CDC studying the effectiveness of gun laws (merged thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures.

"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."

We only have 20,000+ gun control laws on the books in the U.S. of A., and handguns are the only consumer product that requires FBI approval for every single sale. And this clown gets away with saying stuff like this in public, and not get laughed off the stage...
 
if the results dont agree with your thinking, then you just STUDY it some more!

This study is crap, they need to stick with diseases
 
The CDC said its report, released Thursday, suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work.

Hmmm, sounds like they have an agenda. Not very scientific. :rolleyes:
 
Lessee, they spent all this $$$$ to find out that criminals don't obey laws!?!?! Wow. I'm so friggin' proud to be a taxpayer:barf: :barf: :barf:
 
some interesting edits in the article have appeared

olde version:

CDC: More Study Is Needed on Gun Laws
Thu Oct 2, 3:34 PM ET

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031002/ap_on_re_us/cdc_gun_laws_1


"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 Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

new version:

CDC Finds No Proof Gun Laws Curb Violence
Thu Oct 2, 6:44 PM ET

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031002/ap_on_go_ot/cdc_gun_laws_3

"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq."
 
"Inconclusive" means that since the data didn't support the conclusion they had already reached (that gun laws reduce violence), there must be something wrong with the study so let's forget the whole thing...

Keith
 
Did you guys catch this part?

"Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible "

This means that they cannot - no no, make that WILL not - believe that gun control increases crime. They're just telling everyone that the results don't mesh with their opinion, so they'll suppress the results and say that they need to study some more stuff :rolleyes:
 
CDC REPORT ON GUN CONTROL CONFIRMS LAWS DON'T WORK, SAYS CITIZENS COMMITTEE

CCRKBA Alerts
Date: Oct 3, 2003 7:41 PM




NEWS RELEASE
CDC REPORT ON GUN CONTROL CONFIRMS LAWS DON'T WORK, SAYS CITIZENS COMMITTEE
BELLEVUE, WA-A report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that there is no conclusive evidence that gun control laws contribute to decreases in violent crime or suicide "proves what we have been saying for years," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

"For years," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "anti-gun groups, often citing the CDC's earlier biased research, had claimed more gun laws will reduce violent crime and suicide. CDC stopped conducting advocacy research in 1996 by order of Congress. Now, according to more balanced research, the CDC is basically acknowledging that its earlier efforts, and those of extremist gun grabbers, have been all wet."


Yet the CDC, evidently unhappy with the available research, wants to study the issue more, arguing that there is "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." Waldron rejected that as more partisan politics.


"Because the CDC could not reach yet another anti-gun conclusion," he said, "they want to study some more, at least until they come up with a report that squared with their long-standing anti-gun agenda. That doesn't wash. For the first time, CDC has had to acknowledge that gun control doesn't work."


The report brought an incredulous comment from Peter Hamm with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: "It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them."


CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb offered this blistering response: "Hamm is half-baked. Gun ownership in this country is heavily regulated by a Pandora's Box of federal, state and local gun laws, many which often conflict with one another to the point that private citizens cannot know whether they are obeying a law while breaking another. The CDC report seems to confirm what we've been saying all along. Gun control laws have no impact on criminals, only law-abiding citizens who don't commit crimes. To suggest we need more laws when the ones already passed as successive panaceas apparently haven't worked is ludicrous.


"The CDC's suggestion for additional studies, simply because they don't like the results of their own research, is like treating a patient with drugs that you know aren't working, so you give him more of the same drugs," Gottlieb observed.


With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
 
There should be no doubt now that gun control is a religious belief. It is based in a series of unverifiable assumptions which lead to actions which in some cases defy logic.

Now the gun control community is faced with having to defend a religious belief. How so? With scholarship, tadpole. Study the effect of the operating assumptions, but don't dare challenge the assumptions. After all, some beliefs are just too important for us to question.
 
The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence Statement on New CDC Report Evaluating Effectiveness of Firearms Laws

10/3/03 9:43:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Blaine Rummel of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, 202-408-7560, ext. 118; http://www.efsgv.org

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today released a new report evaluating the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence. According to the report, there is insufficient evidence to fully evaluate the effectiveness of U.S. gun laws, highlighting the need for additional research in the field. The study authors cautioned that the findings "should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." (MMWR 2003; 52(no. RR-14)).

Joshua Horwitz, executive director of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, had this to say:

"We agree with the study's authors: more research in this area is sorely needed. But the sad truth is that the gun lobby has blocked federal dollars for firearms research at every turn. This study reveals the folly of the gun lobby's attack on objective research in preventing gun violence. At a time when America's gun death rate is again rising after years of decline, the government must commit more resources to gun policy research, not less.

"We anticipate the gun lobby to misinterpret the findings of this report. We expect them to point to the study as 'proof' that gun laws do not work in a willful attempt to mislead the public.

"In fact, the report goes out of its way to state that there is no evidence suggesting that gun laws don't work. It simply states that there is not enough research to draw conclusions.

"Americans know the effects of having lax gun laws: high crime and high gun death rates. We also know that common sense plays a big role. For example, Americans don't need a study to understand that military-style assault weapons serve no useful purpose, and should be banned from our streets."
 
Do people who support gun control mostly believe that they can get rid of all the guns, or do they believe that getting rid of a good number of legal (held by law-abiding citizens) guns will reduce gun crime substantially?
 
"Americans know the effects of having lax gun laws: high crime and high gun death rates. We also know that common sense plays a big role. For example, Americans don't need a study to understand that military-style assault weapons serve no useful purpose, and should be banned from our streets."

:barf:
 
For example, Americans don't need a study to understand that military-style assault weapons serve no useful purpose
Of course they dont. That is why they were invented 60 years ago, because it would be a new way to friviolusly spend money on things without purpose. Everyone knows that the US military and all militaries around the world use only the finest in useless junk. Also, no one in their right mind would desire to protect themselves from government oppression because our government in its infinite benevolence would never do something like that.:barf: :scrutiny: :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

Wait, those are 3 reasons. :confused: Damnit! In trying to agree with his logic, I just refuted it! Damn it! I will never get this mindless blissninny bereft-of-logic thing down. :banghead:

, and should be banned from our streets."
Ok, tell me where you live, and I wont carry my soon to be purchased scary asthetically-displeasing homeland defense rifle on your street. I promise. Would you like me to get you a nightlight next to your bed and check under your bed for monsters as well?:scrutiny: Moron.
 
Might I suggest that all of the pro-gun groups take some our donated cash and run full page ads in every major newspaper touting this study?

You know if CDC had said the laws did prevent gun violence the liberal minions would have every newspaper-TV news program blasting it 24/7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top