Quantcast
New CDC report being used to criticize gun laws - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 1, 2015, 12:04 PM   #1
sawdeanz
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 474
New CDC report being used to criticize gun laws

I'm starting to see articles like the one below that are using the recently released CDC report to show that the 10 states with the most firearm deaths also have lax gun laws. Obviously using whether states require "permits" to buy handguns is a dumb measure of determining the nature of a states gun restrictions. But I was still a little surprised that the usual suspects for high crime (Chicago, New York, LA) didn't bump those states into the list. Does anyone have a link to an easy to understand summary of the report they are basing this on? What can I do to counter these assertions. I suspect that the inclusion of suicide rates is skewing the statistics towards these generally poverty ridden states.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-...nce-2015-06-30
__________________
CZ P-07 -- 9mm
Marlin/Glenfield model 60 -- .22lr
Ishapore 2A1 Lee-Enfield -- 7.62 NATO
Vz 2008 (Vz58) -- 7.62x39

Previous:
1951 Spanish FR 8 -- 7.62 NATO
sawdeanz is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 12:22 PM   #2
General Geoff
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 28, 2006
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,966
The entire premise is based on faulty logic. They are implying that 'gun deaths' are somehow worse than other kinds of death. Of course deaths involving firearms are going to be more prevalent in areas with more readily available firearms.

This is the equivalent of publishing a study that shows the number of houses constructed primarily of wood is higher in forested areas, than in deserts.
__________________
"Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size.
When danger threatens, call on me
And I will equalize."
General Geoff is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 12:32 PM   #3
oneounceload
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2008
Location: Hot and Humid FL
Posts: 14,750
Also the states with some of the highest racial and economic diversity lead to more violence.
__________________
"Support our troops; we'll need them to overthrow our government"

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
oneounceload is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 12:41 PM   #4
Archie
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 31, 2002
Location: Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Posts: 1,733
Continuing story

For some years now, (I think my initial memory is from the Carter Adminstration, although I could be wrong) the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been used as a leftist agent to release anti-gun propaganda in the guise of 'reports'. At one point, the CDC tried to announce 'gun crime' (as if violence from knives, box cutters, tire irons or even tree branches were somehow different) as an 'epidemic'.

This is nothing new. On at least one instance, Congress - controlled by Conservatives, curiously - threatened to reduce funding for CDC unless they quit the partizan propagandizing. Which worked for a while. Sounds like we're due for that again.
__________________
The difference between 'anecdotal evidence' and 'empirical evidence' is:
Anecdotal evidence happened to you; Empirical evidence happened to me.
Archie
Check out my journal at http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/
Archie is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 01:31 PM   #5
MErl
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1,148
CDC was directed to research "gun violence" (not violence in general). It is of no surprise that the result of that research is negative to gun rights. It just cheapens everything else they say after they get used to create political propaganda.
MErl is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 01:35 PM   #6
Drail
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Posts: 4,129
Yup, sadly the CDC has become a "tool" for liberal politicians. It's been that way for a long time. I personally cannot imagine why anyone would be interested in what the CDC thinks about guns, violence, crime, or society in general (unless you're a politician using it to sell your agenda). That makes about as much sense as publishing a paper on the NRA's opinion on syphilis.
Drail is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 01:37 PM   #7
ATLDave
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 30, 2011
Posts: 1,987
I don't see a new CDC report. I see an article that uses CDC data to support a (badly flawed) argument. Am I missing a link to an actual CDC report?
ATLDave is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 01:38 PM   #8
jamesjames
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 15, 2010
Location: Southern Oregon Coast
Posts: 103
Help the CDC to define "epidemic"

Always wondering about the numbers being batted around for annual deaths in the U.S. attributed to firearms. First I went to the CDC for the top 10 causes of death in the U.S. annually:

Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

firearms related deaths don't make the top 10 list.

