Sort of good news - long

[Steve Richards]

This was in the local paper today. "The Oregonian" Friday October 3,2003. Page A7. Conservatives call the paper too liberal and liberals call the paper too conservative.

From the Associated Press by Kristen Wyatt

Atlanta- A federal review of the nation's gun control laws, including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons, found no proof they reduce firearm violence.

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appointed a task force of scientists to conduct the review, which could be used to undercut the gun-control movement.

The CDC said the report, released Thursday, suggests 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 the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the pst that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun-control laws.

In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibitited from using funds to press for gun-control laws.

Since then, the task force reviewd 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 done by the federal government.

In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."

Most of the studies weren't financed by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to pay for better research.

NRA PLANS REVIEW

"There have not been enough good surveys to know whether these laws work, and that's a very sad and troubling fact," said Peter Hamill, spokesman for the Brady Campain to Prevent Gun Violence.

The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it.

The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done. Among the problems:

*Studies on firearms bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased vioilence; others found the bans actually increased vioilence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

*Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A big problem with those studies was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means," the report said.

*Only four studies examined the effectiveniss of firearm registraion on violent outcomed, and all of the findings were inconsistent.

*Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of vioilence."
----------------

This was rather long but I though it to be important and did not want to edit and inadvertanly leave out something important. It is not all good for gun owners but certainly not what gun banners want.

We should not let the anti-gunners win the terminology battle. The person who chooses the words used has a big head start. Lets make it clear that there is a difference between gun-control and gun-bans. Blocking convicted felons from owning guns is control. Blocking all ownership is banning. Keep the difference clear!