why the cdc was stopped from attacking gun ownership....

[Steven_R]

If we're going to wring our hands and gnash our teeth over the statistically insignificant number of people killed by guns compared to the number of gun owners in this nation, we need to really take on the epidemic of medical murders.

Someone needs to stand up to the AMA! Doctor control now!

 

[ClosedCaption]

If we're going to wring our hands and gnash our teeth over the statistically insignificant number of people killed by guns compared to the number of gun owners in this nation, we need to really take on the epidemic of medical murders.

Someone needs to stand up to the AMA! Doctor control now!

That would be fine if there was a such thing as a "statiscally SIGNIFICANT number of people killed by guns". But everytime someone is asked they dont know what a significant number would be.

Is it a secret?

 

[Steven_R]

When guns kill the same numbers are avoidable medical mistakes, then that will be statistically significant.

 

[Rotagilla]

If we're going to wring our hands and gnash our teeth over the statistically insignificant number of people killed by guns compared to the number of gun owners in this nation, we need to really take on the epidemic of medical murders.

Someone needs to stand up to the AMA! Doctor control now!

exactly...a hundred million (or more) legal gun owners didn't kill anybody yesterday.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When guns kill the same numbers are avoidable medical mistakes, then that will be statistically significant.

Whats that number?

 

[Steven_R]

400,000 a year, or a mere 12 times the number of gun deaths. Deaths by medical mistakes hit records

 

[ClosedCaption]

400,000 a year, or a mere 12 times the number of gun deaths. Deaths by medical mistakes hit records

Half a million people before its statistically significant? Out of 300 Billion?

 

[Steven_R]

300 million in the US, not billion.

If 33,000 killed by guns each year in the US is a crisis, what about 400,000? Where are Moms Demand Action on that one? Why isn't the AMA getting as much hate as the NRA?

 

[Syriusly]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

You mean why the CDC was prevented from even keeping records of gun violence- or investigating gun violence?

Well the answer is that the NRA told Congress to prevent them from doing that, and Congress sat up and begged for more NRA treats.

 

[JoeB131]

C

And gun control worked like a charm…not one of those law abiding, normal people had a gun in the gun free zone……congratulations on the success of your law….

Mr. Dick Tiny thinks he's going to be the guy facing down the terrorist like Dirty Harry when he'd probably be cowering like Barney Fife.

 

[JoeB131]

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

Real Background checks. If you try to get a gun, we call your workplace and ask, "Hey, is it cool if this guy gets a gun?"

I'm betting his coworkers would have said "No" even before they shot them.

Again, we know everything there is to know about Sayed Farook and his wife within 24 hours of the incident. We know who they were talking to on social media, we'd know their travel plans.

We know that they were talking to people on the terror watch list. You know, the terror watch list that is not a obstacle to people buying guns because the NRA demanded that carve out.

 

[Defiant1]

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

Real Background checks. If you try to get a gun, we call your workplace and ask, "Hey, is it cool if this guy gets a gun?"

I'm betting his coworkers would have said "No" even before they shot them.

Again, we know everything there is to know about Sayed Farook and his wife within 24 hours of the incident. We know who they were talking to on social media, we'd know their travel plans.

We know that they were talking to people on the terror watch list. You know, the terror watch list that is not a obstacle to people buying guns because the NRA demanded that carve out.

So you have no problem removing someone's inherent rights without due process.

Nice to know comrade.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

This would be valid if they were for ANY STUDY AT ALL.

But since they are against studying it at all you have to consider that the CDC isnt the problem. Some people are against any study or guns period like the OP.

Wrong…the Department of Justice and the FBI study guns all day long…….and they get funding for it too….

yeah but do they study gun violence? And if so, tell me the answer that I already know to this question:

Do you accept or reject their findings?

Well....bill clinton had his Department of Justice study gun self defense....he hired two anti gun researchers to put the study together and do the actual research. They found that Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent crime.....that figure could be accurate although if you look at all the studies that exclude police and military self defense the average is 2 million a year.....

