• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CDC report on gun violence in the US.

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Politics: Obama orders CDC gun violence study, study shreds his position | CainTV

Earlier this year, President Obama signed a set of executive orders targeting gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. Among them was an edict commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. Clearly, once the CDC produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, the American people would be eager to approve and fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - Link to the CDC Report

At least that was the plan. The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. The anti-gun crowd has been awfully quiet about it. Could it be that it didn't support their bogus hypothesis?

In a word, Yes. The CDC's numbers basically back every pro-gun rights argument made over the course of the last year.

First and foremost, the majority of annual gun-related deaths are due to suicide, not crime.

No wonder we havent heard a peep from the anti-gun crowd on this report.
 

Diving Mullah

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
863
Location
Planet Earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Excellent...While I appreciate the pseudo digest version of Cain TV at what CDC report might Say...One can not forget the immortals words of Herman Cain who said...I don't have any facts to prove this but I believe blah blah..blah...

So I prefer to hear CDC research from the horses mouth....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

firearms.png



which actually brings me to another point... I personally love my penis extenders as much as the next guy...But if CDC report was ever so positive regarding gun violence you would think, republican congress would double its fund and pride the report everywhere, yet instead they cut the funding and banned CDC explicitly from researching Gun ownership and Guns violence. The very law that was actually written by NRA lobbyist!!!

Gun Violence: How Research on an American Health Crisis Has Been Suppressed

Gun Violence: How Research on an American Health Crisis Has Been Suppressed - Forbes

I wait for CDC report but I suspect their finding will exactly be what they had already found before the funding was cut and they were banned by Republican Congress in desperate attempt to hush the report...

according to CDC....

1) One of the critical studies that we supported was looking at the question of whether having a firearm in your home protects you or puts you at increased risk. This was a very important question because people who want to sell more guns say that having a gun in your home is the way to protect your family.

What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent, almost three times as high.

It also showed that the risk that someone in your home would commit suicide went up. It went up five-fold if you had a gun in the home. These are huge, huge risks, and to just put that in perspective, we look at a risk that someone might get a heart attack or that they might get a certain type of cancer, and if that risk might be 20 percent greater, that may be enough to ban a certain drug or a certain product.

But in this case, we're talking about a risk not 20 percent, not 100 percent, not 200 percent, but almost 300 percent or 500 percent. These are huge, huge risks.

2) We were collecting information to answer the question of who, what, where, when, and how did shootings occur?

We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions.

We also found that there were a lot of firearm suicides, and in fact most firearm deaths are suicides. There were a lot of young people who were impulsive who were using guns to commit suicide.

3) Let's say you look at robbery associated homicides, and you find that in those homicides certain weapons are used in almost all of them and that these weapons come from a limited number of sources and that those weapons are not used by people to defend their home or to hunt or to target shoot. Then you can say, "Here's a type of weapon that seems to be only used in criminal enterprises and doesn't seem to have any legitimate uses, and maybe we ought to find a way to restrict the sales or access to that type of weapon."

I think it's also important to look at what the impact of these data might be.

If you look at how many deaths have occurred between 1996, when there was this disruption to surveillance and research, and now, so that's 16 years, and if you assume that there are about 30,000 gun deaths every year, you're talking about 480,000 gun deaths over that period of time.

If even a fraction of those deaths could have been prevented, you're talking about a significant impact in terms of saving lives.

4)The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.

These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't.

I don't think those studies were fully funded or completed.

.....What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding - ProPublica


I know this flies in the face of NRA propaganda....but fact are fact... and perhaps the very reason congress kill the research and republicans are flailing at Obama giving the order...

My moto is....Don't make facts you enemy and you won't be so scared at seeing it.

Diving Mullah
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,383
Reaction score
5,304
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Excellent...While I appreciate the pseudo digest version of Cain TV at what CDC report might Say...One can not forget the immortals words of Herman Cain who said...I don't have any facts to prove this but I believe blah blah..blah...

So I prefer to hear CDC research from the horses mouth....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

firearms.png



which actually brings me to another point... I personally love my penis extenders as much as the next guy...But if CDC report was ever so positive regarding gun violence you would think, republican congress would double its fund and pride the report everywhere, yet instead they cut the funding and banned CDC explicitly from researching Gun ownership and Guns violence. The very law that was actually written by NRA lobbyist!!!



I wait for CDC report but I suspect their finding will exactly be what they had already found before the funding was cut and they were banned by Republican Congress in desperate attempt to hush the report...

according to CDC....

1) One of the critical studies that we supported was looking at the question of whether having a firearm in your home protects you or puts you at increased risk. This was a very important question because people who want to sell more guns say that having a gun in your home is the way to protect your family.

What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent, almost three times as high.

It also showed that the risk that someone in your home would commit suicide went up. It went up five-fold if you had a gun in the home. These are huge, huge risks, and to just put that in perspective, we look at a risk that someone might get a heart attack or that they might get a certain type of cancer, and if that risk might be 20 percent greater, that may be enough to ban a certain drug or a certain product.

But in this case, we're talking about a risk not 20 percent, not 100 percent, not 200 percent, but almost 300 percent or 500 percent. These are huge, huge risks.

2) We were collecting information to answer the question of who, what, where, when, and how did shootings occur?

We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions.

We also found that there were a lot of firearm suicides, and in fact most firearm deaths are suicides. There were a lot of young people who were impulsive who were using guns to commit suicide.

