2nd amendment and the CDC report on Gun violence.
This is a discussion on 2nd amendment and the CDC report on Gun violence. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So....Doctor Bob.....make your case. Why should we lend any credence to the CDC and this study. Please explain how the CDC has it in their ...
August 12th, 2011 04:35 AM
So....Doctor Bob.....make your case. Why should we lend any credence to the CDC and this study. Please explain how the CDC has it in their scope and authority to produce this study? Do you believe the CDC has an agenda? Do you know who provided funding for the study? What do you expect us to take away from this study?
Do you believe the gun owners on this board are part of the "problem"? (if there is a problem)
- know the differencemartyr
is a fancy name for crappy fighterYou have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
August 12th, 2011 05:41 AM
I skimmed through the article, but didn't read it for serious detail. From doing so, I don't get the impression that this article is the typical anti-gun propaganda. Here are are few excerpts that I think show what this one is about:
1 - As to why the CDC is interested, statistically murder and suicide with a gun are high on the list of cause of death for the 10-19 year olds:
2 - One big conclusion drawn by the article:
During 2006--2007, firearm suicide and firearm homicide were the fourth and fifth leading causes of injury death in the United States, respectively (1). For youths aged 10--19 years, firearm homicide was the second leading cause and firearm suicide was the fifth leading cause of injury death nationally (1).
. Well, DUH! Bigger cities generally have bigger ghettos. There is also some statistical information that shows that the rates vary with region of the country.
Although firearm homicide rates tended to be higher with increasing urbanization and among youth relative to persons of all ages, this was not the finding for firearm suicide rates.
3 - From the editorial notes:
Emphasis mine. I don't see anything here recommending gun laws or restrictions. Rather it shows that there is a problem with inner city youth in that they aren't brought up learning how to behave and resolve problems without violence, which we have agreed upon in several other threads. It says that proposed measures have included legislation but the effectiveness of these measures hasn't been proven and efforts need to include behavior based approaches to reduce interpersonal violence. One way to read this is that legislation and gun safety measures are NOT the problem that needs to be address and instead it is the people killing people.
finding ways to prevent firearm injuries is a challenge for metropolitan areas throughout the United States. Gun violence historically has been a problem in cities, and youths have been affected disproportionately. A concerted effort has been under way during the past few decades to build the evidence base for youth violence prevention, and a number of effective strategies are now available for preventing behaviors that underlie firearm violence involving youths. These strategies include programs that 1) enhance youth skills and motivation to behave nonviolently and resolve conflicts peacefully,
2) promote positive relationships between youth and adults (e.g., parenting and mentoring programs), and 3) influence the social, environmental, and economic characteristics of schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods in ways that can reduce the likelihood of youth violence (e.g., encouraging social connectedness and facilitating economic opportunities) (4).† In addition, new approaches are being tried and tested, such as CeaseFire, which seeks to prevent street violence, particularly shootings, through outreach, conflict mediation, and the changing of community norms that support violence (5).
August 12th, 2011 10:59 AM
thank you for reading the article. Others seem to be able to disagree WITHOUT reading it based on their pre-existing beliefs even though it does suggest that further restrictions on legitimate gun owners are not useful.
Originally Posted by noway2
August 12th, 2011 11:03 AM
If you have read this thread, you have seen my post ( #3) where I addressed this lunacy. I recieved in response, from "Dr Bob" the following PM. In the interest of keeping everything up-front and out in the open, I will post it here as well as my response, which is posted here, not in a PM. I will not say anything in private that I do not have the guts to say in public!
It's grand of you to feel that your "insights" or the "opinions" being concluded from some obscure CDC study are somehow as important as Galileo"s findings, but in reality you are merely spewing forth the same old tired anti-gun rhetoric we have been pelted with for more than 30 years. In truth gun control has no effect on crime rates, other than to cause them to increase.
originally posted by "DoctorBob"
NOthing? Yeah, I guess there is NOTHING that will change your mind. The leaders of the inquisition were like that. Galileo offered to let them look thru his telescope to see for themselves how the heavens worked and they refusedd to look. Much easier to ignore reality than to deal with it. No point in trying to deal with a problem; better to let other people do it and not participate in the solution. IF you had read the report, you would have noticed that there was nothing about registration mentioned. You might also have noteticed that they were talking about reported deaths not propaganda. It probably feels good to not have to think about things - that old knee jerk reflex is much easier. Thanks for your contirbution to the dialog.
You sir, are a victim of your "liberal arts" education and the anti-gun agenda the A.M.A. has been peddleing for years.
I am truly amazed that a gun owner (if you really are a gun owner) could support gun control in any manner, shape or form.
