CDC study on gun violence

[kieefer]

In a nutshell;

 

 

1. most gun deaths are suicides, not criminal violence.
2. there were anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of guns, per year.
3. both accidental deaths and mass shootings have declined, both accounting for very small fraction of gun related deaths.
4. Most criminals gain their guns from family, friends or illegal means, and so outside the “controls” envisioned by the gun control gang.
5. High gun related homicides are in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C. skew the figures; these are areas where there are some of most restrictive gun laws.

Thus, the study tends to show that most of the gun control talk, is just that, talk, without much reality in actually addressing gun crime, and tends to support most of the things that gun rights advocates have repeatedly said.

 

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

 

hat tip Weasel Zippers

[Guest ThePunisher]

People cannot be true slaves to the government if the slaves own guns, and therefore scare the tyrants of big government. Big government is not content until they have full control of the people's lives thus relegating the people to serfdom.

[Trekbike]

Now don't go bring up facts...that doesn't fit the agenda. Be a good serf and comply.

[kieefer]

People cannot be true slaves to the government if the slaves own guns, and therefore scare the tyrants of big government. Big government is not content until they have full control of the people's lives thus relegating the people to serfdom.

They are working on that - 

 

http://safeshare.tv/w/zwhKdMtFHf

[Dane]

Tagged..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[superduty]

I know that Obama signed an executive order to have the CDC investigate this, but I cant tell if this is a new report- I'm on my phone.

 

If this is a post-Newtown report, I'd be a little surprised- I understand that the CDC is a historically left-leaning organization.

[DaveTN]

Politicians and the anti’s have quit talking about “Gun Control” and have changed the term to “Illegal Guns”. WTF is an illegal gun? Even fully automatic weapons are legal if you pay the tax. We already have laws that make it a crime to steal a gun. Many states even have laws specifically addressing firearm theft.

 

They don’t want to address “illegal guns” they want to ban guns from all people; both law abiding citizens and criminals. If someone wants a gun to go commit armed robberies they aren’t going to care how they get it. If they can’t buy it they will break into houses until they find one to steal.

 

“Gun crime” is just crime. How is an armed robbery at gun point any worse than at knife point, or even a brutal physical attack?

 

Suicide is suicide. Why would it make a difference if a person used a gun, shut the garage door and started the car, or hung themselves?

 

Sandy hook and the movie theater shootings were not “illegal guns” or even guns that were obtained illegally.

[midtennchip]

I know that Obama signed an executive order to have the CDC investigate this, but I cant tell if this is a new report- I'm on my phone.

If this is a post-Newtown report, I'd be a little surprised- I understand that the CDC is a historically left-leaning organization.

Yes, this is the report Obama ordered after Newtown. The actual report is available at:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=2

Evidently, it was published in early June. Funny only one major news outlet (Washington Post on June 8th) has even mentioned it. Don't remember hearing anything from the Administration, either. Edited August 18, 2013 by midtennchip

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's funny that the CDC has no business getting in the gun control debate, whatever they want to call it, nowadays. Add

that to the "mental" angle this government will try to use to disarm people and see how much of the 2nd Amendment

stands.

 

Strange that Obama can say so many things and get away with so many of those things and people don't resist. By people,

I mean masses of people, not just a few.

[TMF]

It's funny that the CDC has no business getting in the gun control debate, whatever they want to call it, nowadays. Add

that to the "mental" angle this government will try to use to disarm people and see how much of the 2nd Amendment

stands.

 

Strange that Obama can say so many things and get away with so many of those things and people don't resist. By people,

I mean masses of people, not just a few.

 

I'm giving the CDC the benefit of the doubt for two reasons:

 

1. It seems that they are indiscriminate in what they study in regard to what is harmful to children.  They also involve themselves into subjects like pool safety (drowning related) and how to keep your kids from ingesting dangerous household chemicals.  The same argument that can be made against the CDC in regard to their involvement in recommending firearms be locked up in homes with children can be made against the CDC for recommending keeping cabinet locks where you keep the Draino.  As for pools, do I need the gov to tell me that a three year old needs supervision around a body of water?  No, but they do it anyway.  So I don't see this as a specifically anti-gun thing; I see it as typical nanny government telling stupid, non-common sense having parents not to do stupid, non-common sense things.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/Fact_Sheets/Drowning-Fact-Sheet-a.pdf

 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyhomes/bytopic/poisoning.html

 

2. The other reason is that it seems this study validates arguments against gun control, not for it.  I'm sure that was not Obama's intent... in fact I'll bet my gun collection on it.  That tells me that whatever bias may exist at the CDC is not evident in this report.  Liberals can make an easy one sided argument for gun control when they're the ones conducting the study.  Since they didn't do that here, I'm thinking they aren't on anyone's side here. 

[TMF]

In a nutshell;

 

 

1. most gun deaths are suicides, not criminal violence.
2. there were anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of guns, per year.
3. both accidental deaths and mass shootings have declined, both accounting for very small fraction of gun related deaths.
4. Most criminals gain their guns from family, friends or illegal means, and so outside the “controls” envisioned by the gun control gang.
5. High gun related homicides are in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C. skew the figures; these are areas where there are some of most restrictive gun laws.

