How the CDC succumbed to the gun "epidemic".

[jazzhound]

Here's a bit of history for those unfamiliar with the role of the CDC and health advocacy groups with regard to the gun rights/gun "control" debate:


"Last year Congress tried to take away $2.6 million from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In budgetary terms, it was a pittance: 0.1 percent of the CDC's $2.2 billion allocation. Symbolically, however, it was important: $2.6 million was the amount the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control had spent in 1995 on studies of firearm injuries. Congressional critics, who charged that the center's research program was driven by an anti-gun prejudice, had previously sought to eliminate the NCIPC completely. "This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America," wrote 10 senators, including then Majority Leader Bob Dole and current Majority Leader Trent Lott. "Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense."

"When CDC sources do cite adverse studies, they often get them wrong. In 1987 the National Institute of Justice hired two sociologists, James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, to assess the scholarly literature and produce an agenda for gun control. Wright and Rossi found the literature so biased and shoddy that it provided no basis for concluding anything positive about gun laws. Like Kleck, they were forced to give up their own prior faith in gun control as they researched the issue."

"As Bordua, Cowan, and Southwick observed, a prejudice against gun ownership pervades the public health field. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, nicely summarizes the typical attitude of her colleagues in a recent book. "My own view on gun control is simple," she writes. "I hate guns and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned." Opposition to gun ownership is also the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC's parent agency. Since 1979, its goal has been "to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," starting with a 25 percent reduction by the turn of the century."

"Three Kleck studies, the first published in 1987, have found that guns are used in self- defense up to three times as often as they are used to commit crimes. These studies are so convincing that the doyen of American criminologists, Marvin Wolfgang, conceded in the Fall 1995 issue of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology that they pose a serious challenge to his own anti-gun views. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear- cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator."

Entire article here:
http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots

[X_Digger]

1. k&r!

It always amazes me that no prohibitionist ever wonders why all anti-gun "research" seems to come from a handful of people (Kellerman, Hemenway, et al.) And why are they always so self-referential (Kellerman cites a study by Hemenway who cites another study by Kellerman who cites..)

If a study were valid, it would have to be repeatable. Why is it that nobody has repeated the studies that some posters like to bring up? I should say, someone other than the usual suspects repeating the study- but even when they attempt to repeat the same study, they often come up with wildly different results (always anti-gun, though)- e.g., Kellerman's study that asserts that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to harm than defend- yet a couple of years later, that 43 has dropped to 2.7.

I'll trust an epidemiologist with research on a social problem at the same time I trust a neurosurgeon with my "S" corp filings.

[jazzhound]

4. Yep -- the pro-"control" studies definitely get a pass from their constituency.

Kellerman's study that asserts that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to harm than defend- yet a couple of years later, that 43 has dropped to 2.7.

This example in and of itself should have been a career ender for Kellerman. Here's a guy who very literally debunked his own study! "Well..........I know I said 43 times, but what I should have said was 2.7 times. Sorry 'bout that." And this is only one of many problems associated with that "study". Of course our resident controllers don't even know what we're talking about here, and even if they did it wouldn't matter since scientific integrity is extremely low on their priority list in terms of "arguing" their "case". Kleck accurately points out that since the media is in the bag for gun control, it matters little to Kellerman, Hemenway and pals whether they report honestly because they know that once their nonsense is put to print their political purpose has been served. Their "studies" will automatically be treated as gospel by the health advocacy groups and printed without question or dissenting opinion. They have a system with a built-in incentive to distort and lie.

For an look at what the pro-control proponents are capable of, google Kleck's profound smackdown titled "Degrading Scientific Standards to Get the Defensive Gun Use Down". To date there has been no counter-rebuttal offered from Hemenway et al. No surprise there, of course.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. k and r

[mvccd1000]

3. K&R

Just to counter all the drive-by unrecs you'll get from people who are afraid of having their faith-based emotional arguments shot down by actual facts (as opposed to the anecdotal stories they like to post).

[jazzhound]

5. kicked n/t

[jody]

6. Outstanding article. Joyce and Annenberg foundations also fund studies & polls that use biased

methods to produce anti-RKBA conclusions.

The NORC poll is one such biased product.

Statistics don't lie but anti-RKBA reports lie with statistics.

[jazzhound]

7. kick NT

[jazzhound]

8. kick NT