3) Let's say you look at robbery associated homicides, and you find that in those homicides certain weapons are used in almost all of them and that these weapons come from a limited number of sources and that those weapons are not used by people to defend their home or to hunt or to target shoot. Then you can say, "Here's a type of weapon that seems to be only used in criminal enterprises and doesn't seem to have any legitimate uses, and maybe we ought to find a way to restrict the sales or access to that type of weapon."

I think it's also important to look at what the impact of these data might be.

If you look at how many deaths have occurred between 1996, when there was this disruption to surveillance and research, and now, so that's 16 years, and if you assume that there are about 30,000 gun deaths every year, you're talking about 480,000 gun deaths over that period of time.

If even a fraction of those deaths could have been prevented, you're talking about a significant impact in terms of saving lives.

4)The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.

These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't.

I don't think those studies were fully funded or completed.

.....What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding - ProPublica


I know this flies in the face of NRA propaganda....but fact are fact... and perhaps the very reason congress kill the research and republicans are flailing at Obama giving the order...

My moto is....Don't make facts you enemy and you won't be so scared at seeing it.

Diving Mullah

well you just posted the overall death rate including suicide,not just the crime rate,so how can you try to claim any information about gun violence when you have unrelated data used in a general counting to assault a specific point,its about as sensible as using overall car deaths to attack drinking and driving.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Excellent...While I appreciate the pseudo digest version of Cain TV at what CDC report might Say...One can not forget the immortals words of Herman Cain who said...I don't have any facts to prove this but I believe blah blah..blah...

So I prefer to hear CDC research from the horses mouth....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

firearms.png



which actually brings me to another point... I personally love my penis extenders as much as the next guy...But if CDC report was ever so positive regarding gun violence you would think, republican congress would double its fund and pride the report everywhere, yet instead they cut the funding and banned CDC explicitly from researching Gun ownership and Guns violence. The very law that was actually written by NRA lobbyist!!!



I wait for CDC report but I suspect their finding will exactly be what they had already found before the funding was cut and they were banned by Republican Congress in desperate attempt to hush the report...

according to CDC....

1) One of the critical studies that we supported was looking at the question of whether having a firearm in your home protects you or puts you at increased risk. This was a very important question because people who want to sell more guns say that having a gun in your home is the way to protect your family.

What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent, almost three times as high.

It also showed that the risk that someone in your home would commit suicide went up. It went up five-fold if you had a gun in the home. These are huge, huge risks, and to just put that in perspective, we look at a risk that someone might get a heart attack or that they might get a certain type of cancer, and if that risk might be 20 percent greater, that may be enough to ban a certain drug or a certain product.

But in this case, we're talking about a risk not 20 percent, not 100 percent, not 200 percent, but almost 300 percent or 500 percent. These are huge, huge risks.

2) We were collecting information to answer the question of who, what, where, when, and how did shootings occur?

We were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings. They're not mostly home intrusions.

We also found that there were a lot of firearm suicides, and in fact most firearm deaths are suicides. There were a lot of young people who were impulsive who were using guns to commit suicide.

3) Let's say you look at robbery associated homicides, and you find that in those homicides certain weapons are used in almost all of them and that these weapons come from a limited number of sources and that those weapons are not used by people to defend their home or to hunt or to target shoot. Then you can say, "Here's a type of weapon that seems to be only used in criminal enterprises and doesn't seem to have any legitimate uses, and maybe we ought to find a way to restrict the sales or access to that type of weapon."

I think it's also important to look at what the impact of these data might be.

If you look at how many deaths have occurred between 1996, when there was this disruption to surveillance and research, and now, so that's 16 years, and if you assume that there are about 30,000 gun deaths every year, you're talking about 480,000 gun deaths over that period of time.

If even a fraction of those deaths could have been prevented, you're talking about a significant impact in terms of saving lives.

4)The largest question in this category is what kind of larger policies work? Does it work, for example, if you have an assault weapon ban? Does that reduce the number of firearm injuries and deaths? In truth, we don't know the answer to that. That requires evaluation.

Does gun licensing and registration work to reduce firearm injuries and death? We don't have the answer.

The policies that make it easier to carry concealed weapons, do those reduce or do those increase firearm injuries and deaths? We don't have the answer. Do gun bans like they have in the city of Chicago, work? We don't have the answer yet to those.

These require large-scale studies of large numbers of people, over a long period of time to see if they work or don't.

I don't think those studies were fully funded or completed.

.....What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding - ProPublica


I know this flies in the face of NRA propaganda....but fact are fact... and perhaps the very reason congress kill the research and republicans are flailing at Obama giving the order...

My moto is....Don't make facts you enemy and you won't be so scared at seeing it.

Diving Mullah

You can pick and choose your CDC bullet points as well as I could pick and choose mine to make our points.

BUT the big misleading number you are not realizing is what is stated in the OP, that suicides are the leading cause of death by guns.
Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 19,392
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3

Those are 2010 numbers straight from the CDC website FASTSTATS - Suicide and Self-Inflicted Injury

You have listed on your post that in 2010 there were 31,672 deaths by guns....what you are overlooking is that 19,392 of them are self inflicted...they are not gun violence (as in acts against another person).

Which leaves 12280 other deaths from guns in 2010.

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

2010 CDC Numbers - FASTSTATS - Homicide

So, if only 11,078 people were murdered with guns in 2010....not the 31,672 you have posted.

The point of the Cain article was making is that not all gun deaths are attributed to gun violence....like the anti-gun proponents want to make you believe. In reality, about 1/3 of the deaths were from gun violence. But you always hear anti-gun advocates over look the true numbers for the higher ones because the higher ones help make their argument...This new CDC report (which I linked) breaks down the death rates and gives support to what the gun advocates have been saying for the past year.
 
Top Bottom