- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 432
- Location
- Kingdom of Nigh
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - Link to the CDC ReportEarlier 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.
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.
Politics: Obama orders CDC gun violence study, study shreds his position | CainTV
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - Link to the CDC Report
No wonder we havent heard a peep from the anti-gun crowd on this report.
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
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
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
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?