# But...Obama Was Going To Take All The Guns! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 16, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405 "2013-01-16T18:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/361 "2013-01-30T00:24:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Since we appear to have, once again, wandered into the wasteland of 18th century semiotics and deconstructionism, perhaps we are focusing our attention on the wrong words. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. > > Now, the first and foremost understanding of that would be that no regulation of firearms is constitutional, whatsoever. Pretty absolutist, doesn’t admit much in the way of wiggle room. So, a point for the Constitutional absolutists, the Sacred Writ is clear and explicit. Kinda fuzzy on why they are saying so, whether its about well regulated militia or defying tyranny, but that isn’t the crux of the biscuit. If it said “That little bitch Jimmy Madison is a poopy-head, and the right of the people shall not be infringed” it would amount to the same thing, the operative word is the last. > > But that is, of course, ridiculous. Clearly, the Founding Fuckups accepted an unspoken list of exceptions. A highwayman has no right to possess a firearm, certainly not after he is arrested. I doubt if any of the framers was determined to assure that the dangerously lunatic were armed. Any number of people should not be armed, and they knew that as well as we. > > So, the absolutist interpretation of the 2nd is ludicrous unless we assume that the Founding Fuckups were the dumbest bunch to ever put quill to parchment. They made common sense presumptions, just as we do. > > But if you do want to mount that jackass and ride it, then the 2nd Amendment has _never_ been honored as written, from day one. Now, I don’t think even for a moment that such was their intention, I think that “shall not be infringed” is a turn of phrase rather than Holy Writ. > > But if anyone wants to insist that it means precisely what it says, and that it says no regulation, no restrictions, no infringement is permissible, then they must further accept that it has never been applied that way. Hence, the regulation of firearms is not forbidden, and the 2nd Amendment is largely irrelevant to our conversation. And pretty much always has been. > > So why in the name of Bleeding Og would we start now? The second amendment is just as relevant in any discussion of gun control as the first amendment is relevant in any discussion about censorship. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/362 "2013-01-30T00:43:26Z")
> [@Damuri Ajashi](#): > > How is the second amendment’s range explicitly limited? You seem to be reading a lot into the first clause of the second amendment that isn’t there except by virtue of wishful thinking. So you think there’s some other way it can be read that doesn’t completely dismiss it? Pray tell, what? The right to bear arms exists in the context of participation in a militia, and for that matter only when it’s being well-regulated, as with the slave patrols for whom it was written. The Second guarantees only that the National Guard will be armed (and, by calling it necessary, that there will \*be \*a Guard). Outside that range, the Constitution is _silent_, no matter how devotedly you may cherish an alternative and more convenient reading. The framers couldn’t have made their intent more clear, and the only way to read it any other way is to pretend that half the amendment _doesn’t actually mean anything!_ Of course, the Scalia wing of the Court has been able to yank a right self-defense, among other things, out of the emanations and penumbras that they stoutly deny exist in other, inconvenient contexts, but that only makes them authoritative, for now, not right. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/363 "2013-01-30T01:14:42Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > Well, that’s just it–we didn’t just start now, it seems like they started before the ink was dry … Happened upon this earlier today, an interesting read (gotta download the PDF though), > [@](#): > > [**Firearms and Weapons Legislation up to the Early 20th Century**](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2200991) > Mark Anthony Frassetto > Georgetown University Law Center > January 15, 2013 > > Abstract: > This document is a compilation of state firearms and weapons legislation from the colonial era until the start of the twentieth century. This research provides a comprehensive view of firearm and weapons regulations during this era. This document was created in an attempt to understand the historic scope of the Second Amendment in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions. … CMC ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/364 "2013-01-30T01:18:19Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The second amendment is just as relevant in any discussion of gun control as the first amendment is relevant in any discussion about censorship. Yes, but not in the same way. Its that word “infringed”. If you take it to mean precisely what it says, then no regulation is possible, as any regulation is bound to imply some form of infringement. Which is, of course, absurd. If you make the reasonable assumption that the Founders _knew_ that some infringement was inherent and simply didn’t think it necessary to point out the bleeding obvious, then the 2nd Amendment does not make regulation of firearms unConstitutional, and the only questions that remain are the degree to which we choose to regulate them. If you want to insist that your form of regulation and “infringement” is more Constitutional than someone else’s, sure, knock yourself out. But you cannot reasonably expect to rely on the precise wording of the Constitution, because that would put us in the absurd position of not regulating firearm possession by anybody at all. