Educate me on "End the freeze on gun violence research"

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcdonl

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
3,228
Location
Southern Maine
So... I have said, and hear many times "Guns are not the problem...." "My guns are safe and have never hurt anyone" and other such statements.

And I believe them.

In my mind, research on what causes gun violence will uncover criminal activity, alchohol/drug abuse and mental issues as the root causes.

Why is it bad that we allow this to happen?

Are we worried about the CDC lying to us? They are a government organization. They lie to us everyday.

Not taking a stand, looking to be educated because when I was approached with an argument on this topic I was un-prepared.
 
Well,since no one seems to remember the CDC being told to cease and desist,by one of our previous Presidents, The CDC did do a study on gun violence which(surprise,surprise) found that guns were evil and the major cause of crime, as this was the desired result of the study in which no facts were allowed that did not support the premise.The CDC was defunded and told(Your a Bad Man, your a Very Bad Man) to stick with diseases.
That's my take, perhaps others will clarify,sorry for not being too precise.
robert
 
That is sort of what I have been finding, but I am thinking that today 300,000,000 +/- guns later (likely owned by some of those good folks at the CDC) the data may find that simply owning a gun is not a threat to your health. As a matter of fact, the research could show it is good for your health.

This, again... is where we can do some good. Someone must know someone who is a researcher and could get involved in studies like this even just to fact check.

We all agree, what they did the first time was try to use the CDC against us... I just suggest that we figure out how to use them FOR us...
 
All research was blocked. This in the face of the Dept. of Justice study concluding that there was nothing conclusive about the AWB of '94 having a beneficial effect on violent crime rates, the National Research Council study saying the same thing, and the CDC study saying the same thing. I agree that it is important to use these studies in our argument against another AWB to counter the emotional appeal to people's ignorance and to show any bans are a waste of time and resources in reducing violent crime.

I never understood why the CDC study is particularly brought up over and over as an anti meme in the firearms community when it didn't validate the AWB. The conclusions from all the big government studies on the effectiveness of the AWB in reducing violent crime made equivocal statements hedging their bets, but not a one trumpeted the AWB as a success. All of them simply concluded there was nothing indicating the effectiveness in gun control laws reducing violent crime rates. That's the same conclusion that can be drawn from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report showing violent crime rates (including murders committed with firearms and rifles) falling ever since the expiration of the AWB. Semiauto firearms don't reduce violent crime rates, but they don't increase it either.

We do ourselves an injury when we regurgitate things and don't actually go to the source and read them for ourselves. This is the same for the AWB studies as it is for "news" on the net.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the last CDC study on the subject yielded inconclusive results for or against gun control. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

Personally don't see the harm in them conducting a study. If it comes out on our side, that's great. If it is inconclusive again, that's fine. If it's negative, we can dispute it.
 
Heres a few facts for the cdc. Number of crimes committed by weapons from the dawn of time 0%. number of crimes commited by criminals since the dawn of time 100%.:what:
 
I think it's been studied as about as far as it can be. I think the problem is, we know what causes violence, but nobody has a solution.
The only easy step is to limit firearms. It's the wrong step, but it makes everybody think they government is doing something about it.
 
Sauer hit it on the head. We have two options:

1) Try and fix the problem of violence in our society. This means looking at our prison systems, economy, social structure, and the general attitude of Americans.

2) Ban the tool best suited for use in these crimes.

#2, however, supposes that criminals will follow the law.
 
hso said:
All research was blocked. This in the face of the Dept. of Justice study concluding that there was nothing conclusive about the AWB of '94 having a beneficial effect on violent crime rates, the National Research Council study saying the same thing, and the CDC study saying the same thing. I agree that it is important to use these studies in our argument against another AWB to counter the emotional appeal to people's ignorance and to show any bans are a waste of time and resources in reducing violent crime.

I never understood why the CDC study is particularly brought up over and over as an anti meme in the firearms community when it didn't validate the AWB. The conclusions from all the big government studies on the effectiveness of the AWB in reducing violent crime made equivocal statements hedging their bets, but not a one trumpeted the AWB as a success. All of them simply concluded there was nothing indicating the effectiveness in gun control laws reducing violent crime rates. That's the same conclusion that can be drawn from the FBI's Uniform Crime report showing violent crime rate falling ever since the expiration of the AWB. Semiauto firearms don't reduce violent crime rates, but they don't increase it either.

We do ourselves an injury when we regurgitate things and don't actually go to the source and read them for ourselves. This is the same for the AWB studies as it is for "news" on the net.
Click to expand...
I'm going to repeat myself here: thank you. Facts > myths.
 
So now they'll do research...

So, this article implies that the current administration will be circumventing prior congressional mandates to fund anti-gun research through agencies like the CDC.

Personally, I have never understood why the Centers for Disease Control should be at all involved in researching "gun violence".

http://www.9news.com/news/article/3...could-end-research-blackout-into-gun-violence

These guys aren't going to stop until all guns are banned. It becomes more and more clear every year... they win on a couple of points, lay low for a few years, then come back crying for more "reasonable" restrictions a few years later, at which point the whole cycle begins again.
 
Because some "medical professionals" believe that owning a gun is a disease...kind of like alcoholism.
 
Last edited:
Well Kevin it would seem to have backfired as the supreme court has struck down two long standing gun bans in DC and Chicago and incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states all within one presidential term.

But to answer your question, the CDC maintains records of how people die in this country. There is a lot of valuable statistical data there and we should put it to good use. Hopefully the CDC can draw some correlation between gun violence and gang activity and poverty so we can begin implementing real solutions instead of blaming guns.
 
