they either hate it or they pay their annual dues.

There's no crying in baseball, and there's no "tacit" in guns.

Tacit this, Robie.

Denial?

A mother's grief at the loss of a child is boundless, unendurable, and understandable.

 After her unimaginable loss, Fulton discovered some relief when she reached out to other moms who have lost children to gun violence. Now, she plans annual peace walks in her home state of Florida, works with legislators on gun violence laws and travels around the country speaking at colleges and churches about preventing senseless shootings.

Trayvon Martin's Mom Helps Other Grieving Mothers | PEOPLE.com:

 Sybrina Fulton’s life as she knew it ended on February 26, 2012. That’s when her 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, was fatally shot in Sanford, Florida, by a neighborhood-watch volunteer for his gated community. 

Zimmerman testified he was flat on his back; Martin,  straddling his supine body, beat him with closed fists.
So, George Zimmerman should have just laid there and taken the beating? 

Flashback:

March 8, 2012 - Investigators receive a fax from the Altamonte Family Practice containing the medical records identifying the injuries sustained by Zimmerman on the night of the shooting: Open wound of scalp, without mention of complication; nasal bones, closed fracture; assault by other specified means.
March 12, 2012 - Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee says that Zimmerman has not been charged because there are no grounds to disprove his story of the events.

We will never know the full truth of the story, but Zimmerman's wounds suggest that his version of the story has some validity; that he was helpless, under physical assault, and unable to overcome his assailant.

April 30, 2013 - George Zimmerman waives his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman's attorneys decide they will instead try this as a self-defense case. If Zimmerman had had a pretrial immunity hearing, a judge would have ruled whether his actions were protected under the "stand your ground" law. If the judge had ruled in favor of Zimmerman, it would have meant that no criminal or civil trial could proceed.

Whether Zimmerman was justified in confronting Martin is a moot point.  Whether Zimmerman was reacting to a deadly assault was ... not entirely deniable; some people refer to his wounds as evidence that he was in fear for his life.

Counting the story as an example of "Firearms Violence" is stretching the interpretation a bit.

The violence was initiated by Martin.  He was in control of the situation, and chose to continue beating Zimmerman ... who was helpless to defend himself against the younger, stronger aggressor.

Except that he carried a weapon, and used it.

(NOTE: Zimmerman refused to take a "stand your ground" defense)

This is "Gun Violence"?   Or is it using a weapon as the last method of defense against an aggressor?

You decide.

Ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room ... and expecting a solution

Somebody is pointing their finger in the wrong direction!

How gun control advocates could break the NRA's blockade - CNNPolitics:

Since early in Bill Clinton's first term as president, the National Rifle Association and its legislative allies have effectively stymied meaningful federal gun control legislation. That blockade has held for two decades despite a succession of mass shootings over so horrific they have become known simply by their location: Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando and now Las Vegas.

Nobody is forgetting the massacres which make the headlines, but everyone is forgetting the true cost of firearms violence.  It's not the crazy-man-with-a-gun that we need to deal with; they're crazy, you can't do anything about them but lock them up after the fact.

The REAL problem is the everyday low-key violence which occurs in urban ghettos.   And while you remain too shy *(or too politically correct)* to identify the real problem, all of your solutions will fail to stop the greatest number of firearms deaths in America.

What is the Real Problem?

Most of the 'firearms violence' incidents, those which continue to rack up high body counts on a daily basis, don't occur in the white-bread high schools in our nation.

Why is it that young black men are being murdered by the dozens on a weekly basis with nobody paying much attention to it; but when one young white man goes crazy in a 'fly-over' state, the pontificating political left acts as if the world is coming to an end?

After the Columbine high school shooting, Clinton pushed in 1999 for legislation centered on closing the so-called "gun show loophole."

Where was Bill Clinton before that seminal moment?  Was he stretching his legs under his desk in the Oval Office, perhaps experiencing his own seminal moment?

There has never been any sign of a National Leadership willing to pay attention to the problems with the urban poor, and ... yes, the young black men who weekly slaughter each other more regularly than all of the Las Vegas and Columbine tragedies, which occur on a relatively rare frequency?

