More Gun Control? CDC Study

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mike

    Propietario de casa, Toluca, México
    MDS Supporter
    Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I did not see this listed on this site...

    Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

    http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Pri...e-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

    The study is proposing creation of a comprehensive firearms ownership database, among other things. I came across it reading this...

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-don-t-study-gun-violence-way-study-105555551.html

    Be afraid... be very afraid. They seem to be focused on control of guns, not correction of the mental problems violent offenders exhibit in the first place.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Dr. Reynolds will see you now.

    La la la la

    I cant hear you

    tinfoil_hat_antenna.jpg




    :D
     

    newq

    101st Poptart Assault BSB
    Mar 6, 2011
    1,592
    Eldersburg, MD
    its only crazy until the liberals show their hand. The problem is that in public they speak like they are middle of the road. They say they only want common sense approaches to gun violence. They refuse to state what those common sense approaches entail because they know better than to state it publicly. They are smart in that they are constantly putting the gun owners on the defensive. I really wish the NRA and other groups would put on more air time on major networks.

    We are under attack from so many directions that it is hard to counter it all. People curiously don't chain the thought of immorality, economic instability, protection and self reliance or independence together. They don't see rises in crime as a reason to become armed and proficient with that arm. I really believe that there should be a firearm in every legal hand in the United States. It would certainly stop so many of the crimes that are committed. It would also give citizens the opportunity to do something instead of watch some punks beat an elderly person to death or similar.

    I am 37, I first used computer in the time of the 8088. My first pc was a whopping 4mhz. I was an early adopter of BBS' and then internet as soon as my community offered dial up. I do a large majority of my dealings on the internet. I come across a small amount of scams as compared to legitimate deals. Out of all the personal transactions I have ever had, I only had maybe 2 go south in any real way. I do believe that people by and large are good natured. We all can be tempted to do wrong from time to time but for a large majority of us we have a pretty good moral compass. That says alot in todays day and age. I believe if we were all armed you would see this large majority persist in our towns and communities today. The let down comes from a populace that are literally scared to defend themselves not only because they don't have a clue how but because they fear owning a firearm as the community tries to label it as taboo.
     

    newq

    101st Poptart Assault BSB
    Mar 6, 2011
    1,592
    Eldersburg, MD
    Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I did not see this listed on this site...

    Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

    http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Pri...e-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

    The study is proposing creation of a comprehensive firearms ownership database, among other things. I came across it reading this...

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-don-t-study-gun-violence-way-study-105555551.html

    Be afraid... be very afraid. They seem to be focused on control of guns, not correction of the mental problems violent offenders exhibit in the first place.


    BTW Mike great 9th post. Kudos, I like you already.
     

    Mike

    Propietario de casa, Toluca, México
    MDS Supporter
    BTW Mike great 9th post. Kudos, I like you already.
    Thank you newq, I'm honored.

    Here's (one of many things) I don't understand...
    (this is copied right out of the power point slides)

    In the 1990s, the NRA persuaded Congress to pass legislation forbidding the CDC from using federal dollars to promote or advocate gun control. The restriction has been interpreted ever since to mean that no government research can be conducted on how guns affect health, placing an effective choke hold on any such work at the CDC.

    (BUT...)

    In early 2013, President Obama directed the CDC to resume gun violence research. ...

    2013 Gun Violence Prevention Executive Orders
    •In January 2013, President Obama issued 23 executive orders related to firearm violence, directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of:
    •Causes of firearm violence
    •Interventions that might prevent it
    •Strategies to minimize its public health burden
    •CDC ordered to resume support of firearm-related violence research

    I thought legislation passed by congress was binding on the Executive Branch of the government too.

    Is there a proper way to post the full report PDF file here? The "report" linked in the yahoo story is only a power point file. I could upload it here if there is a place or way to do that.

    And Newq is correct... these "scientists" try to sound unbiased, but the way they appear to have framed the "study" is biased. They are advocating gun control. They have misstated the objective and seemingly ignored any attempt to study the underling causes of violence. For example: "In 2010, incidents involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals in the United States, including approximately 19,000 suicides." While suicides may be preventable, the report as written implies that gun control will accomplish that. I ask: How?

