Getting back to the CDC report referenced in the link posted by TripleR, it's not a new study, more of a rounding up of previous studies grouped into topic areas with a lot of new areas of research suggestions. Read a couple paragraphs and you will get the flavor of the report.
Here is the link again if you want to read it. There are about 60 pages of reading out of the 120 total.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
Regarding Defensive Gun Use (DGU) there is no new research, just a couple of pages summarizing, noting and commenting on past study results. I pasted them below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15-16 Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ç*¥sed by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in publicå¹¼oncealed or open carryæ´ay have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 45: Individual Risk and Protective Factors
Protective Effects of Gun Ownership
Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use; different data sources; and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. On the basis of data from 1992 and 1994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New research or study results from the CDC or Health and Human Services are limited by congressional prohibitions.
Page 23: Limitations on further study.
Impact of Existing Federal Restrictions on Firearm Violence Research
There are many legal and responsible uses for guns; an individualç´ right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago.16 However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict governmentç´ ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,17 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.
In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding éo advocate or promote gun control.?8 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are criticisms of some of the referenced study results. Gary Kleck in particular is a favorite target with attackers and defenders. There is an ongoing controversy over studies that date back 10-20 years ago. That is a sad state of affairs, so make of it what you will.
These deal with Kleck's DGU numbers:
Kleck-Gertz | The Propaganda Professor
Myth #3a - "Is there independent evidence to supports Kleck and Gertz?" | Buckeye Firearms Association
https://stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf
Another Look at Estimates of Defensive Gun Use (Part VI) - Open Thread
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