So 1.5-2 million is probably accurate....

 

[2aguy]

Please tell us your proposed law that would have prevented these two shooters from obtaining weapons.

Real Background checks. If you try to get a gun, we call your workplace and ask, "Hey, is it cool if this guy gets a gun?"

I'm betting his coworkers would have said "No" even before they shot them.

Again, we know everything there is to know about Sayed Farook and his wife within 24 hours of the incident. We know who they were talking to on social media, we'd know their travel plans.

We know that they were talking to people on the terror watch list. You know, the terror watch list that is not a obstacle to people buying guns because the NRA demanded that carve out.

Real background checks would have failed.....they did not have criminal records and you are delusional.

 

[2aguy]

Here is the link to the 3 part history of how gun control activists have used health care advocacy to propagandize against gun ownership......

You mean 33,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries aren't a major health concern?

We ban products for a lot less.

"but, but, b ut... Founding Slave Rapists!!!!"

Physician mistakes kill about 400,000 a year. For every one killed by a gun, 12 die because of doctors and hospitals.

Should doctors be illegal?

Deaths by medical mistakes hit records

Right! And theres nothing we can do to prevent it!

there is something we can do to prevent gun crime...when you catch a criminal in possession of an illegal gun, lock them up for 20 years......that is how you deal with a gun criminal.

 

[2aguy]

If we're going to wring our hands and gnash our teeth over the statistically insignificant number of people killed by guns compared to the number of gun owners in this nation, we need to really take on the epidemic of medical murders.

Someone needs to stand up to the AMA! Doctor control now!

That would be fine if there was a such thing as a "statiscally SIGNIFICANT number of people killed by guns". But everytime someone is asked they dont know what a significant number would be.

Is it a secret?

No...it is very obvious....

There were 8,124 gun murders in 2014, the majority by violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...

there were 320 million guns in private hands...

13 million people carry guns for self defense, probably more since many states do not require permits to carry...

So...8,124 gun murders by criminals..

320 million guns...

Yeah...statistically insignificant number....

 

[2aguy]

Here is a piece by one of the people who testified against allowing the CDC to attack gun ownership with shoddy research and propaganda disguised as research....

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

You mean why the CDC was prevented from even keeping records of gun violence- or investigating gun violence?

Well the answer is that the NRA told Congress to prevent them from doing that, and Congress sat up and begged for more NRA treats.

Nope...they got the money back by the way.....and they were told they couldn't use their research as a propaganda tool .....because all of the nuts at the CDC were openly saying they wanted to ban guns at the time.....

 

[Searcher44]

I know you don't want Kellerman to be real... but how about doing an ACTUAL gun study and record every gun death.

Every suicide. (19500)
Every accident (800)
Every murder (11,000)
Every justifiable homicide (200).


Yeah, Kellerman probably had it about right.

suicide....Japan, Soth Korea, and China all have 2x the suicide rates and zero access to guns and in the United States we have 19,000 people who commit suicide without a gun....

accidental gun deaths in 2013 from the CDC....505....with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 13 million people carrying guns....and the accidental death rate is going down, not up...

Gun murders according to the FBI table 8....8,124, the majority of which are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals, with illegally possessed guns. and this rate is going down, not up.

and with over 320 million guns in private hands, and 13 million people carrying guns each year there are 1.5 million defensive gun uses according to a study commissioned by Bill Clinton through his department of justice....

And in those uses...criminals are only dumb enough to press their attack about 260 times where they have to be shot and killed....since normal gun owners do not want to shoot anyone...

1.5 million dgu (defensive gun uses) per year is over 4000 per day. That's a lot. I've never owned a gun or was in a situation where I wished I had one for defensive purposes. I don't know anybody who has ever used a gun for dgu. Have any of you ever dgu(ed). Do you know anybody who has? A few of the respondents to this survey 2aguy cites reported large numbers of times they used a gun for defensive purposes in the surveyed year. One woman reported 52 dgu! Jesus, is Matt Dillon available? Some of you Yanks (I know I shouldn't use that to include all but...) really still live in the wild west! 52 times in one year that woman needed to use a gun to defend herself. Incredible.