Traffic fatalities, like firearms related deaths, have been declining over the past 20 years. From a high of 42,000 and change in 1996, traffic fatalities are down to 30,000 and change for 2013, the last year stats are available.

Now, when i went to do a google search for firearms related deaths, 9 of the first 10 search results were from CDC, anti-gun groups, one conservative group, and wikipedia. the numbers were not the same. Among the various sources, you have numbers of firearms related deaths (annually in the U.S.) anywhere from 8,000 up to 30,000 depending on whether you are just counting homicides or including suicides and accidental deaths.

But the bottom line is that the definition of epidemic: "a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time" does not seem to apply to any category of firearms death in the U.S. In an epidemic, the requirement seems to be an outbreak of an infectious disease among a population affecting at least 100 people within a one to two week period.

The intellectually-dishonest notion of "gun-violence" as a thing unto itself, also does not seem to meet the criteria for an epidemic. A big number, by itself, does not an epidemic make. Firearm-related deaths pale in comparison to the top-ten causes of death in the U.S. Many would also argue that the top 10 causes of death in America, even represented in seemingly "big numbers" are not epidemics in the real sense of the word.
jamesjames is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 02:47 PM   #9
sawdeanz
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 474
I'm not new to the idea that the CDC is used by the liberals, but for this particular article I'm trying to find the data they used. I've seen the same data used by other news sites too for similar articles.

I'm not really a fan of the "ban funding for gun research" method as I think that makes us look weak and is no less corrupt than what the liberals are doing with it. Like it or not, but gun violence (especially suicides) are just as much a public safety interest as any other manmade device like automobiles which are also researched by the CDC. We shouldn't have to use statistics to justify the 2nd amendment, but we do need to find a way to combat these skewed interpretations. One way, in this case, might be to find the data on violent crime for all states and then re-rank and see where the chips fall. A nice compromise (HA!) would be to also fund official research on, for example, defensive gun uses.
__________________
CZ P-07 -- 9mm
Marlin/Glenfield model 60 -- .22lr
Ishapore 2A1 Lee-Enfield -- 7.62 NATO
Vz 2008 (Vz58) -- 7.62x39

Previous:
1951 Spanish FR 8 -- 7.62 NATO
sawdeanz is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 02:53 PM   #10
Lord Teapot
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 9, 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 335
if i'm understanding the report correctly, being killed by a gun is a more serious death than being killed by a knife or a blunt instrument.
Lord Teapot is online now  
Old July 1, 2015, 02:59 PM   #11
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator Emeritus
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sawdeanz
I'm not really a fan of the "ban funding for gun research" method as I think that makes us look weak and is no less corrupt than what the liberals are doing with it.
Just to be clear, CDC is not banned from researching gun deaths and injuries. They are banned from "advocating for gun control with public funds" which is just one out of maybe a dozen or so restrictions on CDC research designed to limit conflicts of interest. CDC can (and does) research gun violence, gun injuries and gun deaths and still issues regular reports and research on the matter (as this thread demonstrates).

I just wanted to clarify that because it is a popular misconception that the NRA somehow muzzled CDC research instead of making the very reasonable request that CDC not use taxpayer money to advocate gun control.

See this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...=746741&page=5 for a very in-depth discussion of this topic.
__________________
Texas gunowners should belong to TSRA.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 03:28 PM   #12
sawdeanz
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 474
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/...pdYC?ocid=iehp

I found the other article/video I saw that blamed lax gun laws for high gun deaths.
__________________
CZ P-07 -- 9mm
Marlin/Glenfield model 60 -- .22lr
Ishapore 2A1 Lee-Enfield -- 7.62 NATO
Vz 2008 (Vz58) -- 7.62x39

Previous:
1951 Spanish FR 8 -- 7.62 NATO
sawdeanz is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 04:04 PM   #13
Schwing
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Layton Utah
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
if i'm understanding the report correctly, being killed by a gun is a more serious death than being killed by a knife or a blunt instrument.
I have coined a term for this. I refer to it as "Lord Voldemort syndrome."