How could gun control work?
Are you proposing that the government be in charge of controling guns? The same government that is presently in charge of controling prescription and dangerous drugs? The same government that is in control of immigration? The same government that was in control of alcohol during prohibition? The same government that is in control of our fiscal concerns? Based on such rousing successes as just mentioned, PLEASE explain to me how gun control would be different.
You bring up that there was no mention of "registration", well in truth there was. Your post referred to "licensing requirements".
Licensing is registration.
Make no mistake, there is no purpose of registration other than future confiscation! It serves no other purpose, it prevents no crime. It deters no behavior.
As I stated in my initial post, the lack of a firearm will not prevent a suicide. If an individual is intent on their own death, they will accomplish it by whatever means, gun or not.
There were murders for nearly eight thousand years before there were guns. If there were no guns...there would still be murders. Common sense!
Regarding the safe handling and storage of firearms, this is an area best left to professionals, the NRA, GOA, and the like. Not an organization like the CDC which has absolutely no knowledge of firearms.
It's like expecting someone who doesn't drive to teach driver education.
Unapplied, learned knowledge is no knowledge!
You also stated in your post that "strategies to change the design of firearms to make them safer" need to be implemented. Firearms ARE SAFE, if you press the trigger they fire, if you do not press the trigger they do not fire. Very simple concept.
You or the CDC, or the government can not make rules or legislate laws to protect the stupid from themselves, it does not work.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
August 12th, 2011 12:03 PM
I have worked with CDC employees in the past during routine inspections, re-certification and lab usage in the past (bio-defense and research) even there they seemed to have wanted to challenge everything other than their specific role. They showed little interest in the air quality control systems, that actual work being done in the lab, what safety protocols were being used in the labs, the amounts of "x,y and z" that our facility had on hand and so on. They did however challenge a federal group of security inspectors over our security protocols, camera systems, bio-metrics, photo sensors and on down the line.
I do not believe that the roles of all these groups are clearly defined enough anymore. When we had on average of 9 inspections a year by six different agencies with all of them telling us 9 different ways "to sharpen a pencil" there is an issue.
Instead of all of these federal agencies trying to expand their actual field of expertise they should be concentrating on their actual duties. I do understand that time brings change and adaption is the key to survival. Is suicide like pregnancy (from another forum Blog: Government gone wild) really considered a disease now?
I grew-up hearing a saying "know your role" It was simple do your job and do it well don't step across the line and try to do another persons job that you were not trained to do.
August 12th, 2011 12:16 PM
Stubborn: Flame off, Dude.
You are shooting at right angles to the target. You are not even looking at the target. Read the two posts above yours.
And, just for the record, I don't have a liberal arts degree; they are in engineering, medicine and psychology.
I do own guns, shoot IDPA matches, carry concealed and am a member of the NRA.
and the CDC doesn't make rules or laws.
You've made up your mind about things and indicated that nothing will change your mind.
"There are none so blind as those that will not see..."
August 12th, 2011 02:56 PM
Come on DoctorBob, confess, you're really a Sarah Brady mole. Don't give me the "I'm a shooter/hunter nonsense" either. So are all the members of the so called American Hunters and Shooters, that endorsed Barack Obama. You elitists pander all the same pablum, trying to lord over the rest of us. I'm sure you support the 2A for yourself and your country club boozers, but think the rest of us simpletons shouldn't even be allowed to own slingshots.
A real report would have included ALL data related to firearms such as how many times a year firearms are used for self defense or to prevent crimes. It probably doesn't even break down how many of the homicides were justifiable or were criminals killed by police/citizens. You call that tripe a report. You doctors need to go back to school and take a course in common sense!
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness
August 12th, 2011 03:17 PM
Well, with all due respect "WE" happened to this country.
Originally Posted by tangoseal
Too many of us didn't get off our fat apathy to vote, or found any excuse for not voting
Too many of us flipped the channel from the political debate to Monday night football
Too many of us decided to "Let the NRA (or SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, etc) do it, I'm too busy...and then found an excuse to NOT join or support those organizations
Too many of us went to the tavern instead of the precinct committee meetings, city council meetings, school board meetings..and then we pontificated from the bar stool or listened to the guy who did
I'm afraid we can't blame the other guys for this. Too many of us didn't step up to the plate.
August 12th, 2011 04:13 PM
CDC = three letter agency = agenda
August 12th, 2011 04:53 PM
Take a deep, cleansing breath.
I'm not seeing the report as anti-gun at all. In fact, it points out that violence is directly related to sociology, not access to weapons. The fact that there are more suicides than homicides should be an eye opener. Suicide prevention starts with parents and teachers making kids feel like they're worth something, and goes into friends and family forming support systems.
