2nd amendment and the CDC report on Gun violence. - Page 3

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; Originally Posted by walleye It's not gun control, it's a study. Why do you think a study from anywhere has a bias. You'd have to ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: 2nd amendment and the CDC report on Gun violence.

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    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.
    Previous studies from the CDC in regards to guns/gun control read like propaganda from Brady Inc. Thus, the well is poisoned against objectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    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.
    And water is still wet...what is your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    Accusing anyone or any organization for bias because their data indicate something you'd rather not have true, is ....... bias.
    When anyone or any organization have already been proven in their bias by specifically excluding parts of their data or inclusion of other, irrelevant data to justify results/pre-determined conclusion is dishonest. It isn't bias if it's true. Read some of the previous studies where they include 18, 19, 20 yr old men as "children" when counted as "gun deaths"...where they exclude justifiable homicides where these same men are killed in the commission of a crime and killed by the victim.

    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    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.
    OK....so why do they specifically call out guns? Why not hammers?
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    "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.
    Love the red herring argument. I guess we're done here, because you've taken your ball and are going home?
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You 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


  2. #32
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by SIGguy229 View Post
    Previous studies from the CDC in regards to guns/gun control read like propaganda from Brady Inc. Thus, the well is poisoned against objectivity.

    And water is still wet...what is your point?
    I don't like subscribing automatic fraud to anyone who presents something that I don't like. You or anyone who says a collection of data is intentionally false - and you say here this is false because the CDC is always anti-gun and false - are the accusers. Come up with facts of erroneous data because you're the one who makes those statements - the burden of "proof", (or here supporting your statement with facts), falls on you.

    A collection of data is just that - there is no experiment to be criticized for its protocol. It's presentation of data collected from public official sources. If the data is wrong, show that.

    Look, if the average number of people killed or seriously injured in municipal areas from gun-use is 5.2 out of 100,000, that means the percentage of occurrence is 5 ten-thousandths of one percent: 0.00052%.** If an organization was anti-gun and into fraudulent data they could do better than THAT. It means there's a lethal danger from use of guns and because of it's lethality it is significant. But at the same time, the occurrence is very infrequent.


    I don't think think that's so bad and anti-gun-like.


    (** 5.2 out of 100 would be .052 on a percent-basis.
    ---5.2 out of 1000 would be .0052 percent
    ---5.2 out of 10,000 would be .00052 percent
    ---5.2 out of 100,000 would be .000052 percent)
    DoctorBob likes this.

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078
    Quote Originally Posted by walleye View Post
    I don't like subscribing automatic fraud to anyone who presents something that I don't like. You or anyone who says a collection of data is intentionally false - and you say here this is false because the CDC is always anti-gun and false - are the accusers. Come up with facts of erroneous data because you're the one who makes those statements - the burden of "proof", (or here supporting your statement with facts), falls on you.

    A collection of data is just that - there is no experiment to be criticized for its protocol. It's presentation of data collected from public official sources. If the data is wrong, show that.
    I've already done my homework...I've been reading about this for years...my position is based on reading gov't and other organizations "studies"--I believe you are naive to believe that data isn't manipulated to reach a pre-determined conclusion...

    Stepping back from this little snit of discussion--here's the point I think you're missing--studies that are cited for gun control measures (especially from recognized professional organizations), regardless of whether they are factual (or if the organization has the expertise to come to such a conclusion) are used in the gun control debate. It's these little snippets that make the soundbites on the evening news....especially if it furthers the position of gun control proponents. The ignorant masses believe what the CDC/ADA/PTA tells them and then, ergo, guns are bad/evil tools that shoot school-seeking bullets...

    Looking at what you cited...what is "gun-use"--would that be defensive shootings or would that be crimes used during criminal activity? Not to mention--you're looking at a static number....wanna bet in the next "study" it goes up?? (i.e. if the 5.2/100K then becomes 7.7/100K...then gun-use has gone up 50%...oh the horrors!) Its not what they show you, it's what they aren't showing you. Studies are useless without the raw data and context (legal shooting vs criminal activity) to re-create and see if others get the same results. It's called peer review...and I don't believe this study was reviewed by another organization.
    Harryball and Gforty like this.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You 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

  4. #34
    Distinguished Member Array claude clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    ct
    Posts
    1,942
    ultimately there are a number of different groups goaling the removal of handguns from society.
    each group, most acting independent of one another,have an agenda--suicide, random violence, homicide, robbery, etc.
    taken individually no one seems to be an overwhelming threat to the 2nd amendment.
    the sum of the many though--that is akin to being nibbled to death by goldfish.
    starts off almost humorous as it kinda tickles and them little guys can't harm big old me.
    but are we now starting to notice the stream turning red and thats our leg floating by....