You see, in harry potter, being killed by lord voldemort is the scariest thing possible. You aren't just dead, you are SCARY dead!

People who compile these numbers for various reasons sure put their own spin on them, even the ones on our side. I have noticed that any anti groups who post the numbers seem to be in the 30,000 range because they include suicides etc. Then the pro groups are usually around 8,000 to 10,000 and don't include suicides or even accidental shootings.

Any way you look at it, you can put your own spin on any data. Politicians, Scientists and Journalists have been doing it since the beginning of time.
__________________
God created man; Samuel Colt made them equal
Schwing is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 04:12 PM   #14
Spats McGee
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 15, 2012
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870
I'm always skeptical when I see statements like the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linked Article
Mississippi . . .

Above, the state flag of Mississippi, which incorporates the flag of the Confederate States of America, . . .
Gee, I wonder why they included that little tidbit.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 04:57 PM   #15
Red Wind
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Location: Rock Harbor,Florida
Posts: 1,226
Quote:
Gee, I wonder why they included that little tidbit.
No worries,Spats. I'm proud of being raised in the South, as I'm sure you are. We have nothing to be ashamed of, and civility wise, we take a back seat to no one.

The past is dead and gone. The South has the future. I have no doubts of that, whatsoever.
__________________
"Beyond a certain point all dangers are equal."
-Raymond Chandler The Long Goodbye 1953
Red Wind is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 04:58 PM   #16
C.R.
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 19, 2014
Location: south centeral Wisconsin
Posts: 113
Shouldnt the C.D.C. (Centers For Disease Control ) Focus on diseases? as far as I know ,getting shot isnt contageous,(unless maybe you are in a group of looters)
C.R. is online now  
Old July 1, 2015, 05:01 PM   #17
alsaqr
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 5, 2007
Location: South Western, OK
Posts: 2,958
Gunstats has a reputation of being impartial. The states with the highest rate of murder by firearms in 2011:

http://gunstats.org/states-with-the-...te-by-firearm/

FBI Expanded Homicide Data; 2007-2011. Homicide by weapons Type:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...e-data-table-8
alsaqr is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 09:22 PM   #18
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 4,635
"They are banned from "advocating for gun control with public funds" which is just one out of maybe a dozen or so restrictions on CDC research designed to limit conflicts of interest"
An important distinction. For instance, a large reason for the 'consensus' on a whole host of research topics like both gun control and global warming, is because the researchers are actively supporting the positions of their benefactors in a veritable propaganda/advertising role with their reports. Basically, you have universities turned into political think tanks (this was the reason think tanks were originally invented, because impartial institutions saw themselves above this sort of stuff and wanted no part of it)

9 out of 10 statists agree that the State shalt have no other states before it, you know

TCB

PS - As always, again, still, the numbers are almost certainly distorted by suicides, which are just as consistently omitted when considering other types of violent death or a comparison of our nation to Japan. I think the fact the CDC is now putting out studies based in the same flawed premise as the anti's have for decades --literally the same premise-- is grounds to move for defunding the agency's research efforts until they cool it on this gun stuff. God only knows how politicized the rest of their research must be at this point if they so readily adopt activist group talking points. I'm calling it; next month we'll see 'gun death stats among children' (with children under 26 eligible for their parents' health insurance counted, of course)
__________________
"Clearly, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to secure a state, therefore we must depart from its literal interpretation and forbid civilian ownership of firearms, as it constitutes a threat to federal supremacy."

Last edited by barnbwt; July 1, 2015 at 09:28 PM.
barnbwt is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 09:35 PM   #19
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 4,635
"Shouldnt the C.D.C. (Centers For Disease Control ) Focus on diseases? as far as I know ,getting shot isnt contageous,(unless maybe you are in a group of looters)"

But guns compel violence in those around them, providing a tangible focus for the primal, innate urge inside all of us to just kill and destroy everyone around us, which is normally kept in check by application of iPhones and TV. The voice haunting our dreams in and out of every day, bidding us to do evil. Until one day, the beast emerges in its true form --you! *boo!*

A well reasoned study on the effects of exorcising this demonic threat are absolutely in order if we are to ever use the power of government to compel these wretched spirits to leave our corporeal forms.