Where is the call from the Federal government for a solution to the SOCIETAL problem which is the true progenitor of Urban Firearms Violence?

Does America choose to ignore the slaughter in Chicago, Baltimore, even D.C. merely because both the victims and the murderers are usually BLACK?

 The more consequential change since the 1990s has been the willingness of more Congressional Republicans with large white-collar and suburban constituencies to vote with the NRA.

Why is there an emphasis on "... large white-collar and suburban constituencies ..." when the violence is not usually perpetrated on, nor by, white-collar and suburban constituencies?


Most urban firearms violence involves a strong racial bias.    It isn't because both killer and victim are black; its because they live in a neighborhood where economic opportunities are lacking for young black men with no marketable skills.   .

They're not shooting each other because there are too many guns, Dammit.  They're shooting each other because they have nothing better to do!

The mothers of these young men are often unmarried, trying to support their family, and there is no father-figure to teach their sons how to be a man.  The daughters have only their mother as a role model ...  sometimes the children have no father in common.  These children often have no incentive to get a good education.  New business opportunities won't establish themselves where the violence is too fearful to attract workers who are NOT young local untrained men and women.

It's because poverty and neglect are so common in these communities that there IS no sense of community, except that "Whitey is going to keep us down!"   (And they are right!)

It's because our  National Leadership is ignoring that particular gorilla, because the headlines are full of Las Vegas and Washington and which Republican Senator is dissing which Republican Party Hack this week.

When we read articles such as the one in the headline, we should cringe.

REPUBLICANS AREN'T TURNING ON TRUMP, THEY'RE TURNING ON EACH OTHER

(They have nothing better to do.)

Dems on Vegas: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Had Recent Large Gambling Transactions - NBC News:

Hillary Clinton also expressed her grief in a tweet: "The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." She added: "Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again."

This is what Hillary says in expression of her grief: a political statement saying "we must put politics aside" ... and then using a massacre to make a political point.

Expect more quotes from Democrats, saying (in effect) "... this would never have happened on OUR watch..."   and blaming President Trump for a situation which nobody could have foreseen nor prevented.

Mass Murderers are cowards; they're not afraid to die, they're just afraid to live out their angst without making a public statement.  Everyone else has to pay for their misery.

Hillary is making her own public statement, and considering the political flack which is sure to follow this tragedy, it's difficult to find the fine line between this particular mass murderer and her own willingness to throw half a nation under the bus (by imposing draconian "gun safety" rules) which would infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law-abiding citizens.

And she didn't even have to pay this madman to provide the crisis which she is so eager to exploit.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel

UPDATE:  10/02/2017 ! 1900 PST

As of this moment, this is the most comprehensive reporting I've found on the internet about the Vegas Massacre.

Gun Violence Archive

(In case you missed it:)

Lexington-based website counts gun-related deaths in the US - Washington Times:
 LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) - When gunshots make national news, Mark Bryant’s phone rings in Lexington. 

 Bryant, 62, is neither a law enforcement officer nor a trauma specialist. He runs a private website, Gun Violence Archive, that updates on an hourly basis, with street-level details, most of the gun-related incidents that have occurred in the United States since 2013.  Want to know how many people have been killed by guns so far this year nationally? In your state? In your city? Last year? The year before that? The number of people wounded? How many shooting victims were children? How many mass shootings there were? Police-related shootings? How many times guns were used in self-defense? How many shootings were unintentional? 

Operated out of a small home just off Richmond Road, Bryant’s GVA answers such questions for journalists, policymakers, even law enforcement. And despite the public-safety menace of gun violence in this country, few others do this kind of work.

See: Gun Violence Archive

Guns in America: Attitudes and Experiences of Americans | Pew Research Center

Interesting .... and surprisingly unbiased .... study on firearms ownership.

Recommended reading.

Quite long, so you may wish to bookmark it and read it in multiple sessions.
That has been my plan so far.


