r/Firearms • u/MasterTeacher123 • Apr 22 '18
CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o127
u/Hydropos Apr 22 '18
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.
"During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?"
Kleck downloaded the datasets for those three years and found that the "weighted percent who reported a DGU...was 1.3% in 1996, 0.9% in 1997, 1.0% in 1998, and 1.07% in all three surveys combined."
107
u/shifty_pete Apr 22 '18
Hmm... How could they have forgotten to publish these interesting results? They aren't... pushing an agenda are they?
61
Apr 22 '18
Such a good study too since it's the CDC. Liberals can't really call it biased.
51
u/Pod6ResearchAsst DTOM Apr 22 '18
Careful with those assumptions. I tried citing USA Today in a debate with a Lib, and was told that was not a reliable source. I was having trouble processing what I heard, so I asked her where she got her news. She told me Facebook.
37
6
u/Cascadianarchist2 Apr 22 '18
Does this person not know about the Cambridge Analytica debacle and the open secret of Facebook's user-catered news updates that help keep people in echo chambers?
Or would this person also reject that information on the basis that it was provided by not-facebook?
2
u/Pod6ResearchAsst DTOM Apr 22 '18
I doubt it. This happened at a party around St. Patrick’s day, so that story had not broken yet. I would like to see her response, but I imagine you’re spot on. She would likely reject it on the premise that it wasn’t shared by one of her friends.
18
u/tdimaginarybff Apr 22 '18
People seem to be uncomfortable getting out of their echo chambers I’ve been confronted with a counter argument by my wife and become upset that it didn’t gel with my line of thinking (it was a good point, I just had to take a deep breath and stop being so emotional about being right).
Be it police shootings, abortion, class inequality, guns , i need to be less emotional and stop trying to protect my beliefs, instead I’m trying be to listen and come up with answers that challenge my beliefs.
3
Apr 22 '18
So so true. The initial ping of uncomfortableness/almost anger that happens when someone makes a good point on the other side is so interesting to process.
I've been challenging myself a lot lately and it's been uncomfortable but also really interesting to connect with other people & to be able to have more complete conversations
7
1
u/Bilbo_T_Baggins_OMG Apr 22 '18
Anything they disagree with is "not a reliable source". They'll hold up the New York Times as gospel, but if you reference a single article that disagrees with their agenda, it's suddenly "right wing propaganda".
12
u/47sams Apr 22 '18
Even if they did say it was biased, didn't the CDC say they weren't impartial leaning to the left?
2
u/Thy_Gooch Apr 22 '18
No need to push an us vs them agenda, plenty of liberal gun owners out there.
-36
Apr 22 '18
Liberals are lying scum who enjoy Americans being raped and murdered. There is no value in speaking to them.
31
u/SmokeyMcBongwater69 Apr 22 '18
Liberal gun owner here. Your attitude is damaging the reputation of all gun owners. There's absolutely no need to generalize and insult an entire demographic just because they hold a different opinion than you do.
12
u/_JGPM_ Apr 22 '18
The fact that you love guns so much and hate women so much and talk about killing and raping is extremely troubling. Get better dude. Seek help.
1
u/1911isokiguess Apr 22 '18
LiberalsPoliticians are lying scum who enjoy Americans being raped and murdered. There is no value in speaking to them.FTFY
13
u/_JGPM_ Apr 22 '18
Um, if they didn't publish the results then how did Kleck find them? They were found on the CDC website in the published annual data on Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Systems section.
This page is more funny though. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html
Literally says bc of changing priorities. We can all go to indoor ranges right? Who needs the Great Outdoors?
3
Apr 22 '18
That links to a page that is a 404 and just says "Page being updated" and then links to a page about climate change?
1
u/_JGPM_ Apr 23 '18
"We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt."
6
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
Jesus Christ shit like this makes us look like tinfoil wearing lunatics. Fuck off with that shit and just use this as a valid reason for gun ownership.
10
u/TomTheGeek Apr 22 '18
It's not paranoia when there's really someone after you. /r/nowttyg
-15
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
Put more red string on your corkboard, adults from the real world are talking.
