Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumRepublicans Say No to CDC Gun Violence Research
"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," he said less than a week after the Newtown shootings. He told a local TV station that he wanted to see more research done to understand mass shootings. "Let's let the data lead rather than our political opinions."
For nearly 20 years, Congress has pushed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to steer clear of firearms violence research. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, Kingston has been in a position to change that. Soon after Sandy Hook, Kingston said he had spoken to the head of the agency. "I think we can find some common ground," Kingston said.
More than a year later, as Kingston competes in a crowded Republican primary race for a US Senate seat, the congressman is no longer talking about common ground.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/republicans-say-no-cdc-gun-violence-research
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)In accordance with the SOP of this group?
hlthe2b
(102,119 posts)collected/studied. It serves the agenda of those who don't wish to have the facts made clear.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)none of them were peer reviewed, and the James Kellerman study was completely debunked by criminologists. In 1987 the DoJ hired sociologists James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi review the studies. They found that the studies were so biased and shoddy they were not worth the money We the People paid for them. Another criminologist, Lawrence Southwick, compared them to NRA worse than NRA propaganda in terms of scholarly rigor.
Remember the government studies that said pot was the gateway to heroin? Same thing.
In other words, We the People were paying for political propaganda dressed up as "science". You might have a problem with that, but I do.
Have you noticed that the NRA and "radical gunners" never objected to the DoJ studies? Also, have you noticed that gun control advocates never cite those studies even going as far as calling the researchers "NRA shills"?
hlthe2b
(102,119 posts)Enough said
clffrdjk
(905 posts)You didn't even try to counter any of his points. Are your arguments just that weak?
hlthe2b
(102,119 posts)has done for decades. And, yes, I countered his ignorance on CDC, its mission and those who work there.
You, on the other hand....
clffrdjk
(905 posts)Your counter on the cdc was to say that they employ other people than the ones that they used to perform studies in the past. Great job, though it proves no point nor does it counter the above arguments. You know the ones dealing with peer reviewing the cdc's past studies or lack there of until the DOJ took a look at them and called them bogus.
I stick to what I know, and I know that this is not my topic. But I do know a bogus argument/ poorly hidden insult when I see one.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)advocating junk science but not supporting the work done with the NIJ makes your motives transparent.
Enough said.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Anyone trots out, when it comes to gun ownership or the RKBA. These studies are approaching gun ownership as a Public Health issue, not an issue of personal freedom. That is because that is the only hope they have for getting the type of Gun Prohibitionism they desire exacted in this country. They are not going to get what you want otherwise. And I, and other gun owners are not going to let our rights and freedoms be eroded in this manner.
Advocates of Public Health fail to impress me with many of their studies. This or that causes cancer, this or that prevents cancer. Don't eat that, eat this. Don't drink this or that, it cause cancer. According to these "advocates" almost everything is hazardous in some way. When I read about some advocates of Public Health in "progressive" nations like the UK, seriously advocated that all knives have rounded ends to prevent stabbing, it shows how outlandish their positions can become.
I fully accept Global Warming exists, so do not lump me and other Gun Owners with Global Warming Deniers because we refuse to accept the ideological driven data about Gun Ownership and Gun Control. I am not going to let any other Advocate of Public Health tell me how to live in my personal life.
hlthe2b
(102,119 posts)Uggh. I do not see how that anti-science, anti-fact attitude is at all consistent with Democratic (or democratic) values... I doubt I am alone in feeling that way.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you would have to say no too. So why isn't anyone saying no to gun research done by DoJ's National Institute of Justice? Oh wait, that is the stuff done by James Wright and Gary Kleck that gun control advocates call "NRA shills."
The law does not prevent legitimate research, it only prevents advocacy and lobbying. ER Docs are not scientists and science is never settled.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009201059.htm
hlthe2b
(102,119 posts)That statement is absolute BS. Nowhere is more appropriate with the specific expertise to study gun-related violence than CDC.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)ER docs like Kellermann. They have experts in public health and biology, not sociology. Epidemiologists are excellent at studying infections, but not sociology or crime. So why were the CDC studies so bogus? Why were they not peer reviewed? Why did researchers like Kellermann tell criminologists to pound sand when asked for his data for peer review? If it can't be replicated by an independent third party, it isn't real science.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131009201059.htm
hlthe2b
(102,119 posts)You know nothing about CDC, apparently.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the grants were given to ER docs like Kellermann. Kellermann's piss poor study was the reason the money was lost. If you read the law, there has never been a ban on legitimate research. The ban only extends to promoting and advocating. Of course, the CDC was under different management at the time.
None of the studies were done by CDC staff. The latest study done by the CDC staff after Sandy Hook ago was actually good. It pissed on both sides quite well.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
Among the findings:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results.
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston: The latest study done by the CDC staff after Sandy Hook ago was actually good. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
Don't these 3 findings by the CDC study you linked to, tend to prove the point that more research is needed?:
1 Controlling access to guns through background checks or restrictions on particular types of firearms remains controversial, and the effectiveness of various types of control is inadequately researched.
2 .... state laws designed to ameliorate the risk of firearm use by those that abuse alcohol differ, and there is a lack of data on the basis for these laws or on their effectiveness..