Guns in America: Attitudes and Experiences of Americans | Pew Research Center:

The remainder of this report examines in greater detail the public’s experiences with guns as well as views on gun policies. Chapter 1 looks at the demographics of gun ownership and the reasons people own guns. It also explores early experiences with guns, such as growing up in a gun-owning household and participating in hunting or sport shooting. Chapter 2 focuses on the role guns have in the daily life of gun owners, including whether they carry a gun outside their home, how often they engage in gun-related activities or consume gun-oriented media, and their social ties to other gun owners. It also looks at negative experiences some people have had with guns. Chapter 3 examines the public’s views on the responsibilities of gun ownership, with an emphasis on the differences between what gun owners and non-owners consider essential safety measures for gun owners to follow. Chapter 4  explores what Americans see as contributing factors to gun violence. Chapter 5 focuses on the public’s views on policy proposals to restrict or expand access to guns.

Liberal Press Again Skews Facts About Firearms Violence Research

Gun Violence Researchers Race to Protect Data From Trump | WIRED:
(February 07, 2017)

 AROUND 11 AM Pacific on January 20th, while newly-inaugurated President Trump finished a celebratory lunch in the Capitol Rotunda, Magdalena Cerd  noticed something different about the White House’s website: All of its references to climate change had disappeared. Cerd  is an epidemiologist at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, which focuses on another politicized region of science—gun violence. So she knew what that meant.  (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know what 'that meant'; but the insinuation that the Trump White House was censoring published (or private) research data about "Climate Change" is obvious,

There are a lot of details which are not examined or made clear in this amateurish article, which suggests that it should be ignored except as an example of unprofessional reporting.  It's more important for what information it does not provide, than for the bias which is revealed.

And even more telling, research data about "gun violence" was, as insinuated by this WIRED article, also at risk of having been "disappeared".

This article is a patent attack on the integrity of the Trump White house, for purely political reasons.

 “It was a real call to action,” Cerd  says. With links to climate data vanishing, she worried the same thing could happen to gun violence data on websites belonging to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I was on Amtrak between Berkeley and Sacramento,” she says. “So I sent an email to Garen Wintemute saying we needed to start downloading our data immediately.”

Does that mean that the research data of the UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program was not regularly backed up?

This is difficult to believe, considering that tens of thousands of dollars were probably invested in the research.   The UC Davis Web Master wasn't encouraging the research teams to perform website and data backups at least daily (and more responsibly, more than once a day) or that the data wasn't available on an offsite data repository?   It's a base canard against the professional practices of a respected Educational and Research Facility.

Rather than to point the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate at UC Davis tech support, I find it much more likely that the UC Davis research program managed to lose (at least temporarily ... whether they recovered the data is not discussed in the article) valuable research data, and in an attempt to cover up their embarrassing lack of data integrity supervision has chosen to blame their oversight on an external agency.

Specifically, a political foe:  the current President of the United States of America.

The suggestion that the President would be responsible for a loss of research data is not only bizarre, but it is a sad commentary on whomever provided the 'background' information for this article ... and for the author, who rushed to judgement by printing innuendo instead of facts.

(In fact, the article suggests that the President had the power, and the resources, to delete 'research data' from multiple, federally funded, generally reliable websites such as the Center for Disease control!)

And the worst approbation is for the website, which allowed this article to be published without requiring the minimum standard of finding at least two sources which support the same interpretation.

I once considered WIRED to be a reliable data source, if only for its technical content.
Now that the website has undermined its own integrity, every single word they ever published will be tainted.

So long WIRED.   Nobody will ever trust you, since you turned Political.

(The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award)

Finally, it sinks in

The Virality Of Gun Violence | The Huffington Post:

Incidentally, for all the hullabaloo about the lack of government funding for gun research, I note that part of the funding for this substantial project came from the National Science Foundation, which also happens to be a government agency.
Obviously, the lack of CDC support for gun research has created real gaps in the evidence about gun violence; perhaps there are other ways to skin the proverbial research cat.