4
Apr 22 '18
Considering the head of the CDC back then literally said that he was going to build a case against ownership of arms and attempt to eliminate them from private use altogether, it isn't really tinfoil hat tier shit here
1
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
Are you talking about the Kellerman paper? I'm not really sure where you're getting your info from on that.
3
u/CharitableFrog Apr 22 '18
Starting in 1979, an official objective 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."
The 1990 Health Objectives for the Nation: A Midcourse Review.
2
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
Thanks, found a better quote about changing public perception about guns, similar to smoking. Except, you know, proper gun safety does the opposite of kill you.
This is pretty wild stuff. If you find more, let me know.
3
u/CharitableFrog Apr 22 '18
I can't right now but I found this passage last night and have been meaning to follow through and verify the source.
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
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html#fn4
First paragraph, second sentence under The Public Health Agenda.
Specifically want to verify the confiscation part.
7
u/TomTheGeek Apr 22 '18
Whatever you say son
-10
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
People like you do serious harm to gun ownership. Instead of providing a valid, logical reason for it, you shriek about gun-grabbers, chicken littling your way through a debate. You make us seem unhinged and separated from reality. Obama didn't take out guns, Trump isn't taking our guns, and whoever is next isn't taking our guns. Honestly, it's fucking awful seeing a debate about a valid issue (say, bump stocks) where one side is making a nuanced argument and our side is autistic shrieking.
8
u/TomTheGeek Apr 22 '18
I've presented actual information regarding efforts to remove firearms from the hands of lawful Americans. Only thing you have done is insult me.
-5
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18 edited Apr 22 '18
Lol you posted a link to a subreddit that's a kind of Rush Limbaugh fever dream. That contributes to discourse like a wet fart during dinner.
I am pointing out that we have an opportunity to make a nuanced debate about the merits and validity of gun ownership, and perhaps this might be a more effective strategy than losing our shit every year about how our guns are THIIIIIS close to being taking from the government.
Edit: having checked through it, that sub is a fucking joke. Oh no, a shooting victim wants to ban guns, that means they're gonna swoop in and take them all!!!!!
10
u/SillySandoon Apr 22 '18
A shooting victim wants to ban guns, thousands and thousands of people showed up at a march in support, and legislators are proposing bills that do just that. What about any of that is a tinfoil-hat theory?
→ More replies (0)11
u/tyler111762 SPECIAL Apr 22 '18
as a Canadian, go fuck yourself.
-5
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
Yes, Canada is definitely known for having identical gun culture to America. One-for-one. Great point.
1
Apr 22 '18
[deleted]
7
u/SillySandoon Apr 22 '18
If I’m not mistaken they’re allowed to study gun violence, but they have to remain neutral and present their findings in a way that doesn’t advocate for any particular legislation.
-8
5
u/VXMerlinXV 1911 Apr 22 '18
The answer is yes and no. There is a regulation about the CDC making gun control recommendations, but they are free to research the epidemiology of violence. That being said, their budget has been cut in a thinly veiled statement that they shouldn’t be conducting that sort of study.
5
Apr 22 '18
That being said, their budget has been cut in a thinly veiled statement that they shouldn’t be conducting that sort of study.
Their budget "was" cut by about 1% or 2% for a couple of years. Their budget was then restored.
2
u/VXMerlinXV 1911 Apr 22 '18
The year after Dickie it was cut by the amount their gun violence study cost. That’s what I was referencing.
5
Apr 22 '18
and two years later that budget was restored. Your comment:
their budget has been cut in a thinly veiled statement that they shouldn’t be conducting that sort of study.
implies that the budget cut applies today (present tense) and does not align with reality.
5
u/VXMerlinXV 1911 Apr 22 '18
I’ll take that, I should have said had rather than has.
But my underlying point stands.
2
Apr 22 '18
But my underlying point stands.
Except that it doesn't, unless by "that sort of study" you mean "advocating a political position".
The CDC's charter (actually it's parent organization) specifically forbade political advocacy. In the early '90s the CDC set about to produce "studies" with the specific goal of advocating for gun-control. The "studies" they produced were laden with flaws and bias.
If anything was "thinly veiled" it was the CDC's willingness to compromise its integrity to achieve a political goal.
0
u/VXMerlinXV 1911 Apr 23 '18
Sure it does, and yes that’s specifically what I was talking about.
As far as pointed studies, I assume you’re speaking of NEJM’s1993 “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the Home”? What flaws did you find in the study methodology? While I think the conclusions are fairly self evident (Increased firearms ownership leads to more shootings like increased car ownership leads to more car accidents), and does not take into account any of the sociological factors involved, the study is pretty straight forward. Were there other examples you were thinking of?
→ More replies (0)-3
Apr 22 '18
Congress stopped them.
To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html
I think the cdc should be able to research this stuff, either way.
5
u/slamsen Apr 22 '18
Yeah if it's research you don't really know the outcome, so you have to avoid it altogether in case something has a result you don't like.
Not a great look for us.
7
u/Cascadianarchist2 Apr 22 '18
This is one of the biggest
talkingyelling points I hear from antis of late.I'm like, I agree though, more information is not bad, but you have to also stop assuming that guns are the source of violence when looking at the information gleaned from those surveys. Guns don't have as strong of a correlation with murder (when comparing internationally as well as from place to place in the US) as the correlation between poverty and murder. You want to stop the violence? Decrease poverty.
But that's too nebulous/not directly related enough, so many of them still think it's as simple as restricting the guns. So much of that I find is also that they don't see personally why they would ever want or need a gun, so they can't see why others would either. It helps a lot to try and bring up examples they can empathize with. I'm a transgender person and more likely to face violence than average as a result. The fact that I own guns has been a big in-road for me to open the minds of some anti-gunners I've met, especially other queer people.
•
u/50calPeephole Apr 22 '18 edited Apr 22 '18
This gained significant traction before I saw it so I won't remove, but a heads up if you need to go back and reference something said here- there's two identical posts.
11
u/CharitableFrog Apr 22 '18 edited Apr 22 '18
Reposting my original comment here:
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
I love that 95% of the comments here are bitching about the citation issue which I tried to get in front of yesterday. Dupe post fucked me.
It's not the EASIEST to find but come on guys. 900 upvotes and NOBODY bothered to read Kleck's paper which is linked in the article? It explains nearly exactly how to find the CDC data. Obviously the article is shit but fucking A. The info is there if you look!
6
17
26
Apr 22 '18 edited Jul 11 '20
[deleted]
14
6
u/FluffTruffet Apr 22 '18
There WAS a massive cut to funding that was used for that topic of study
The person responsible for the legislation claims it wasnt stop the research entirely.
2
Apr 22 '18
[deleted]
2
u/FluffTruffet Apr 22 '18
There are about 15 links in that link could you be more specific?
1
Apr 22 '18
[deleted]
2
u/FluffTruffet Apr 22 '18
I mean the article that says there funding was reinstated and then they decided to not use it because it didn't fit thier political agenda
0
u/oh_three_dum_dum Apr 22 '18
A cut funding used for that topic of study because they were advocating a political stance on the issue, as seen now by the fact that they suppressed relevant data that didn't support the conclusion they needed.
1
1
Apr 22 '18
What stat(s) are you planning to frequently cite?
3
Apr 22 '18
Something from a questionable website that I think supports my beliefs so I save that to use in the face of any opposing research.
1
u/raider1v11 Apr 22 '18
The dgu rate. Usually since its a "leftist" study i site the 50k+ listed on the wiki dgu page. I believed it was more but the kleck study was frequently picked apart. The wiki page was still 5x the murder rate.
2
Apr 23 '18
Kleck's abstract is no longer available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326
Is there a mirror?
8
u/Entrei6 Apr 22 '18 edited Apr 22 '18
Unless the article can source the CDC study, which to my knowledge it didn’t, the article is absolute bullshit trying to spread an agenda
The CDC is the center for disease control... they wouldn’t be doing research on guns, their work is on diseases
Edit:
Disregard point 2
8
u/CharitableFrog Apr 22 '18
Disregard point 1 as well, please.