Thus, the study tends to show that most of the gun control talk, is just that, talk, without much reality in actually addressing gun crime, and tends to support most of the things that gun rights advocates have repeatedly said.

 

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

 

hat tip Weasel Zippers

 

I'm going to play the liberal today.  I hear these arguments all the time, and liberals tend to respond with irrational and diversionary arguments to them.  I'm going to give the liberal argument against all your points and would like them to be debunked point by point for debate purposes by as many members as possible.  I realize the arguments are rediculous, but sometimes it's difficult to articulate to a liberal how stupid their argument is.

 

1. most gun deaths are suicides, not criminal violence.

 

Yes, but based on the vast number of suicide attempts the numbers suggest that far more people attempt suicide than people who are successful at it.  The most successful group of suicide victims are people who use firearms.  If they didn't have a firearm it wouldn't be as easy to kill themselves and they'd have a higher likelihood of survival.

2. there were anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of guns, per year.
 

But how many of those were against people armed with firearms?  If no one had firearms in the first place people wouldn't have to use firearms to defend themselves.

 

3. both accidental deaths and mass shootings have declined, both accounting for very small fraction of gun related deaths.

 

Really?  Every time I turn on the news there's another mass shooting.  There weren't this many mass shootings before assault weapons came about.

4. Most criminals gain their guns from family, friends or illegal means, and so outside the “controls” envisioned by the gun control gang.
 

So then why not have a registry?  If we had a registry of where every gun in America is, then we could easily track one used in a crime back to the person who gave it to a criminal and prosecute them too.  If we did that then people would be less likely to purchase firearms for criminals.

 

5. High gun related homicides are in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C. skew the figures; these are areas where there are some of most restrictive gun laws.

Thus, the study tends to show that most of the gun control talk, is just that, talk, without much reality in actually addressing gun crime, and tends to support most of the things that gun rights advocates have repeatedly said.

 

Of course those have higher rates because the criminals get their firearms from surrounding states with lax gun laws and gun show loopholes.  If every state adopted universal registry and background checks then there would be less gun violence in those major cities.  Besides, Memphis has high gun crime too.  If there are so many lawful gun owners there why are their gun crime rates almost as high as areas with strict gun laws.

[Guest Razz]

I'm going to play the liberal today. I hear these arguments all the time, and liberals tend to respond with irrational and diversionary arguments to them. I'm going to give the liberal argument against all your points and would like them to be debunked point by point for debate purposes by as many members as possible. I realize the arguments are rediculous, but sometimes it's difficult to articulate to a liberal how stupid their argument is.

Liberals, above all else, like their perceived intellectual superiority. Challenge that and you force them to engage the topic instead of throwing an emotional tantrum. Doesn't always work but it's where I always start and I have a few converts under my belt.

1. most gun deaths are suicides, not criminal violence.

Yes, but based on the vast number of suicide attempts the numbers suggest that far more people attempt suicide than people who are successful at it. The most successful group of suicide victims are people who use firearms. If they didn't have a firearm it wouldn't be as easy to kill themselves and they'd have a higher likelihood of survival.

There are tutorials online abut the most eficient ways to commit suicide. If someone is determined, they'll find a way. A lot of the failed suicide attempts are cries for help so inefficient methods are chosen.

2. there were anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of guns, per year.

But how many of those were against people armed with firearms? If no one had firearms in the first place people wouldn't have to use firearms to defend themselves.

Once again, many weapons will always be available but rely on brute strength to deploy. Firearms are the equalizer for those with much less strength. If a ninety pound woman is attacked by a 250 pound man with a knife, she has a fighting chance if she's armed with a suitable firearm. Firearms are a "common sense" approach to self defense. ;)

3. both accidental deaths and mass shootings have declined, both accounting for very small fraction of gun related deaths.

Really? Every time I turn on the news there's another mass shooting. There weren't this many mass shootings before assault weapons came about.

This is purely anecdotal and a product of media sensationalism. Thus the CDC report.

4. Most criminals gain their guns from family, friends or illegal means, and so outside the “controls” envisioned by the gun control gang.

So then why not have a registry? If we had a registry of where every gun in America is, then we could easily track one used in a crime back to the person who gave it to a criminal and prosecute them too. If we did that then people would be less likely to purchase firearms for criminals.

This one stumps me because liberals don't listen to my arguments, here. I await someone else's argument.

5. High gun related homicides are in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C. skew the figures; these are areas where there are some of most restrictive gun laws.

Thus, the study tends to show that most of the gun control talk, is just that, talk, without much reality in actually addressing gun crime, and tends to support most of the things that gun rights advocates have repeatedly said.

Of course those have higher rates because the criminals get their firearms from surrounding states with lax gun laws and gun show loopholes. If every state adopted universal registry and background checks then there would be less gun violence in those major cities. Besides, Memphis has high gun crime too. If there are so many lawful gun owners there why are their gun crime rates almost as high as areas with strict gun laws.

Criminal on criminal violent crime will always be higher in densely populated areas where police will not patrol.