Yes, there are 'other ways'.  The CDC was busted *(lost its Federal funding for "Gun Violence" research) because it pursued an obvious bias in reporting on firearms injuries.  It focused on the availability of guns with little or no information about how some societies suffered more (gun) violence than other societies. Its reporting was generally not balanced by providing information on how firearms ownership provided a benefit to private citizens in violent demographics. It may be that NSF has found a way to provide a more 'balanced' reportage.

The JAMA report focused on the societal causes of violence, focusing on gun violence, and concluded that demographic signifiers were one method of predicting victims of violence.

If the CDC had made the effort, perhaps they would still receive federal funding for firearms research.  I note, however, that the CDC can still report anything they wish to about firearms injuries; they just don't get to use your federal tax dollars to tout their political bias.

Gun Ownership v Firearm Deaths

So America has the most guns, but less crimes?

Telegraph: U.S. Top Country for Gun Ownership, Not Even in Top 10 for Firearm Deaths - Breitbart:

On October 22 The Telegraph published a map showing the U.S. leads the world in private firearm ownership but does not even crack the Top 10 when it comes to firearm-related deaths.

The interesting fact, which is not mentioned in the Telegraph article, is that of the Top 10 nations in firearms ownership ... only ONE of those nations (Uruguay) is listed in the Top 10 in firearm-related deaths.

Which once again seems to vindicate Dr. John Lott's assertion that "More Guns = Less Crime".

As Rachel Weisz said in THE MUMMY:

"Take THAT, Bainbridge scholars!"

Oh ... and on a final note:

Many of the "Top 10 in Firearms Deaths" nations permit few, if any, civilians to possess firearms.

"Heavy Weapons"

The only good thing (for various values of 'good') I can say about politicians is that they make News Commentators look good ... by comparison.

In his June 14, 2016,  "Talking Points Memo", Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly segues from his original topic to Gun Control.

Acceptable losses | Fox News Video: 

Jun. 14, 2016 - 8:20 - 'The O'Reilly Factor': Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points 6/14

In this eight minute session about half-way through (03:30 minutes) O'Reilly begins to talk about the "Right Wing Responsibility".

From this point on, he should have stopped the "Acceptable Losses" mask and started another 'memo', called "Heavy Weapons".   And no, I din't know what that means.

The following is a portion of the transcript (which was not made available to viewers): note that most of the text was printed on the backdrop, but O'Reilly's signature off-the-cuff comments varied.  His verbal comments are highlighted when they vary from the background text. Words which were listed on the background text but which he did not voice are lined out.   I wrote down his comments as he talked, and I may have missed a few words.

[begin direct quotes]

There is much gun crime in the USA and High Powered weapons are too easy to get.  That's the point! So let's deal with it!

We all have the right too keep and bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order.  No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.
That's because the Second Amendment clearly states that the government has oversight powers ... the right to regulate militias, made up of individuals.  They have that right in the name of Public Safety.
Therefore, Congress should define the kind of weapons for public sales.  And the states should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their people.

(excise a few paragraphs on identifying terrorists, and acknowledging current laws regulating firearms dealers, etc.) Continue quote:

Who Will Bell The Cat?

What Black Americans Say About ‘Black-on-Black’ Gun Violence | The Nation:

For example, community residents recommended limiting access to guns by the small group of people at high risk of engaging in violence—sometimes no more than 0.25 to 1 percent of a city’s population. Rather than looking to greater penalties for handgun possession that could increase mass incarceration, community members emphasized universal background checks, mandatory reporting for lost and stolen firearms, and increased oversight of licensed firearm dealers. Each proposal was supported by over 86 percent of African Americans and Latinos in the survey research. These restrictions are seen as reducing rather than fueling mass incarceration. About three-quarters of both African Americans and Latinos agreed that “if we keep guns out of the wrong hands, we can also help decrease the number of people who are in prison.”

[emphasis added]

"That looks good on the video", as the saying goes but the question remains:  what are 'community residents" doing to help limit access to guns?