    DocBob...that is a bit of why 'we' are instant off on the CDC saying anything--been too many who hardly seem to have the credentials to know how guns fit into
    our society yet are fast to say how it should be changed; lot of nibbling and some outright slashing happening lately.

    ramble off
    Arthritis sucks big-big
    -------------------
    Why do those elected to positions of power than work so hard
    to deny those same opportunities to the same people who empowered them

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array TerriLi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,231
    walleye I am not a mod, but I would be careful not to be the new Selfdefense. search out that member profile and take a look at his post history.
    I know not what this "overkill" means.

    Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,118
    I'm sorry but I have no interest in reading the CDC report. Gun violence is NOT a disease, so there's really no reason the CDC needs to be involved one way or the other in firearms at all.
    tangoseal likes this.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    I've read the report. It's all statistics. All of it. If there's any agenda on the part of the CDC other than trying to save lives, then I'm too dense to see it. The only recommendation that they make is that any emphasis on reducing the number of deaths from firearms should focus on youth. Considering the number of kids killed by guns these days, I don't have much of a problem with that. Other opinions may differ.
    DoctorBob likes this.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  8. #38
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Cartoon network - Adult Swim - Had a quote on their black back ground screen they showed once during commercial...

    "It is fact that 75% of statistics are made up"

    I just thought that statistic about statistics was quite humorous!
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #39
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    I am new here and that makes me somewhat of an unknown quantity in regards to my stances so will try to offer some perspective. I am new to the gun culture. Socially, I am very libertarian and strongly believe in keeping the govt out of my bedroom, so to speak. My wife and I have recently applied for our carry (and purchase) permits and once they are completed, we plan to become owners both for home defense and for carry. I live in a state that has what seems to be excellent reciprocity with other states but is draconian in regards to where I am allow to carry. The legislature in the state had massive turnover in the last election to one that is more gun rights friendly than in the past 100 years. For these reasons I am very concerned about anti-gun propaganda and its effects. I believe most of it is made up, distorted and omits key facts to push an agenda and I agree with most of the posts in this thread.

    However, in this one instance, my take on the article in question is that its focus is on recognizing that there is a problem with youth gun violence in cities and that addressing it requires behavior changes, education especially in regards to conflict resolution, and modification of the social dynamics that spark the violence. I don't see that it advocates restrictions or legislation which it even pretty much says are not effective.

    If we are going to combat the anti-gun lobby, we need to be smart about how we go about it. We know that they will use statistics and manipulate them to show their lies, remembering one of my favorite quotes from a high school teacher: "figures don't lie but liars do figure". As well as showing their figures as BS, we will need to present our own figures. In addition we will also need to provide alternative solutions, other than legislative restrictions, to the perceived problems. It is unfortunate but Joe Idiot equates a legal, licensed gun owner with the insane criminals and the only answer they see is to take away the tools of the trade, i.e. the guns. Just like after the recent incident in AZ, the mob response was to ban higher capacity magazines because if he only had fewer bullets.... As I said above, to win this fight, it is going to be necessary to get the gun opponents to see the problem AND SOLUTION for what they are, a society behavior problem, rather than a gun problem. In my opinion, while the CDC may be part of the problem establishment, that gun violence is a behavior, not gun problem, was the conclusion reached by this article.
    DoctorBob likes this.

  10. #40
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene83 View Post
    I've read the report. It's all statistics. All of it. If there's any agenda on the part of the CDC other than trying to save lives, then I'm too dense to see it. The only recommendation that they make is that any emphasis on reducing the number of deaths from firearms should focus on youth. Considering the number of kids killed by guns these days, I don't have much of a problem with that. Other opinions may differ.
    Yes. Moreover:

    If the CDC had been found to have falsified data in this study and throughout it's past it would have been front page for all major press and prime reports on TV-media; scientists and administrators there would have been charged by Federal prosecutors. The CDC is frequently in the public-eye from everything from possible virus mutations to anthrax-attacks, hence the public is frequently very aware and dependent on this agency for public health and safety. It's fraud wouldn't be a secret known to a few.