    I think the NRA has a public image problem. The lefties have done a good job of marginalizing NRA members as gun toting kooks. I think because of that perception, anything the NRA advocates is dismissed by too many Americans.

    Is there a national organization out there, aside from the NRA, with views on this subject that make sense?
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Is there a proper way to post the full report PDF file here? The "report" linked in the yahoo story is only a power point file. I could upload it here if there is a place or way to do that.

    There is no final report from the CDC yet...

    CDC solicited the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to develop the agenda for developing the report. See:
    http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Pri...e-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

    More briefs, etc are at the above link. Again, only talking about the agenda for developing the report. :sad20:

    That was in June, 2013. Obama ordered the report in January, 2013.

    Fast forward to April, 2014. Many Senators (mostly R's) tried to block further progress on this report. See:
    http://www.propublica.org/article/republicans-say-no-to-cdc-gun-violence-research

    Fast forward again to September, 2014. Senate D's ask for a status of the report. See:
    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...rs-ask-cdc-for-progress-of-gun-violence-study

    A week or so ago was the Sandy Hook anniversary. A CBS piece on the still languishing report:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-years-after-newtown-school-shooting-no-research-on-gun-violence/
     

    gamer_jim

    Podcaster
    Feb 12, 2008
    13,233
    Hanover, PA
    I wonder if the intended audience of these studies are judges. Right now there isn't any substantial studies showing that guns = more crime. If they could get a brand name like the CDC to publish studies then they could use them in their briefs to convince judges that the government has compelling reason to violate our rights.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    I wonder if the intended audience of these studies are judges. Right now there isn't any substantial studies showing that guns = more crime. If they could get a brand name like the CDC to publish studies then they could use them in their briefs to convince judges that the government has compelling reason to violate our rights.

    Nothing is stopping the states from doing it, like the Johns Hopkin's studies.
     

    newq

    101st Poptart Assault BSB
    Mar 6, 2011
    1,592
    Eldersburg, MD
    Thank you newq, I'm honored.

    Here's (one of many things) I don't understand...
    (this is copied right out of the power point slides)

    In the 1990s, the NRA persuaded Congress to pass legislation forbidding the CDC from using federal dollars to promote or advocate gun control. The restriction has been interpreted ever since to mean that no government research can be conducted on how guns affect health, placing an effective choke hold on any such work at the CDC.

    (BUT...)

    In early 2013, President Obama directed the CDC to resume gun violence research. ...

    2013 Gun Violence Prevention Executive Orders
    •In January 2013, President Obama issued 23 executive orders related to firearm violence, directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of:
    •Causes of firearm violence
    •Interventions that might prevent it
    •Strategies to minimize its public health burden
    •CDC ordered to resume support of firearm-related violence research

    I thought legislation passed by congress was binding on the Executive Branch of the government too.

    Is there a proper way to post the full report PDF file here? The "report" linked in the yahoo story is only a power point file. I could upload it here if there is a place or way to do that.

    And Newq is correct... these "scientists" try to sound unbiased, but the way they appear to have framed the "study" is biased. They are advocating gun control. They have misstated the objective and seemingly ignored any attempt to study the underling causes of violence. For example: "In 2010, incidents involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals in the United States, including approximately 19,000 suicides." While suicides may be preventable, the report as written implies that gun control will accomplish that. I ask: How?

    I think the NRA has a public image problem. The lefties have done a good job of marginalizing NRA members as gun toting kooks. I think because of that perception, anything the NRA advocates is dismissed by too many Americans.

    Is there a national organization out there, aside from the NRA, with views on this subject that make sense?

    I completely agree. I know the executive has prerogative to selectively enforce laws the same as a police officer has discretion. However I believe this to be on a case by case basis and not grandeur al la carte or carte le blanch as has been the status quo of executive privilege with this administration.

    You are right the agenda does not seek the truth but seeks support for a narrative. It is similar to shopping a doctor in support of a theory until you can find one that supports the thought. The problem is that it is easier to attack a weapon than it is to conquer societal issues which have spanned nearly a century. As the population has grown, so to have the number of individuals facing these legacy issues.

    Its hard to place a label on the problem without seeming like you are talking down to the population you seek to empower. The struggle is great and unfortunately the left seeks to empower them by trying to bring them equal through subsidies but instead encourages the welfare state amplifying the issues they already face.

