Center for Disease Control gun violence study

Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by Alex MacDonald, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Obama ordered the CDC to study gun violence, apparently with an eye toward bolstering his argument about gun control. The study's out, having been released in June, but unfortunately it did anything but support his contentions, for better or worse, depending on your side of the debate. A synopsis says that most gun violence (61%) is suicide, not murder; that criminals don't get their firearms from legitimate sources, including gun shows, and that background checks would not have any effect on this; it also shows that defensive gun use is at least as common as gun crime, possibly much more so, and that the use of a firearm to defend against criminals is LESS likely to result in harm, rather than increase the chance of same. Further, the study said that "assault-style" weapons are used in an abysmally small proportion of gun violence, and reducing magazine capacity wouldn't impact this. The only bright spot for gun-control advocates was the finding that of all industrialized nations, America has the highest per-capita gun violence. However, it further stated that when the statistics for those cities and California, which have the most restrictive gun control laws are removed, the rest of the nation's gun violence rate isn't any higher than any other industrialized nation.
    Here's the study: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
     
  2. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,739
    Likes Received:
    3,133
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Well that's not the kind of study results that is going to get widespread circulation.

    Sg
     
    constructeur likes this.
  3. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Yeah, it's like, maybe, an "inconvenient truth"...
     
  4. hikepat

    hikepat Patrick

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Des Moines, WA, USA.
    UH OH! We're in statistical trouble
    The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000

    Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000

    Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.

    Guns:

    The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000

    The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500

    The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

    Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.

    Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
    owners.

    Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

    FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat immediatly. We must ban
    doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

    Note: Out of concern for the public at large, the statistics on lawyers have
    been withheld for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
    attention.


     
    Islander and freestoneangler like this.
  5. whalenblue

    whalenblue Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    North Carolina
    What in the world is the CDC doing in the realm of gun control? Oh, that's right... Gun ownership is a nasty disease, isn't it?
     
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  6. Gary Thompson

    Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,953
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    East Wenatchee, WA
    I knew I was not going to see my Doc for a reason. Thanks
    "Happiness is a warm gun"
     
  7. freestoneangler

    freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,883
    Likes Received:
    1,517
    Location:
    Edgewood, WA
    Interesting, both the report and numbers offered by hikepat. Where are our ever dependable rebuttalist's?
     
  8. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    all they have to do is keep repeating; "the sky is green, the sky is green, the sky is green". Pretty soon, the pain of being given the lie is lessened, and they can safely have a group hug.
     
  9. TheShadKing

    TheShadKing Will Fish For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    So I read the study. It doesn't actually draw any conclusions. All it talks about is goals for research.

    But whatever.
     
    SteveA likes this.
  10. SteveA

    SteveA Gnu to the board

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    Western WA
    You know what they say..."There's no room for facts on the internet." :)
     
  11. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Page 44 pretty much spells out the problem regarding "background" checks, and specifically mentions them as ineffective given the fact that criminals don't bother with them. If you skimmed the verbiage, you missed it. They appear to enjoy burying important stuff in the tonnage they spewed out.
     
  12. TheShadKing

    TheShadKing Will Fish For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=44

    I can read that slowly and carefully and can't draw the conclusion you draw, unless you mean to say background checks don't work because there are too many places to buy a gun that don't require background checks, and criminals use those places to buy guns. If that's what you mean, then we're in violent agreement.

    The Fleegler study mentioned on the page is here:
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

    and referenced here:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/guns-laws-mortality
     
  13. TheShadKing

    TheShadKing Will Fish For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    BTW, Alex, thanks for posting the link to the study. It was interesting reading and I hadn't seen it circulated.


    Rolland
     
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  14. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Yes, that's the problem; they don't buy their firearms from anything requiring a background check, so the only people it would affect are those who should legally be allowed to possess same. It makes the idea of background checks being used to prevent scum from obtaining them irrelevant. I've always thought the way to prevent some POS from doing harm is to render the POS into soap, or cat food. If, and it's a huge "F", the feds would go after each and every person who tried to get a gun illegally, I'd be a strong supporter of background checks. Not universal checks, mind you, but when you sell a gun to a stranger. The way it was written, the federal bill would have required a background check for someone who left his firearms to his son on his passing, or with a friend when he was forced to evacuate because of the Colockuum/Tarps fire. That's bullshit! In addition, until mental health data and restraining orders are included in some sort of national database, the idea of a background check won't hold water.

    So when you get down to it, without those things factored in, the only point of expanding the background checks is to harass already law-abiding people, and to add one more hurdle for decent folk. Why do that? Why not hassle the scum instead? Prosecute the fuckers-lock them up (or better yet, hang the bastards!).
     
  15. TheShadKing

    TheShadKing Will Fish For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    I totally agree that the new attempt at federal background checks was unworkable for a variety of reasons, including the ones you mention.

    However, I'm convinced that if you got responsible gun owners, instead of the fringe on both sides, and had them write a background check bill you'd come up with something entirely reasonable and completely enforceable.

    This would enable, over time, a significant and important reduction of guns in inappropriate hands, without requiring us to grant to the police the power to turn people into soap.


    Rolland