Yeah, I got no idea for why the CDC would be looking into what is --at best-- a consumer product safety concern, when we already have another group that is exactly for that purpose (and probably also, not coincidentally, barred from researching gun violence issues for advocacy)

TCB
__________________
"Clearly, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to secure a state, therefore we must depart from its literal interpretation and forbid civilian ownership of firearms, as it constitutes a threat to federal supremacy."
barnbwt is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 11:29 PM   #20
DHJenkins
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 5, 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 973
Does anyone have a link to the actual report?
__________________
I like German guns, German cars and German women.
DHJenkins is offline  
Old July 1, 2015, 11:36 PM   #21
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 42,418
The numbers are pretty easy to find. Look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the past 3 years and at the rates, not gross count, of firearms homicides by state. Toss out the suicide data and readjust the rates. Toss out the LE shootings and readjust. Then look up the firearms laws for the 5 highest firearms homicides per 100,000 residents. At that point you should also try to parse where within those states the homicide rates are highest and then look at income ranges and poverty rates and education rates and homeowner rates vs. renter rates and ...

Unless you normalize data for a wide range of socioeconomic factors so you can see the real impact firearms restrictions may have on homicide rates you're not actually looking at anything meaningful.
__________________
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old July 3, 2015, 11:53 PM   #22
DHJenkins
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 5, 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 973
I know where to find the numbers, which is why I'm wondering what report the media is referring to. It seems like the CDC is getting a beating for no reason - they're simply reporting figures and it's the media that has taken upon itself to draw their own conclusions from the statistics.
__________________
I like German guns, German cars and German women.
DHJenkins is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:11 AM   #23
Captain33036
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 20, 2009
Location: SE FL
Posts: 370
Many more people die from medical MISTAKES, than firearms.

But, I think the most compelling fact is just how many non-suicide related firearm deaths are felon-on-felon. Does anyone have that statistic? I think it is a very significant number, perhaps 66%.

Law enforcement accounts for some percentage, in the overall statistic, perhaps as much as 5-10%.

So.....one can draw the conclusion that you are much more likely to be killed by a felon OR a LE officer, than a lawful citizen with a firearm.

Thanks
J
Captain33036 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:57 AM   #24
steelerdude99
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 28, 2010
Location: Stafford County, VA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain33036 View Post
...
So.....one can draw the conclusion that you are much more likely to be killed by a felon OR a LE officer, than a lawful citizen with a firearm.

Thanks
J
The CDC will has no authoritative influence over the actions of a felon OR LE officers (i.e. those shootings will happen no mater what CDC says or does). But scarring a potential purchaser, their family ... OR maybe influencing a politician to be in favor of gun-control is something they can and will do.

The CDC may even hope to indirectly reduce the gun deaths caused by felons by making guns "more scarce" (i.e. it will be harder for a felon find a gun to steal.)

chuck
steelerdude99 is online now  
Old Yesterday, 10:05 AM   #25
Garrobo
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 17, 2015
Posts: 238
The anti-firearms crowd

will do whatever it takes to fool the unwashed public to further their agenda. They will lie, cheat and steal without any regard for the true. Truth means nothing to them. The only thing that the average citizen can do is to go to the polls and vote for the anti-gun control candidates, be they Republican, "Independent" (A person who hasn't the mental capacity to determine what their political philosophy is, whether it is conservative or liberal) or Democrat. The CDC in these times seems to be a branch of the Brady Campaign. If you are a gun owner and you want to keep your guns you need to financially support the NRA, especially the NRA/ILA. GO VOTE!
Garrobo is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.