I got that info from this brief by Bill Clinton's DOJ on that study by Bill Clinton's DOJ that 2aguy cites.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

I'll quote some more from Bill Clinton's DOJ brief on that study commissioned by Bill Clinton's DOJ that 2aguy cites; (notice that 1 person in this study statistically represents about 79,000 Americans. You do the math.)

"Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person
(exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!"

"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator. Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs"

"Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack."

"Slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked; 16 percent of firearms were stored unlocked and loaded."

"About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts in 1994"


"Some troubling comparisons"
. "If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12- month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime."

"Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them"

"For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8)".

Remember I'm still quoting from Bill Clinton's DOJ brief on the study commissioned by Bill Clinton's DOJ
.
"It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States."

"For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!"

Whoa! I just went to all this work to point out that there are facts and then there are facts. If somebody quotes something and it inspires a hmmmm....I check it out. I think this study that 2aguy cited is fatally flawed, that's not his fault. He's allowed to use info from a supposedly reliable source, that doesn't make the source reliable. I ran into several sites questioning this study and others designed like it. A study by Kleck and Getz’s similar to the DOJ's and mentioned with-in the brief ended up with 2.5 million DGU.

In ancient times they had no statistics so they had to fall back on lies...
Stephen Leacock
There are lies, damned lies and statistics...
Mark Twain
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable...
Mark Twain

"Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated."

So why do I think any of this bullshit matters?

"In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodore Wafer from his slumber. Unable to find his cell phone to call the police, he grabbed the shotgun he kept loaded in his closet. Wafer opened the door and, spotting a dark figure behind the screen, fired a single blast at the supposed intruder. The shot killed a 19-year-old girl who was knocking to ask for help after a car accident".

"Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014, two friends left a party briefly. Upon returning they accidently knocked on the wrong door. Believing burglars were breaking in, the frightened homeowner called the police, grabbed his gun and fired a single round, hitting one of the confused party-goers in the chest".

"On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face"

"What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States."

"The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.”

'And indeed, comparing NCVS results to NCVS results yields a very different picture—that more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them. Respondents in two Harvard surveys had more than 3 times as many offensive gun uses against them as defensive gun uses. Another study focusing on adolescences found 13 times as many offensive gun uses. Yet another study focusing on gun use in the home found that a gun was more than 6 times more likely to be used to intimidate a family member than in a defensive capacity. The evidence is nearly unanimous'.

 

[idb]

Wow....this is fun......


You declare a public space a gun free zone......and people are murdered by a mass shooter with a gun........you go to prison......right?

No, you gun nuts are the problem. When you make it easy for the two nuts yesterday to get guns, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Not the fact that we didn't have heavily armed retards at this school yesterday.

California has all the gun control laws that you guys want…magazine limits…..assault weapon bans….limits on the type of hand guns you can have….background checks…..everything….and these people passed all of them….

Except one….

only the law abiding people obeyed the law on not bringing guns into gun free zones…..all of the people at that party obeyed the gun free zone laws……except for the mass shooters….they broke that law…….

And gun control worked like a charm…not one of those law abiding, normal people had a gun in the gun free zone……congratulations on the success of your law….

And congratulations to you for your argument that guns need to be freely available for self-defence...except for the inconvenient fact that that means they're also freely available to murderous lunatics.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So you have no problem removing someone's inherent rights without due process.

Nice to know comrade.

Gun ownership isn't a "right'. Otherwise they couldn't be taken away with or without due process.

We take away people's gun ownership all the time. When they are domestic abusers, when they are mentally ill, when they've been convicted of a crime even after they've paid their debt to society.

There are a whole bunch of people YOU don't want to have a gun. My bunch of people is simply larger.

My bunch is 'everyone who doesn't have a professional reason to have one".