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/365 "2013-01-30T01:19:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Different studies with different methodologies will come up with different figures. In other news, bears shit in the woods. The point is not to pinpoint a precise figure. The point is to illustrate that no matter which way you slice the data, all evidence points to the conclusion that defensive gun use is substantial. Do you deny this? > > All studies have shown that DGU occurs frequent enough to render your insistence that defense against home invasion is a crock of shit. And what makes the CDC any better than the DOJ for this purpose? You claim ignorance when it comes to statistical analysis or digesting the merits of the presented studies, but at the same time claim to know that the CDC is the best to perform such an analysis, and only if it’s done within the last 12 years. How convenient. > > Does it really matter if it’s 700K or 2.5M instances? Compare that to the 10-15K non suicide firearm related deaths? Anyone who rails against gun violence without also looking at defensive gun use and their efficacy is disingenuous at best. Let’s look at it another way: 1. What fraction of potential crimes do you think are deterred by DGU, in a typical year? 2. Assuming you don’t live in a particularly crime-ridden area, what’s the chance that you will have the opportunity to deter a crime with DGU in the coming year? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/366 "2013-01-30T03:01:11Z")
1 - I have no idea, do you? 2 - I have no idea, do you? Regarding the question of deterrence, [this article](http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm) persuasively makes the claim that yes, gun ownership does reduce the incidents of home invasion (burglarizing a home when occupants are present). Article is from 2001, but the statistics are sourced and I think the conclusions still hold. From the article: > [@](#): > > It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology textbook explains, “Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success.” [FN8] Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. [FN9] But this happy fact of life, so taken for granted in the United States, is not universal. > The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home. There are several more examples in the article itself. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/367 "2013-01-30T03:46:36Z")
Quite the article. Love the crisp altitude and clarity of the unprejudiced mind researching a topic and probing for the truth. That opening quote kind of says it all, doesn’t it, about the sternly unbiased approach we can expect. > [@](#): > > So we drove down the road, and I was lookin’ for a house that looked like if there was somebody at home that it’d be somebody that didn’t carry a gun or didn’t have no weapons in the house, so they couldn’t use them. > – Arkansas burglar Well, there you have it! Straight from the horse’s mouth! Being curious, I wondered who might this “Arkansas buglar” be? Alas, he is lost to history, but the quote is a quote from Mr Claire Wolfe. so all doubt vanishes, a man whose unvarnished candor and strict non-partisan clarity is firmly attested to by his years as a columnist for\* WorldNet Daily\*. Of course, if one is to get picky, not as trustworthy an unbiased source for truth as perhaps _Fox News_, or the gold standard set by the _Drudge Report_, but still… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/368 "2013-01-30T05:03:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So you think there’s some other way it can be read that doesn’t completely dismiss it? Pray tell, what? Well, it used to be viewed by some as a state right that protected the state from a tyranny from the center. Imagine the EU deciding that their current set up doesn’t work and they need a single government to which every member sends representatives. To allay the fears of the smaller countries, they create two congressional houses. One will be based on population and the other will have an equal number of representatives from each state. Now imagine asking each of the EU nations to demilitarize and trust their security from enemies foreign and within the EU to a central EU military. This didn’t seem like a good idea to the 13 colonies either so they limited the central government’s ability to field a standing army and they preserved their ability to have their own military organizations. I think, the second amendment was intended to be a state check on federal power (regardless of how silly that seems to us now, it was deadly serious stuff when they wrote the constitution). I think Heller recognized a right to self defense (from the penumbra of the second amendment) that translates into an individual right to bear arms BUT I think it would take pretty draconian gun control laws to run afoul of Heller. This is all just a long winded way of saying that I don’t think the federal government can restrict guns that a state wants its citizens to have up to and including any weapon that the common soldier would be expected to carry. Based on Heller I don’t think a state OR the federal government has the right to restrict guns that would provide effective self defense. > [@](#): > > The Second guarantees only that the National Guard will be armed (and, by calling it necessary, that there will \*be \*a Guard). Militia used to mean every male between 18 and 45 and anyone else who avails themselves to the defense of the Republic. When did it come to mean a group of volunteer weekend warriors? > [@elucidator](#): > > Yes, but not in the same way. Its that word “infringed”. If you take it to mean precisely what it says, then no regulation is possible, as any regulation is bound to imply some form of infringement. Which is, of course, absurd. I see pretty absolute words in the first amendment. “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Tell that to the polygamists in utah. Tell that to the rastafarians in every college dorm I’ve ever seen. And we make laws abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly and lobbying. > [@](#): > > If you make the reasonable assumption that the Founders _knew_ that some infringement was inherent and simply didn’t think it necessary to point out the bleeding