If you want to commit crimes and kill people, guns may make it a little easier, but they sure aren't the root cause. If you really want to kill yourself, there are plenty of other ways to do it besides firearms. And if you really, really want to kill yourself, that's between you and your maker.
August 12th, 2011 05:01 PM
I'll come out and say i didn't bother to read it, for one big reason, doesn't matter what they say it will be spun into whatever somebody wants it to say by being cherry picked and out right lied about. We've learned this already.
I know not what this "overkill" means.
Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.
August 12th, 2011 05:06 PM
Publish or perish. The report is an entry in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Not sure how the OP makes the leap from CDC to The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion unless he's referring to the part about not selling to those who have a history of mental illness.
It's impossible for the government to legislate a solution to suicide or homicide. Sociologists presume with hubris to be running our lives. Sometimes it sticks and they get their government grant. Even a rare success can make a career.
The natural RKBA (that our government guarantees as our founders designed) is unassailable by nanny-state gun grabbers' reports on firearms deaths. As the OP says, "[The article] does suggest that further restrictions on legitimate gun owners are not useful."
That's an understatement since some of the highest rates of firearms deaths occur in the most restrictive cities.
Personal responsibility to secure weapons from unsafe handlers as are those with mental illness (chronic or acute to borrow from Ken Kesey - documented or not) is the only legitimate response to firearms deaths. Sometimes we may be aware of a combustible potential. If suspicions rise to the level of great concern, then emergency 911 or the suicide hotline are better than a lifetime of regret.
Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
August 12th, 2011 05:50 PM
No flames here...I'm as cool as a cucumber. You appear to be the one that is angry and attempting to turn this into a personal attack. You have failed to respond to the questions I posed, as well as ignoring the questions from "SIGguy229" and others.
Originally Posted by DoctorBob
Furthermore I have not refered to you as anything other than "Dr Bob" or "sir", I request the same level of respect in return. I am not now, nor have I ever been "DUDE".
You and I obviously have different opinoins, Your opinion doesn't make you right any more than mine makes me right. I'm simply not buying what you're selling. Just because you have drank the "kool-aid" and swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker doesn't mean I am willing to nibble the same bait.
Honestly I have listened to the same "flawed logic" about gun control since 1968. The faces and the voices change, but it is the same load of fertilizer.
I think our "disagreement" started over House Bill 155, with regard to Doctors asking minor children questions about guns.
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree, and wait for resoultion from the courts.
I did not simply choose my moniker because it was "gitchy" or easy to spell.
You've made up your mind about things and indicated that nothing will change your mind.
Have a good weekend sir.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
August 12th, 2011 11:04 PM
THe CDC did a study some years ago and concluded that there was no evidence that any gun laws reduced the amount of violence committed by individuals using guns.
The same study concluded that in developed countries, suicide was much higher in countries other than the US. Where guns were tightly restricted, or even totally banned, citizens simply found other means to take their own lives. They could find NO correlation that easy access to guns increased the number of suicides.
Guns still are not the problem, according to this international study.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
August 13th, 2011 08:04 AM
It's not gun control, it's a study. Why do you think a study from anywhere has a bias. You'd have to show evidence of that. The study here, does not show overwhelming danger from gun use. It shows a danger. Not accepting what IS is the mark of bias.
Originally Posted by Stubborn
CDC's studies of death/injury from car accidents show a great danger. Is that due to anti-car bias. Of course not, any study from anywhere shows the same.
Accusing anyone or any organization for bias because their data indicate something you'd rather not have true, is ....... bias.
The CDC studies public health. Death from disease or accident gives the country a basis for prioritizing action in the public's health - and sometimes gives a warning call that a hazard to health exits that was not known to be at the time. "Disease Control" ? You believe injury which seriously interrupts normal physical equilibrium should not be studied unless it is caused by a biological organism? The only reason you insist on that, instead of welcoming study from any event that does the same to a significant degree, is because you don't like the gun part. Not a good reason. Next time, say, in study of any radioactive damage from nuclear plants, tell them to stop it in your area when they announce there are levels that are extreme and lethal. Tell them they have no business doing that because it's not a disease.
Search tags for this page
cdc banned from keep firearms stats
cdc defensive gun use
cdc gun propaganda
cdc gun violence statistics
cdc gun violence statistics 2011
cdc report 2009 gun violence
cdc report on gun laws
cdc report on gun violence
cdc reports on gun violence
defensive gun use cdc
nra stop cdc from violence reports
report on 2nd amendment on gun rights
Click on a term to search for related topics.