Because they can bypass the BATFE, the 2nd amendment and regulate guns through the CDC if the label them as a health problem. :scrutiny:
 
This guy has a record of ignoring the law and nobody in the Legislative or Judicial Branches has shown the courage to point out his illegality so I see nothing that will prevent him from doing what he wants.
 
But to answer your question, the CDC maintains records of how people die in this country. There is a lot of valuable statistical data there and we should put it to good use. Hopefully the CDC can draw some correlation between gun violence and gang activity and poverty so we can begin implementing real solutions instead of blaming guns.
Click to expand...

Don't be naiive. There is too much risk to our 2nd rights for that. The CDC will draw whatever conclusion that the current administration , be it Dem or Republican, wants them to draw. If a CDC researcher comes to a conclusion that is contrary to the current administration's stand on guns/gun control , that report will never see the light of day.
 
Those real solutions may likely give gangbangers a monthly stipend, food stamps, and limit their drivebys to daylight hours, as well as ammo rationing.

Maybe some free illegal drugs thrown-in to sweeten the deal.

Remember the free syringes for mainliners?
 
Last edited:
Those real solutions may likely give gangbangers a monthly stipend, food stamps, and limit their drivebys to daylight hours, as well as ammo rationing.

Maybe some free illegal drugs thrown-in to sweeten the deal.
Click to expand...
but if we can save just one life... :)

It is harder to keep unwanted studies quiet today. if anyone researching it wants it out there and it gets blocked, wikileaks to the rescue.
 
If I had to guess, CDC research would conclude with something like, "Owning a gun makes you 4x as likely to commit suicide with a gun."
Because yeah. If you don't own a gun it's hard to commit suicide with one. But that isn't going to stop you.
 
Years ago the CDC went after tobacco with a vengeance. We all know how that worked out. CDC was poised to give guns the same treatment. CDC funded a study by an anti-gun medical doctor named Kellerman. Kellerman posted his soon to be debunked study in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Remember the the anti-gunners often quoted myth: "A gun in the home is 43 more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder." That gem was brought to you by Kellerman.

The CDC is highly politicized when it comes to gun control. They consider homicide a "disease". We do not need the CDC doing any studies on guns, ammunition or law abiding gunowners.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6109
 
The CDC, National Research Council, Dept. of Justice and others conducted research into the benefits of the '94 AWB and other "gun control" laws restricting gun owners after the AWB had been in effect for years. The conclusion by the CDC, NRC, DoJ and most other researchers was that none of the laws could be said to have a beneficial impact on reducing violent crime rates or murder rates or use of firearms in violent crime or murder. None.

Not a one trumpeted the AWB as a success in reducing violent crime or murder rates in spite of having been funded by the Clinton administration who had ordered the studies. All of them simply concluded there was nothing indicating the effectiveness in gun control laws reducing violent crime rates.

Individual states report more detailed information than the UCR, including mine, and that data continues to support our contention that ARs and other semiautomatic rifles are too small a percentage of the means to murder people to be relevant in the discussion of violent crime. The FBI reports only down to the handgun, shotgun, rifle level, but my state goes further to report whether the rifle was semi, bolt or lever and that detail is important in our struggle. It is important because it shows for my state that semiauto rifles are only a quarter of the rifles used in murders so if the FBI could report more detail we'd see that only a quarter of the 300 or so murders committed with rifles used semis. 1/4 of 300 is a paltry 75 murders committed with semi auto rifles in a nation of 314 million people.

Properly monitored research will support us, but not looking gives the Prohibitionists the ability to make claims that data would show were false.
 
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/the-problem-with-the-public-health-resea

A blog post at Reason covering the research by Kellerman which was debunked. They also discuss other research on gun violence coming from a public health perspective and how those studies tend to be more idealogically driven than good scientific efforts at uncovering the truth.

I agree that scientific research on violence is a good idea, and is more likely to support pro-gun positions than anti-gun positions. Regardless of the outcome, the truth should always be pursued. I think a better question is why does the government need to fund this research?
 
It is easier to persuade people using government data as it is more often seen as unbiased.
 
I am in support of keeping the freeze. Statistics alone, studied, and discussed honestly is not a problem. The issue you is that its easy to twist stats to show one point of view as superior by eliminating certain variables. Or Lord forbid, we get another "Kellerman" again.

Also, the CDC isnt the only government agency that researches crimes, and firearm use/ownership. The results dont seem to be logical, at least not to myself and what I know of my area.

Take for example the NIJ research, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms."

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

This study, near as I can tell, is where the often repeated stat of "40% of firearm purchases are done without a background check...." The issue is with this, umm, research (did I call it that? I must be mistaken) is that it is basically a telephone survey, from which they concluded their stats. Not sure about you all, but since about a year ago before the election I have been getting all kinds of "survey" or "research" calls. If you listen to the method in the questioning, and the restricted answers, they already have certain groups lumped in together, so the survey is well, skewed to say the least.

Unfortunatly, I dont see any government study, supporting either side (If I have I dont remember, so forgive me), that follows the level of ethics and honest reporting requirements I had to go through in college when I was required to do some studies. The issue I am getting at, is these groups want to publish "results" but they dont want to publish the evidence and all the responses, including responses that are left out for whatever reason. If they would include all of this, another researcher can go through and not only verify the study results, but they could also be able to provide an alternate view, which is always good in research. It keeps folks honest. Unfortunatly, government research, well, isnt really when you get down to it, its more to show one sides viewpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top