    That this study finds gun-use in accidents have severe effects on humans is not a startling finding. Anyone who reads a newspaper know that. They simply have given numerical summation per a block of population (100,000, the usual one) to what everyone knows from ad-hoc cases - and that summation showed a low frequency of a great danger. If they did the same number-summation for fires would it show a bias against barbecues and stoves?

    Though some who habitually condemn data as fraud in the gun area have taken issue with certain accident/firearm studies of the CDC, neither the mainstream scientific community nor legal investigators have ever upheld these nor found fraud or grave scientific inaccuracy at the CDC.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078


    Yeah, who is going to investigate the CDC?....because investigating how they derive their data for gun use is of utmost importance and critical to national security... The only way to flesh out their report is through the peer review process...not a criminal investigation. But hey, keep throwing it out there....something will eventually stick....
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You 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

  12. #42
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    As I said above, to win this fight, it is going to be necessary to get the gun opponents to see the problem AND SOLUTION for what they are, a society behavior problem, rather than a gun problem. In my opinion, while the CDC may be part of the problem establishment, that gun violence is a behavior, not gun problem, was the conclusion reached by this article.
    You are assuming that gun opponents WANT to see the problem and a solution for it. They dont. They dont care. They just want to take your guns. There are evil people in this world and the most dangerous ones wear coats and ties. They aren't obvious, they are well mannered, well dressed and well educated and they are responsible for most of the ochestrated problems of society. They create problems so that they can offer solutions that make them more money, and above that more power.

    Gun Control is about power. That is all its ever been and it is all its ever going to be. Period.

    How they recieve,achieve,beg,borrow or steal that power is irrevelant, the end result is the same.

    So the CDC put out a report that gun violence os a behavior, not a gun problem.

    Whoop dee do.

    What may be a revelation to them has been common knowledge to most of us for quite some time and we didnt need an some report from some elite club with a long history of a gun control agenda to enlighten us.
    SIGguy229 likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    I propose we make the national "WGAC" Agency and send all employees of all 3 letter agencies there for mandatory permanent training.

    "Who gives a Care".
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #44
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,885
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    You are assuming that gun opponents WANT to see the problem and a solution for it. They dont. They dont care. They just want to take your guns. There are evil people in this world and the most dangerous ones wear coats and ties. They aren't obvious, they are well mannered, well dressed and well educated and they are responsible for most of the ochestrated problems of society. They create problems so that they can offer solutions that make them more money, and above that more power.

    Gun Control is about power. That is all its ever been and it is all its ever going to be. Period.

    How they recieve,achieve,beg,borrow or steal that power is irrevelant, the end result is the same.
    A very enlightening post, thank you. I see and understand what you are saying. I admit that I haven't really considered the anti crowd in terms of being a power grab. Rather I have always thought of them as being the half thinking idiots that act out of fear and lack of understanding. While I agree, as you put it, "we don't need some report from some elite club to enlighten us", it is also US that don't need the enlightenment. It is the largely silent, relatively open minded, politically moderate individual that represents 75-80% of the country. Those on the extreme ends have already made up their minds and they will not be reasoned with. Fortunately, this is not the case with many of those in the middle, which is a group that I include myself in. Until recently, I was completely uneducated and unaware of gun law, concealed carry, and the associated politics. To me, gun control was something that I disagreed with purely because it was a worthless govt regulation, but really didn't affect me in any way. The thing is that in order to persuade these groups, which we must in order to be successful, the message needs to come through organizations that they trust or at least see as not being a special interest stake holder. While WE may disagree with and dislike organizations like the CDC, we must remain vigilant and work towards ensuring that the messages that these organizations put out are factual, at least to the extent possible because others will pay attention to them.

  15. #45
    Member Array randian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    And the Center for Disease Control cares about my guns why?
    For the same reason Florida pediatricians were grilling children about their parent's guns.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors