New CDC report being used to criticize gun laws

[sawdeanz]

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-states-with-the-most-gun-violence-2015-06-30

 

[General Geoff]

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.

 

[oneounceload]

Also the states with some of the highest racial and economic diversity lead to more violence.

 

[Archie]

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.

 

[MErl]

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.

 

[Drail]

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.

 

[ATLDave]

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?

 

[jamesjames]

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.

 

[sawdeanz]

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.

 

[Lord Teapot]

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.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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/showthread.php?t=746741&page=5 for a very in-depth discussion of this topic.

 

[sawdeanz]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...ghest-gun-related-deaths/vi-AAcpdYC?ocid=iehp

I found the other article/video I saw that blamed lax gun laws for high gun deaths.

 

[Schwing]

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.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm always skeptical when I see statements like the following:

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.

 

[Red Wind]

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.

 

[C.R.]

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)

 

[alsaqr]

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-highest-murder-rate-by-firearm/

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

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

[barnbwt]

"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)

 

[barnbwt]

"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

 

[DHJenkins]

Does anyone have a link to the actual report?

 

[hso]

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.

 

[DHJenkins]

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.

 

[Captain33036]

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

 

[steelerdude99]

...
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

 

[Garrobo]

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!