    The NRA does have an image problem. You know who does not? The local groups who could use the NRA's money to push state based campaigns. If the NRA were willing to fund MSI's ad campaign or other such local groups, we would see a much more difficult enemy to hold down. The left does a great job of doing this by separating themselves from political targets which are having issues as does our president. He stays away from issues he can't get behind or stand beside. He simply runs from them or deflects blame. So too could these state based rights groups. It would no longer only be the NRA but trying to dredge down all the 2a rights groups with them. Not so easy. Colion Noir was a good refreshing face to the NRA however I do believe that the left has already labeled him and smeared his image and the right continues to applaud him. All of this is the part of the NRA image you were speaking of.

    The best source of data we have is the FBI for gun crime data. It is not as dissectible as we would like and does not separate suicide, homicide, and law enforcement homicides. I know it has been studied but the studies that show the opposite have been dismissed for bias.

    Its complex but it can be won without being one in the same.
     

    lsw

    לא לדרוך עליי
    Sep 2, 2013
    1,975
    ...
    I am 37, I first used computer in the time of the 8088. My first pc was a whopping 4mhz.

    Getting off topic, did you really have what was then a $4000 or $5000 system when you were 6 or 7 years old?
     

    newq

    101st Poptart Assault BSB
    Mar 6, 2011
    1,592
    Eldersburg, MD
    Getting off topic, did you really have what was then a $4000 or $5000 system when you were 6 or 7 years old?

    Wasn't MY pc and I know we were not that well off either. It was the families PC. and I think at the time I was 12 maybe? I don't know what the cost was to my father at the time as I had little to do with the discussion but $4 to $5k seems really high. It was second hand to us and if memory serves the 8088 came out in 79 from what I remember reading, when we got this pc it would have been the 89-90 time frame if I recall. My friends father worked for IBM at the time and I owed alot to him, the number of hours he sat on the phone to help me. Ironically, my friend who amassed his fathers pc knowledge all but abandoned it later in life. I thought for sure he would have worked in IT.

    Yes I was a geeky child and teenager. I enjoy PCs, I build my own machines and troubleshoot my own issues. Even now There are three PC's in our master bedroom. I stopped upgrading every time a new piece of hardware came out but still keep my machines current. I worked for awhile in college park in my late teen/early 20's selling and building PC's. I stopped using them for the longest time and then slowly gravitated back once I stopped chasing skirts and settled down.

    Sorry for the thread derailment.
     

    Pushrod

    Master Blaster
    Aug 8, 2007
    2,979
    WV High Country
    This is the Center for Disease Control!

    Where in their charter do they get to deviate from their stated mission and study something that isn't related to diseases?

    Are they going to study airplane or car accidents next?

    They should not be funded for this as violence is not disease related. Let the FBI do a study. (Oops, they already have!)
     

    MrNiceGuy

    Active Member
    Dec 9, 2013
    270
    I wonder if the intended audience of these studies are judges. Right now there isn't any substantial studies showing that guns = more crime. If they could get a brand name like the CDC to publish studies then they could use them in their briefs to convince judges that the government has compelling reason to violate our rights.

    I don't think the CDC would actually be all that helpful for making a gun/crime link. Rather, I think they'd say that guns are the leading instrument of suicide, that suicide rates would go down a measurable bit if suicidal people didn't have access to guns, and that the link between guns and crime is tenuous at best. Keep in mind that it was the CDC that stated that defensive gun use seemed to be at least as common as offensive gun use. From their report in 2013:

    Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun use by victims is at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimates of only 108,000 annual defense if use is 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. (CDC report, pg 15)

    With all that in mind, I think we'd see recommendations centering around improving mental health care access to bring down the suicide rate. That's a no-brainer. Anything else coming from them would be a toss-up at best, but I don't think it'd be overly skewed toward a gun control agenda since I don't think the science backs up that agenda.

    Code:
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    How many people to doctors kill and maim every year? Bet its a lot more then what firearms do at least in the US. Heal thyself!

    There are about 700,000 doctors in the US. They supposedly kill over 400,000 patients per year. That's nearly one for each of us every year. Hmmm.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom