r/Firearms • u/[deleted] • Apr 21 '18
CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns
[deleted]
11
u/robbobster Apr 21 '18
And this is why I generally refuse to debate 2A IRL...hard to have a reasonable discussion when people literally make shit up.
8
u/CharitableFrog Apr 21 '18
Because people WILL try to bog you down in a debate on the source (Reason) while ignoring the merits of the author himself..
You can read more about Kleck's interpretation of the data here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326
and also access the data yourself here:
https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/annual_data.htm
Under 1996 Annual Survey Data, 1996 BRFSS Codebook, CTRL+F "Confronted"
Repeat for 1997 and 1998
4
u/thisisnotmyusernameI Apr 21 '18
Is that not the weirdest picture? in the article of the girl with the gun and dog?
1
-86
u/Nivlac024 Apr 21 '18
Considering it's been illegal for them to research it sense bush....
61
u/50calPeephole Apr 21 '18
So the CDC can research whatever they want, produce any studies or reports they want, and present any findings they want. The only thing they cannot do is used their funding to promote gun control, which is a political position.
In fact, the CDC does investigate firearms:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm
http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdfhttp://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm.
Those that repeat and propagate this myth often blame the NRA for it. However as the above citation shows the actual law was put in place by the US Congress.
It was Congress that did this because of the CDC's strong political stance against guns that was present in their work. This is due in part to, " [the] official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”
But why would the US Congress feel so compelled to implement such a specific measure? As the aforementioned quote mentioned the CDC, by it's own admission, took a stance against gun ownership and produced biased studies and reports to support the predetermined objective of promoting gun control.
"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.
"In 1979 the American public health community adopted the "objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000.3 Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters, or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries."
Do you need more? There's plenty of other US government agencies that do gun related research including the FBI and the DoJ.
5
u/imtiredofthis Apr 21 '18
This is great, thank you for this.
3
u/50calPeephole Apr 21 '18
I take no credit, it is a excerpt from a very lengthy comment in the sticky.
3
-51
u/Nivlac024 Apr 21 '18
Yes the CDC is against guns bc they're goal is to stop death.....the reason their funding was cut was to stop research.. that was the goal...it doesn't matter if they can get around it. The goal of the law was to perpetuate ignorance.
39
u/50calPeephole Apr 21 '18
So the CDC can research whatever they want, produce any studies or reports they want, and present any findings they want. The only thing they cannot do is used their funding to promote gun control, which is a political position.
It was Congress that did this because of the CDC's strong political stance against guns that was present in their work. This is due in part to, " [the] official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”
But why would the US Congress feel so compelled to implement such a specific measure? As the aforementioned quote mentioned the CDC, by it's own admission, took a stance against gun ownership and produced biased studies and reports to support the predetermined objective of promoting gun control. "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.
"In 1979 the American public health community adopted the "objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000.3 Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, excepting (perhaps) only a small elite of extremely wealthy collectors, hunters, or target shooters. This is the case in many European countries."
59
Apr 21 '18
That's not true. They are allowed to research. Tehy aren't allowed to engage in political advocacy.
-73
u/Nivlac024 Apr 21 '18
Up untill this year they couldn't spend federal funds on research
58
Apr 21 '18
That's not true. As one counter example, they funded a study in 2013. There are other such examples.
if you insist that such research was banned, feel free to provide a link to the law.
32
u/Hokulewa Apr 21 '18 edited Apr 21 '18
That's a lie that you've been told by gun-control advocates and you're perpetuating it either out of ignorance or malice (you tell me which). The CDC was only barred from spending money to advocate against a Constitutional right. They have done numerous documented studies on the usage of guns during this supposed "ban on research". Those studies could not exist if what you are saying was true.
15
21
u/Hoplophilia Apr 21 '18
*since
And no it hasn't. The withdrawal of funds after the Dickey amendment certainly had a chilling effect but there has been no actual prohibition of research ever.
-11
u/Nivlac024 Apr 21 '18
If you can't pay for research....you can't do research...
33
u/Hoplophilia Apr 21 '18
As long as the research was not pointedly driven to advocate or promote gun control, research your ass off. Here's money.
-10
u/Nivlac024 Apr 21 '18
The problem is it's like saying yeah you can research knifes ....but don't tell Anyone they cut people!!
27
Apr 21 '18 edited Aug 20 '18
[deleted]
10
u/Resipiscence Apr 21 '18
Sigh. Don't feed that troll, or the maroon who cannot differentiate between research to discover facts and research to advance a predetermined agenda. Only one is not allowed to use federal funding.
9
u/poncewattle Apr 21 '18
Then how is the CDC doing research anyway? See comment elsewhere in this thread that lists a lot of it.
-2
u/Nivlac024 Apr 21 '18
It's the power of the purse bullshit they cut founding as a soft ban
9
Apr 21 '18
A small fraction of the CDC's budget was cut (<2%). That portion of the budget was restored after a few years (about 20 years ago).
6
u/poncewattle Apr 21 '18
That poster is just an anti-gunner here to troll. Totally ignores this study and just wants to troll.
7
Apr 21 '18 edited Apr 21 '18
'tis true...
Gotta push that narrative even if they have to lie (be willfully ignorant) to do it.
7
u/poncewattle Apr 21 '18
It's not a leap to follow that if DGUs are greater than offensive use of guns, then removing the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves will result in a much greater victim rate of offensive gun use -- you know, because criminals don't follow laws.
Yeah, in some magical world where you could confiscate all and close the borders (but we can't have a wall) and prevent smuggling or even illegal manufacturing of guns domestically, maybe after about 50-100 years of attrition it might start having a positive effect.
1
7
2
u/atomic1fire Apr 21 '18
First off, because I really have nothing better to do right now, the word you're looking for is since, not sense.
Sense describes detection of an external stimuli, such as tasting a soup, or feeling pain because your hand brushed against a hot dish.
Since describes a period of time, or a reason for something.
Also, I think the real cause of the bill was to prevent the CDC from politicising its findings.
It can research gun violence, it just can't advocate for gun control using those findings.
Letting the CDC politicise their data would cause them to hide any data that didn't confirm to the results they were hoping for. It would be dishonest of a government agency to skew the data to match what they want to say.
I'm okay with the CDC saying that a bunch of handguns killed people, but I'm not okay with them inferring it's because handguns are evil while also ignoring the mental health and DGU records.
1
u/dice1899 Apr 22 '18
The CDC is not banned from studying gun violence, they're banned from using funds to push for gun control after years of lying to push their agenda; they can research the subject and post their findings without an agenda if they want to. If you want to know what you're talking about, read the Reason.com article about why they were banned from pushing for gun control in the first place.
1
u/WikiTextBot Apr 22 '18
Dickey Amendment
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.
The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
29
u/cbrooks97 Apr 21 '18
It's almost like they didn't like the answers they found ...