Historically, members of  'at risk' communities are quick to decry the violence in their neighborhoods, but are not willing to step up and act as witnesses.    Quotes from investigating officers typically sound like this:

"Everybody knows who has a gun. Everybody knows who did it.   

But nobody will talk to us."

Wisconsin AG: "Lock Them Up!"

Morning Minute: AG Schimel on Solving Gun Violence | | wiscnews.com:

"We are not going to give in to those demands to make it harder for law abiding gun owners to exercise their second amendment rights...we're gonna find the people that are using guns to commit crimes and lock them up. That's how you solve the gun violence problem," 

(Attorney General Brad Schimel said last weekend at the Republican Party of Wisconsin state convention.)

Funny, I knew that Wisconsin had men, but I didn't realize they clanged when they walked.

It's an "AMERICAN" thing; you wouldn't understand

The BBC article of October 4, 2015 *see below*, wonders why President Obama cannot, with a stroke of the pen and the support of Liberal congress-critters, impose "Common-Sense Gun Laws" to curb what they (the Brits and the American Liberals) assume would resolve all of the "Gun Violence" issues in America.

There are two reasons:

First: America is not a "Democracy"; it's a Republic

Second: The Constitution of the United States acknowledges (and guarantees) the right of Americans to "Keep and Bear Arms".

Why Obama is powerless to reform gun laws - BBC News:

 October 04, 2015: Can't the states do their own thing? In the Senate - which currently has 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats (or Democratic-supporting independents) - the individual state populations are the key. The votes of Senators John Barrasso and Mike Enzi in pro-gun Wyoming (population 584,153) have the same weight as gun-control-backing Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in California (population 38.8 million).

Yeah, that's the "Republic" thingie.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Democracy is nothing more than Rule By Mob"; and today Liberals Americans are 'the mob'.

Our "Democratic" president would dearly love to impose his bias upon free Americans.  It's a source of irritation to our Dear Leader that he cannot arbitrarily impose draconian restrictions on our freedoms.

Don't think that a lot of Congressmen wouldn't back him in this raid on Constitutional Rights, but the folks who started this experiment in liberty were smarter than the Brits, and Obama combined.  Which wasn't much of a challenge, as it turns out.

(Curious, that the "Constitutional Law Professor" who rules America today doesn't seem to 'get it'.)

(Go here for a discussion about the Electoral College)

If you're not confused, you were not paying attention.  The "Electoral College" concept is confusing to 99.9% of Americans (including me).  But one would be surprised if an American President who is also self-identifying himself as a "Constitutional Professor" didn't understand it.

Obama cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on Firearms Ownership (or in other words " .. is powerless to reform gun laws ...") because he's not a King.  He cannot rule by fiat.  He needs the support of BOTH houses of legislature, and he can't get it because those senators and representatives are dependent upon the good will of their electorate to get themselves re-elected next year.  Without the firm support of the Electorate (you and I),

And as Al Gore learned a few years ago, one of the EASIEST ways to lose an election is to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of the American Citizen.

Even if you're a Rabid Anti-gun Liberal, you don't want to seriously propose a Constitutional Amendment unless there is first a Constitutional Convention to support your ever-so-popular view.  And even then, it's still not a good idea because then there are "other issues" which might come arise, and you are likely to lose more than you might have gained.

ONE OTHER QUESTION:

We understand why Americans would want to ask this question.

But why is the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) involving themselves in this "purely American" issue?

It may be a matter of Schadenfreude;
They're so gleeful about their firearms-ban that they cannot bear to let American Freedoms demonstrate that their 'Violence" issues haven't been resolved by their draconian Gun Control measures (which are, by the way, not working!).

So they are violently (excuse the expression, NSFW in Britain) opposed to any other country which might be willing to accept a degree of 'gun violence' in protection of "Personal Freedoms" ..  thus allowing private citizens to defend themselves in their homes and in their persons.  Because if they let THAT example go without criticism, they might find themselves defending the logic in exposing their citizens to violence without allowing' them the means to defend themselves, their property, and their family.

That would be embarrassing.