obvious, then the 2nd Amendment does not make regulation of firearms unConstitutional, and the only questions that remain are the degree to which we choose to regulate them. > > If you want to insist that your form of regulation and “infringement” is more Constitutional than someone else’s, sure, knock yourself out. But you cannot reasonably expect to rely on the precise wording of the Constitution, because that would put us in the absurd position of not regulating firearm possession by anybody at all. Ever. I don’t get to choose the limits of the second amendment, neither do you and neither does congress or the president. Its not a matter of how much we CHOOSE to regulate them, its a matter how much regulation you can justify consistent with constitutional principles. The same standard for limiting the right to free speech is applicable to limitations on the right to bear arms. Significant government interest+ time,manner,place or compelling state interest+narrowly tailored. The assault weapons ban doesn’t meet even the “significant government interest criteria” (and I could argue that the higher standard applies). ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/369 "2013-01-30T13:20:56Z")
So many folks here apologizing for wanting to reduce gun violence. Meanwhile the hearses, 30 a day, carrying men, women and kids, keep circling the block where they used to live. Ban guns, save lives. Only pussies need guns. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/370 "2013-01-30T14:28:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well, it used to be viewed by some as a state right that protected the state from a tyranny from the center. Yes, such as a central government that might want to impose the abolition of slavery. But that still only applies to the purpose of a militia, not a blanket, absolute right. > [@](#): > > Militia used to mean every male between 18 and 45 and anyone else who avails themselves to the defense of the Republic. When did it come to mean a group of volunteer weekend warriors? In 1903, with the passage of the Militia Act. > [@](#): > > I see pretty absolute words in the first amendment. “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Tell that to the polygamists in utah. Tell that to the rastafarians in every college dorm I’ve ever seen. And we make laws abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly and lobbying. Right, meaning there is no such thing as an absolute right, before which all other rights must give way when they conflict. In the case of the Second, those limits are even explicitly stated. > [@](#): > > The assault weapons ban doesn’t meet even the “significant government interest criteria” (and I could argue that the higher standard applies). “Promote the general welfare”. As in “keep citizens alive”. It’s easy to lose sight of reality when the discussion of rights and responsibilities in a society is allowed to become too abstract - which is what discussion of militias has been ever since the end of slavery, and which the claim of a limited right to be absolute has always been. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/371 "2013-01-30T16:45:50Z")
Oh look, a [CDC study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354). From the abstract: > [@](#): > > National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Yes, it’s data from 1994 and published in 1997. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/372 "2013-01-30T16:48:13Z")
Operative word being “reportedly”. What are the figures for intruders scared away by the very fact that somebody saw them and is likely to call the cops? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/373 "2013-01-30T17:00:15Z")
Who knows. Take it up with the CDC, you know, the people you wanted to conduct the study. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/374 "2013-01-30T18:37:33Z")
Or, alternatively, I could ask the guy who seems to think it proves something. Like you, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/375 "2013-01-30T19:06:55Z")
I present a study from the CDC that describes and projects defensive gun use in the home, something you characterized as a crock of shit. You also didn’t trust either older, or non-CDC conducted studies. So there it is, the CDC study that says your position is not based in reality. Then you ask a question about an item not covered by the study, and expect me to know? Talk about a crock of shit. They also didn’t ask about rainbows on the moon. Am I supposed to know about that as well? It says what it says it does, that there are hundreds of thousands of incidents where there is DGU in the home. You can argue that people shouldn’t be able to defend themselves in their home, or that there may have been other means available to them besides firearms. But there is no argument that DGU occurs often. If you can’t accept that then your contributions to the discussion are worthless. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/376 "2013-01-30T19:21:01Z")
That’s why we need to have the CDC conduct more studies. You can ignore the ones that are unplatable to what you want reality to be and just pick the ones you like. With more CDC studies, we have more to choose from. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/377 "2013-01-30T19:25:04Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > That’s why we need to have the CDC conduct more studies. You can ignore the ones that are unplatable to what you want reality to be and just pick the ones you like. With more CDC studies, we have more to choose from. You seem to be arguing against science, since advancements in science come from conducting more studies, not fewer. If this impression is correct, then it is clear that on the subject of firearms you are a completely unhinged fucking asshole. If I’ve misread you, and you actually are calling for more of the research that the NRA has to this point silenced, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/378 "2013-01-30T19:33:02Z")
