0
brenthutch

Shocking results from CDC gun violence study!

Recommended Posts

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

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:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, of course this is what legal gun owners have been saying since the beginning of the gun debates. It is only the progressive liberal power elite that want to destroy our Constitutional rights. I am amazed that the BHO bunch allowed the CDC to publish this report.

I guess the Congressional Democrats can get up off the floor now. That is if they have the strength.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

Well, of course this is what legal gun owners have been saying since the beginning of the gun debates. It is only the progressive liberal power elite that want to destroy our Constitutional rights. I am amazed that the BHO bunch allowed the CDC to publish this report.

I guess the Congressional Democrats can get up off the floor now. That is if they have the strength.



All of what you post and the fact that the left LOVES the CDC.

This report is going to leave a mark.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend



Your position debunked:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

Oh, and it was published in 2013.

You really are a VERY poor fact-checker.



:D


The Washington (com)Post????

Really???

:D:D
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of cute when a middle-schooler ends up with the statement "my hypothesis was correct" no matter what the data actually shows. That level of maturity, one expects it (but still downgrades the project because of poor science, and has a discussion with the student).

A well-constructed hypothesis isn't for confirming one's beliefs, it's to establish what the data, when carefully controlled for confounding factors, shows. That's not easy or necessarily even possible for most of the important questions.

Regardless, designing an experiment to prove, rather than disprove, a hypothesis, is lame. And looking for data to bolster your claims, rather than looking for and then evaluating your opinions, is also lame. It's easier to feel good doing the first, I'll grant you that.

It's also easy to feel good eating a dozen of those fresh-baked cookies and blow off exercising.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999



A well-constructed hypothesis isn't for confirming one's beliefs, it's to establish what the data, when carefully controlled for confounding factors, shows. That's not easy or necessarily even possible for most of the important questions.

Regardless, designing an experiment to prove, rather than disprove, a hypothesis, is lame. And looking for data to bolster your claims, rather than looking for and then evaluating your opinions, is also lame. It's easier to feel good doing the first, I'll grant you that.

Wendy P.



Nice post Wendy, that is what I have been saying to the Global Warmists for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brenthutch

***

Your position debunked:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

Oh, and it was published in 2013.

You really are a VERY poor fact-checker.



The WaPo did not debunk, it merely spun a report that is at odds with its editorial bend.

It got the date correct, UNLIKE YOU. So whom should we believe? You have already shown inability to comprehend.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

It's kind of cute when a middle-schooler ends up with the statement "my hypothesis was correct" no matter what the data actually shows. That level of maturity, one expects it (but still downgrades the project because of poor science, and has a discussion with the student).

A well-constructed hypothesis isn't for confirming one's beliefs, it's to establish what the data, when carefully controlled for confounding factors, shows. That's not easy or necessarily even possible for most of the important questions.

Regardless, designing an experiment to prove, rather than disprove, a hypothesis, is lame. And looking for data to bolster your claims, rather than looking for and then evaluating your opinions, is also lame. It's easier to feel good doing the first, I'll grant you that.

It's also easy to feel good eating a dozen of those fresh-baked cookies and blow off exercising.

Wendy P.



You are confusing topics Wendy
Your post should be addressed to the climate alarmists
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paragraph 5 is especially accurate.
A small-town (a fishing village up the coast) drug dealer bragged that he could buy any machine gun or rocket launcher he wanted.
Both classes of weapons are "prohibited" for Canadian civilians.

In the big city, repeat offenders routinely rent guns from other criminals. After the "hit" that gun goes into hiding for a few years. Most of those "hits" are against other organized criminals. Few innocent bystanders get shot in Vancouver.

There is a two-way trade across the Canada-Us border with marijuana going south in exchange for guns and hard drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend



Your position debunked:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

Oh, and it was published in 2013.

You really are a VERY poor fact-checker.



You call this debunking? From YOUR article:

"So it would appear the "good use" of guns outweighs the "bad use." That may be true, except the study says all of those statistics are in dispute -- creating, in the study authors' eyes, a research imperative."

The statistics are being disputed by agenda driven zealots like the one you see in the mirror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The statistics are being disputed agenda driven zealots like the one you see in the mirror.

Slow down, wipe the spittle off your monitor and take a deep breath! You are so angry you're starting to skip entire words in your replies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys are all still missing the MAIN POINT of the thread.

I believe Wendy says there are fresh baked cookies.
But WHERE are they?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

You guys are all still missing the MAIN POINT of the thread.

I believe Wendy says there are fresh baked cookies.
But WHERE are they?



In the easy bake oven?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

You guys are all still missing the MAIN POINT of the thread.

I believe Wendy says there are fresh baked cookies.
But WHERE are they?



Um...duh - obviously she ate them and is now skipping out on her pilates class.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

These 7 points, are they true, partially true, or false?

Derek V



The 7 points are what a CDC study found. Because the results were unexpected and run counter to the "guns are bad" narrative, the results are downplayed by the anti-gun crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brenthutch

***

Your position debunked:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

Oh, and it was published in 2013.

You really are a VERY poor fact-checker.



The WaPo did not debunk, it merely spun a report that is at odds with its editorial bend.

And I suppose Guns and Ammo, from which you plagiarized your post, is 100% objective and didn't spin anything.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heres some comment on some more recent data

Quote

Here's the raw data Cline cites in his article: between 1993-2013, the number of guns per person rose from 0.94 to 1.45. At the same time, the gun homicide rate fell 49%, from 7 to 3.6 per 100,000 people. Additionally, Pew reports that during roughly those same years, non-fatal gun victimizations have fallen from 725.3 to 174.8 per 100,000 people. It's not just homicides that are decreasing.

But everyone is worried about those big, bad "assault" rifles that are killing everybody. Cline pitches numbers from the FBI showing a nearly 30% increase in purchases of AR-15-style rifles between 2010-2014 yet, saw murders by those same rifles fall each year: "367 in 2010; 332 in 2011; 298 in 2012; 285 in 2013; and 248 in 2014."

"The data produce one inescapable conclusion," Cline states. "The entire premise for a new 'assault weapons' ban — that the proliferation of 'assault weapons' has led to unprecedented carnage — is completely untrue."


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

rushmc

Here some comment on some more recent data

Quote

Here's the raw data Cline cites in his article: between 1993-2013, the number of guns per person rose from 0.94 to 1.45. At the same time, the gun homicide rate fell 49%, from 7 to 3.6 per 100,000 people. Additionally, Pew reports that during roughly those same years, non-fatal gun victimizations have fallen from 725.3 to 174.8 per 100,000 people. It's not just homicides that are decreasing.

But everyone is worried about those big, bad "assault" rifles that are killing everybody. Cline pitches numbers from the FBI showing a nearly 30% increase in purchases of AR-15-style rifles between 2010-2014 yet, saw murders by those same rifles fall each year: "367 in 2010; 332 in 2011; 298 in 2012; 285 in 2013; and 248 in 2014."

"The data produce one inescapable conclusion," Cline states. "The entire premise for a new 'assault weapons' ban — that the proliferation of 'assault weapons' has led to unprecedented carnage — is completely untrue."



The mere fact that the above information was posted by rushmc, invalidates that information in kallendland. The idea that "more guns = more murders" has so much "truthiness" that lefties notions regarding guns, can not be swayed by data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******

Your position debunked:

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/

Oh, and it was published in 2013.

You really are a VERY poor fact-checker.



The WaPo did not debunk, it merely spun a report that is at odds with its editorial bend.

And I suppose Guns and Ammo, from which you plagiarized your post, is 100% objective and didn't spin anything.

Just as much as you are objective and don't spin anything.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0