I hope my formatting is ok. Did this on iPad during my first cup of morning coffee.

Edit:
I want to clarify "challenging a liberal's intellect." This doesn't mean calling them stupid or other cliched remarks. If you can't argue without your own emotions getting in the way, let someone else do it. I always see well written responses to liberals on forums such as TGO but then hear conversations at the range that make me cringe. Edited August 18, 2013 by Razz

[TMF]

This one stumps me because liberals don't listen to my arguments, here. I await someone else's argument.
 

 

 

It's a hard one because the obvious argument is going back to God given rights which liberals don't believe we have, such as 2nd and 4th Amendments.  It's hard to argue that logically when they don't subscribe to your logic... kinda like trying to explain to homicidal maniac why killing is wrong.  They just won't get it because they don't believe it.

 

 

I want to clarify "challenging a liberal's intellect." This doesn't mean calling them stupid or other cliched remarks. If you can't argue without your own emotions getting in the way, let someone else do it. I always see well written responses to liberals on forums such as TGO but then hear conversations at the range that make me cringe.

 

There are liberals here?

[Guest Razz]

It's a hard one because the obvious argument is going back to God given rights which liberals don't believe we have, such as 2nd and 4th Amendments.  It's hard to argue that logically when they don't subscribe to your logic... kinda like trying to explain to homicidal maniac why killing is wrong.  They just won't get it because they don't believe it.

The reason this one stumps me so much is that we also have some Fudds who don't believe it either. We can't even get 100% of pro 2A folks to argue against registration.

There are liberals here?

I was referring to how people on forums reply to op-eds and news articles. It's different than speaking to a person. Edited August 18, 2013 by Razz

[mikegideon]

It's funny that the CDC has no business getting in the gun control debate, whatever they want to call it, nowadays. Add

that to the "mental" angle this government will try to use to disarm people and see how much of the 2nd Amendment

stands.

 

Strange that Obama can say so many things and get away with so many of those things and people don't resist. By people,

I mean masses of people, not just a few.

 

If they get into the gun debate and tell the truth, then I welcome them. Where does Obama go when his own CDC study backs the NRA position? It's STFU time for the libtards. I haven't read the report yet. Just going on what's in the OP.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But it is part of the problem when the government expands the role of entities to do things like this. Center for Disease Control?

Is gun violence a disease, now? We know it will be categorized a mental disease if it travels too far down this course. All I meant

by it.

 

It's the usurper in action.

[mikegideon]

But it is part of the problem when the government expands the role of entities to do things like this. Center for Disease Control?

Is gun violence a disease, now? We know it will be categorized a mental disease if it travels too far down this course. All I meant

by it.

 

It's the usurper in action.

 

I don't care anymore what he tries to do, as long as he fails. There IS a silver lining to all of this if the CDC says what we've been saying all along.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, now that's true, Mike. The only problem is, sometimes he wins.

[mikegideon]

With less and less frequency

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Liberals, above all else, like their perceived intellectual superiority. Challenge that and you force them to engage the topic instead of throwing an emotional tantrum. Doesn't always work but it's where I always start and I have a few converts under my belt.
There are tutorials online abut the most eficient ways to commit suicide. If someone is determined, they'll find a way. A lot of the failed suicide attempts are cries for help so inefficient methods are chosen.

Once again, many weapons will always be available but rely on brute strength to deploy. Firearms are the equalizer for those with much less strength. If a ninety pound woman is attacked by a 250 pound man with a knife, she has a fighting chance if she's armed with a suitable firearm. Firearms are a "common sense" approach to self defense. ;)
This is purely anecdotal and a product of media sensationalism. Thus the CDC report.
This one stumps me because liberals don't listen to my arguments, here. I await someone else's argument.

Criminal on criminal violent crime will always be higher in densely populated areas where police will not patrol.

I hope my formatting is ok. Did this on iPad during my first cup of morning coffee.

Edit:
I want to clarify "challenging a liberal's intellect." This doesn't mean calling them stupid or other cliched remarks. If you can't argue without your own emotions getting in the way, let someone else do it. I always see well written responses to liberals on forums such as TGO but then hear conversations at the range that make me cringe.

Very good response, but there is a flaw most people don't think about when it comes to a liberal. They base their ideology on

something approaching emotion and the belief that Utopia actually exists. That forces them to make the assumption that all

people, to make it to Utopia will never get there, and some must die for the cause. Death is solidly in concrete with the liberal's

idea of governance. God has to be thrown out for them to have their way, also. the idea of allowing any of this to happen

without Utopia being something than the old TV show, "The Prisoner", back in the 60's, I think, was a good view of what Utopia

looks like to the liberal, and they disguise it by renaming it right-winged and extremist.

 

You need to understand the liberal's intellect before you can have a rational discussion with one. Otherwise, you're wasting

your time discussing.

 

Even though a Republican president started the EPA, the idea came from a liberal, and was emotionally charged to gain

popularity. The abortion issue came from liberal progressives, and look how long they fought to win that emotional argument.

The altruistic arguments used to form the idea of Social Security came from the same kind of folks.

 

They make emotional arguments while conservatives and libertarians sit around and forget how to engage with them.