I don’t know how you can take my post to somehow be anti-science. I’m clearly attacking him for being a hypocrite. He wants the CDC to be able to study gun violence, because they’re just the best entity to conduct such research. But then when he’s presented data from the vaunted CDC about something he doesn’t want to be true, he just dismisses it. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think there should be some sort of ban at the CDC for doing these studies. I don’t know if the CDC studies these sorts of things. If the CDC normally covers things like the demographics or other factors of violent crime, then by all means. If they have a political axe to grind on guns and don’t normally conduct that sort of research (again, I have no idea), then they should be discouraged from it - I don’t want public money used for what would essentially amount to political advocacy in that case, there are other entities like the DOJ who could take it. If it’s within the realm of normal CDC studies, and it passes the funding rounds where it’s deemed to be a worthwhile study, then sure, go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/379 "2013-01-30T19:49:51Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t know how you can take my post to somehow be anti-science. Because you say the value in having the CDC conduct further studies is so that we will have more to pick and choose from, rather than the fact that the development of a literature base in a science is a collective ongoing effort to refine and revise theoretical models. Additional studies help to address questions raised by prior studies and test new hypotheses suggested by old ones. For instance, the cited study relies entirely on self-report of the impression of the person. For instance, if the guy in the recent Georgia incident had not actually killed anyone and had been called on the phone afterward, he would be counted as a defensive gun use. He would say that he believed he chased off an intruder rather than that he killed an innocent person who pulled into the wrong driveway. People get guns because they are afraid they are going to be attacked. People who are afraid they are going to be attacked are more likely to perceive benign circumstances as threatening. So, we take the previously cited study as one study with significant potential flaws, as noted by the authors of the study, and place it in the context of an expanding literature base. Ultimately, we are able to determine by integrating the results of a variety of studies that the method of asking people to self-report defensive gun uses appears to hold up well compared to other methods of measurement. Or we don’t. But in other circumstances, you have appeared to understand that science is not a process of picking and choosing desired results. > [@](#): > > I’m clearly attacking him for being a hypocrite. He wants the CDC to be able to study gun violence, because they’re just the best entity to conduct such research. But then when he’s presented data from the vaunted CDC about something he doesn’t want to be true, he just dismisses it. It’s ridiculous. > > I don’t think there should be some sort of ban at the CDC for doing these studies. I don’t know if the CDC studies these sorts of things. If the CDC normally covers things like the demographics or other factors of violent crime, then by all means. If they have a political axe to grind on guns and don’t normally conduct that sort of research (again, I have no idea), then they should be discouraged from it - I don’t want public money used for what would essentially amount to political advocacy in that case, there are other entities like the DOJ who could take it. > > If it’s within the realm of normal CDC studies, and it passes the funding rounds where it’s deemed to be a worthwhile study, then sure, go ahead. You don’t know what the CDC does? Well, there’s a pretty easy way to find out what the CDC does, but I’ll give you a head start. They are the primary nexus for public health research in the country. They involve themselves very much with injury prevention and control. I know people who have been funded by the CDC for violence research. I’ve been part of teams that have submitted to the CDC for funding to conduct violence research. They do work on the prevalence and prevention of brain injury and concussion, for example. It isn’t all just the study of the flu and zombie outbreaks. The “axe they have to grind” is the description and reduction of processes that lead to injury, impairment and death. Gun violence falls well within their purview. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/380 "2013-01-30T19:53:52Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Because you say the value in having the CDC conduct further studies is so that we will have more to pick and choose from, rather than the fact that the development of a literature base in a science is a collective ongoing effort to refine and revise theoretical models. My point was that in this very thread we have people arguing that the CDC is unfairly kept from researching gun violence (may be true) and that we really need to see that data because the CDC does high quality science and they should be our main method of studying such things. And then from the same people, we get an outright dismissal of a study on defensive gun use from the CDC, and suddenly the CDC aren’t important conductors of science in that instance, and that can all be dismissed. I have no idea how you could interpret my posts to be about the nature of science when it was clearly just pointing out the immediate hypocrisy of partisanship on this issue. As for the rest, yes, self-reporting studies are unreliable, but there’s a fairly large body of literature developing that tells us that whether it be 100,000 or 3 million, some significant number of defensive gun uses really do happen, and these are a public good. You can dispute that flawed methodology miscounts the number, but it’s very hard to conclude that since even the most stringent, conservative tudies put up numbers over 100,000 that these are all phantom effects and it really doesn’t happen. Goes against common sense too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405.md?page=20)