1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Firearm Report from Centers for Disease Control Now In (Interesting Results)

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Gaiudo, Jun 24, 2013.

  1. Gaiudo

    Gaiudo Well-Known Member

    Interesting results from the study Obama ordered on gun violence.



    Some highlights:

    Read the entire report, as there are a number of points to discuss and debate.
  2. Torian

    Torian Well-Known Member

    Interesting that they keyed in on the self-defense aspect of handgun usage and its frequency.

    This study appears much more nonbiased and objective than I thought it would be.
  3. Gaiudo

    Gaiudo Well-Known Member

    We're going to have to fight to continue to maintain the distinction between 'firearm homicides' and 'homicides' when compared with other countries. This report doesn't do a great job of that.
  4. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    yep, we should spread this around because it is important for people on the fence to see this and understand.

    i think some will continue to think that 1 death is 1 death too many, and others (incl myself) will continue to think that 1 defensive gun use is enough to justify the RKBA. But this clearly shows two things that most people are probably not aware of:

    1. guns protect more innocent civilians than they harm (by as much as an order of magnitude)

    2. victims using a firearm have lower injury rates than victims without (which is opposite the Handgun Control/Brady talking points that claim you idiots are more likely to shoot yourself than a mugger, and that if you just acquiesce to the criminal's demands you'll be fine)

    i like the way they said it: Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.
  5. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

  6. Ranger Roberts

    Ranger Roberts Become a THR contributing member!

    Interesting. The problem with any of these studies is that people (in this case it'll be the controllists) pick and choose what they want to use to prove their point. They take things out of context or just use 1/2 of a statement in their speeches. Then, that is used as a sound bite on NBC and Bill Maher over and over again until people believe it to be a full fact.
  7. Gaiudo

    Gaiudo Well-Known Member

    These are the two results I found most contra-expectational from a govt. funded study. And most helpful from a political perspective.
  8. MErl

    MErl Well-Known Member

  9. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

  10. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    I recommend the entire thing be read since it isn't cut and dried vindication for our side.
  11. Librarian

    Librarian Well-Known Member

    This paragraph highlights the essential error in approach.

    Guns are not an 'agent' nor are they a source of injury, except in the extremely rare instance of a manufacturing defect or unrecognized wear or damage that causes a gun to malfunction and discharge unexpectedly.

    The bolded text, above, has no necessary connection to firearms. 'Improvements' to the listed risk factors might be an overall societal good, but placing those in a firearms context is a mistake.
  12. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    No, it doesn't. You are just playing semantics. "Agent", in this context, is the means in which the injury was inflicted. This is blatantly obvious. Repeating the mantra "guns don't kill, people do" is a completely ineffective way to contest the methodology, if that is what you wish to do.
  13. jfh

    jfh Well-Known Member

    I'm with the others who say this report is an unexpected surprise in the inclusion of findings such as the DGUs frequency and the the 'less injury with gun defense' findings.

    Over the long run, the issues will be the distortions that the MSM and the antigun forces in the 'scientific community' produce in either highlighting their studies or new ones that will follow.

    It will be the "Public Health" studies that will be the source of most of them.

    Jim H.
  14. 230RN

    230RN Marines on Mt. Curibacci

    taliv, quoteworthy:

    I nearly jumped out of my seat when I read:

    ETA Note that " I shifted the decimal point " means I divided by ten.

    Then I shifted the decimal point, but it still looks too high. I wish there was a way to filter out criminal-on-criminal homicides the way they filter out suicides.


    Probably not, given it was comissioned by a known "anti" organization, but if "they" can take out "study bytes," why can't we? :D

    Izzat a new phrase? "Study bytes?"

    Last edited: Jun 25, 2013
  15. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Well-Known Member

    Yea but Japan has almost no guns yet per capita more suicides than the US.

    So are the Japanese all using the same gun or do they just find another method than a gun?

  16. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jun 24, 2013
  17. MErl

    MErl Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that they prefer hanging but it really just shows it comes down to culture. I've seen studies that suicide rates in UK went down after the total bans and never got back to the initial rates. It is very possible, likely even, that completely removing firearm access from americans would lower suicide rates. That is far too high a price to pay to protect a few thousand people from themselves.
  18. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    As I recall, US suicides by shooting have an 80% success rate; hangings a 70% success rate; and sucessful suicides often include prior attempts.

    Suicide by poison or cutting have such low success rates, however, that I suspect they are the preferred method for suicidal gestures (with the exception of ritual seppuku).

    I still suspect some of the medical researchers are guilty of confusing a result or a correlation with cause.

    I can't find in the 124 page PDF mention of O'Carroll or Christoffel, which may be a sign of an attempt at neutral research.
    1990s Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control:
    Katherine Christoffel, M.D.:
    That's the kind of stuff that got CDC barred from using research funds to generate research to lobby Congress for gun control (Additional Requirement 13).
  19. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    That is a decade's worth, not an annual count.

    There isn't, but 91% of homicide victims in Baltimore MD had criminal records. (75% Philadelphia PA, 77% Milwaukee WI, 85% Newark NJ).

    There are unkept statistics: in particular homicides adjudicated as justifiable at the coroner, medical examiner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court level are not kept nationally. What we do have is "shooting of a felon in commission of a felony by a citizen" as adjudicated in police report to FBI UCR. Well, any given year fifteen or twenty states simply don't let police reports adjudicate homicides as justifiable or not. I know in my area when there is a police shooting, there is always a presentation by the state bureau of investigation to a grand jury panel for adjudication.
  20. Librarian

    Librarian Well-Known Member

    I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

    Kates et al, 1994 - http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
    The public health approach is simply wrong.

    The references to Kellerman and Hemenway as research exemplars seem to me to be strong indications of the direction preferred.

Share This Page