Center for Disease Control gun violence study

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

  1. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +895 / 0
    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 Active Member

    Posts: 7,571
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,699 / 0
    Well that's not the kind of study results that is going to get widespread circulation.

    Sg
    constructeur likes this.
  3. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +895 / 0
    Yeah, it's like, maybe, an "inconvenient truth"...
  4. hikepat Patrick

    Posts: 1,803
    Des Moines, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +12 / 0
    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 Member

    Posts: 46
    North Carolina
    Ratings: +5 / 0
    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 dirty dog

    Posts: 3,891
    East Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +131 / 0
    I knew I was not going to see my Doc for a reason. Thanks
    "Happiness is a warm gun"
  7. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,138
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +791 / 1
    Interesting, both the report and numbers offered by hikepat. Where are our ever dependable rebuttalist's?
  8. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +895 / 0
    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 Will Fish For Food

    Posts: 261
    Bellevue, WA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    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 Gnu to the board

    Posts: 281
    Western WA
    Ratings: +33 / 0
    You know what they say..."There's no room for facts on the internet." :)
  11. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +895 / 0
    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 Will Fish For Food

    Posts: 261
    Bellevue, WA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    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 Will Fish For Food

    Posts: 261
    Bellevue, WA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    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 Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +895 / 0
    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 Will Fish For Food

    Posts: 261
    Bellevue, WA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    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
  16. Kirke New Member

    Posts: 17
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Guns, Gay Marriage, Abortion, wow hot beds. What do all three have in common? It is people attempting to impose their will on others. Now why don't we try this........ Mind your own business. If you do not agree with abortion by all means don't have one. If you do not agree with same sex marriage , do not marry someone of the same sex. Now guns; if you do not want to own a gun; do not buy one, with or with out a back ground check. Read the Constitution, put both hands in your pockets, shut up, mind your own business, and get ahold of yourself
  17. TheShadKing Will Fish For Food

    Posts: 261
    Bellevue, WA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    And so the civility ends. I'll see all y'all later.
  18. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,336
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +895 / 0
    The only way I'd support something like this is if, as you alluded, the moronic parts were eliminated, and it was than rigorously, harshly, and thoroughly enforced. I doubt that it would reduce firearms finding their way into inappropriate hands though, especially with the ACLU's reticence to allow mental health issues to be added to the mix. The recent mass shooters all had serious mental issues but were still legally able to get guns.

    To me, it's not the guns that are at issue: it's the "justice" system which slaps people on the wrist for most of the stuff they pull off. The murders of the Tuba Man come to mind real quick. But, in a world that's rapidly becoming jam packed with people, we're into "rehab".
  19. jwg Active Member

    Posts: 551
    West Richland, WA
    Ratings: +110 / 0
  20. TheShadKing Will Fish For Food

    Posts: 261
    Bellevue, WA
    Ratings: +4 / 0
    Yes, agreed.

    Yeah, the whole mental health thing is a bit of a conundrum, particularly with that funny statistic about 20% of all of us suffering from a mental health issue every year, and 50% of us over our lifetimes. And every time you turn around there's something new that you're probably suffering from. But clearly mandatory reporters ought to be able to report that "this person over here needs evaluation" and to have that evaluation taken seriously, HIPAA aside.

    Ayuh. Clearly guns were not the root cause.

    Or not into rehab, for that matter. The US has the highest incarceration worldwide, and I'd much rather pay for a junky to get rehab where he can be working and paying into the system, rather than having him or her stashed in a jail cell where we're all out tens of thousands of dollars a year.