3 ... Firearm safety education programs are widespread in public schools, but they are inadequately studied..
Johnston's other points, from above linked CDC:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
... Well true, but only by about 15% or so less likely; & the upshot is that if you ARE injured by an attacker, the armed defender will get more severely injured due drawing his gun.
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:>>>> Pffft, hardly common, it's just that dgu's are not uncommon.
2b: .. defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
FBI only pegs dgus about 200,000 per year; Gary Kleck said that 54% of dgu's involved a verbal dgu, such as 'go away or I'll get my gun', in other words a gun was never shown or maybe not even present. (Since some of these verbals might later have escalated & a gun produced, the actual verbal dgu likely about 33% imo.) Some dgu's are imaginary dgu's as well, scaring off the homeless man rummaging the trash can.
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
The reason accidental firearm deaths are declining is because of stricter gun control storage efforts in gun control states, which tend to have the lower accidental gundeath rates, on a demographically similar basis.
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides
No, firearm suicide deaths are not the 'vast majority', when they account for approx. 60% of total gundeaths in USA, they're the solid majority but not the vast majority. Did CDC really phrase it this way? or is it you paraphrasing J?
I agree though, that Kellerman's finding of 23 times more dangerous with a gun in the home being way too high. I think it's only about 8 times more dangerous with a gun in the home.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)doing real science, not doing shill studies that are really political rants dressed up as a study. Since the ban is only on advocacy, and not on research, I don't see the problem. I find the "research ban" lie really tiresome. The fact that gun control activists are whining about that says more about them than the NRA.
The NIJ has been doing fairly decent work even during the "ban". Since We the People are paying for these studies, all studies should have the following strings attached:
1) all data and methods must be made available to anyone who asks for it.
2) studies must be done by credentialed researchers in that area (in this case criminologists and sociologists.)
3) the study must be submitted to peer review journals in that area (in this case, criminology).
4) study becomes public domain and available for free down load or purchase for the cost of printing
5) the study, critiques, reason for rejection if any, and counter studies shall also be made available in the public domain for public access.
6) no press releases
Break the rules, the IRS gets our money back. Don't like the rules, go to Bloomberg or the Joyce Foundation.
Among the few flaws:
#1) failed to state how he determined that the gun used belonged in the home or had been brought into it by someone else.
#2) failed to account for other risk factors like drug use, criminals or criminal activity in the home. According to his study’s Table 3, 53% of the case study households contained at least one adult who had been arrested. So 0.47 times 13.64 leaves 6.4 TML.
#3) Most of the killings didn’t actually occur “in the home,” According to Kellerman’s own figures, only 23.9% of the homicides happened in the home of the victim.
#4) Kellerman’s study includes suicides committed with guns. The problem with that is he did no research to determine if the “victim” acquired the weapon solely in order to commit suicide or if they used it as a “method of opportunity.”
#5) Dr. Kellerman seems to believe that killing someone is the only way to use a gun defensively.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)into "common ground" if you expand the definition of that term into dirt used as a berm at a shooting range. None of those rounds injured or killed a living thing.
I do remember one time when I was walking through a field and for no reason a wasp stung me on my chin. It then flew into a bush. I borrowed a 12 gauge shotgun from a friend and blew him away. Therefore I can't claim that I have never killed something with a firearm.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)to be used to kill. Always aim to kill, not to maim. Even when hunting. That is the first thing one is taught in a gun class, the military or even the Boy Scouts. If that is not taught then it is negligent. I target practice with targets. Not dirt. Though a berm is usually behind the target.
Target practice is to insure one does not miss. Even some competitive shooters are employed as snipers. Though it is a low percentage. A wasp does not exit from the larvae shell with it's soul purpose to kill. It will use the only weapon it has if it feels threatened. I am allergic to wasp stings and could die if stung yet I would not waste a bullet on a wasp. Human's who "innocently" think guns and bullets are fun are usually children who find daddy's 45 and accidentally kill their sibling or playmate. Though I do enjoy shooting at a target. I have never killed anyone but I am enough of an expert shooter to know where to aim if the following three things are present in total. 1. I am threatened. 2. The intent to kill me is present. (and) 3. The means to kill me is present.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)
Always aim to kill, not to maim.
12 Ga. vs. wasp...I don't think only maiming it is much of a risk.
BigAlanMac
(59 posts)You need to read up more on wasps.
Many wasps are predators that prey on other insects & animals and do, in fact, use their stings to kill, or at least paralyze their prey.
That is true of many venomous animals (insects, arachnids, or reptiles) regardless of the opinions of some blissninnie biologists that try to make believe that evolution would provide those weapons only for protection and not for acquiring food to survive.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)
krispos42
(49,445 posts)..protruding pistol grips.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just ordered another C&R rifle with those scary things
locks
(2,012 posts)I do know the CDC and its research; it is admired and followed all over the world. 10,000 of our children are injured and killed by guns every year; twice as many of them die from guns as from cancer. Why would we not want to study this very real health issue and find ways to protect our children.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The folks who take the CDC money to create a "gun study" usually no very little about the topic even after they do the "research".
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)to lend legitimacy. But more likely, they are used like excess refrigeration for Lone Star & Pearl beer: To hold down the stink.