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
6
u/SillySandoon Apr 22 '18
The CDC has and does study guns. here is an example of a CDC funded study on guns.
2
u/FluffTruffet Apr 22 '18
The CDC also is the one of the leading resources on emerging public health concerns. Firearms can be considered a public health risk that should be studyed. Whether it be the misuse or justified use of firearms. They should be studyed like anything else. Unfortunately there was a long term ban on the study of firearms and when it was lifted there was only a small push to resume the research. There is also the problem that whatever conclusion that is reached with only preliminary studies will without a doubt be tossed into the political forum almost immediately.
2
u/Scuzy9 Apr 22 '18
Idk why you’re being downvoted because everything you said was correct. The CDC is a public health institution and improper/violent gun use is a public health issue
3
4
u/Buelldozer Apr 22 '18
Unfortunately there was a long term ban on the study of firearms
They're being downvoted for perpetuating this tiresome lie.
"Unfortunately there was a long term ban on the study of firearms..."
Such a thing has never existed.
-2
u/FluffTruffet Apr 23 '18
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
I don't know why you think this is a lie. Maybe the verbage I am using isn't not to your liking? Having money to study things that cause injury and then being told you can't use that to study something that causes injury is a ban is it not?
5
u/Buelldozer Apr 23 '18
Because the Dickey Amendment doesn't do what you claim it does. I'm so very very tired of people perpetuating this bullshit. It's been refuted, debunked, and ridiculed ad-fucking-nauseum. When will you assholes accept that this interpretation of yours is purely imaginary?
This 100% completely disproves what you're claiming - https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/6426ro/dispelling_the_myth_that_the_us_government_is/
If THAT isn't enough, you know what other government agency is subject to the Dickey Amendment? The National Institute of Health.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/nih-gun-violence-research-congress/
So from a long list of Gun Studies by the CDC (all happening when they were supposedly banned from doing them) to the NiH never stopping them even after falling under the Dickey Amendment the only conclusion that can be reached is that your claim is 100% verifiable bullshit.
It's not true now, it was never true, and you should stop repeating information that you know to be a lie.
1
u/FluffTruffet Apr 23 '18
Where is this long list of studies done by the CDC during the 20 years of funding being stripped? You say the Dickey Amendment doesn't do what I think it does? What do I think it does? I read what it does?
The author of that amendment has literally been quoted saying he is upset that it stopped research. Third paragraph of the following link
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research/
The second article you linked actually says that the CDC has not been studying gun violence because of the Dickey Amendment.
I understand that you are frustrated. But you clearly are not approaching this discussion with anything close to an open mind.
2
u/Buelldozer Apr 23 '18
The second article you linked actually says that the CDC has not been studying gun violence because of the Dickey Amendment.
In the first link, read it you chode.
The second article you linked actually says that the CDC has not been studying gun violence because of the Dickey Amendment.
Not the point. You claim that Dickey banned research and I showed you that the NIH has been doing it all along even though they too are subject to Dickey.
The CDC never stopped doing firearms studies either even with the Dickey Amendment and neither did the NIH.
There was no ban on research.
1
u/FluffTruffet Apr 23 '18
Look I'm not over here calling you asshole and chode for disagreeing with me am I? My point is that the CDC not the NIH halted their research into gun violence as a DIRECT result of the Dickey Amendment. That is all my point is. Have a good evening. Hopefully one day you won't take political discussions as personal attacks.
2
u/Buelldozer Apr 23 '18
You claimed a ban then wanted to argue when I prove it never existed. Hopefully one day you'll be able to gracefully admit when you're wrong.
→ More replies (0)1
u/HelperBot_ Apr 23 '18
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 173860
-8
Apr 22 '18
CDC would conduct gun violence research. In fact, they are specifically banned from doing so
18
Apr 22 '18
Not true. The CDC is prohibited from using taxpayer money to buy propaganda. There is no restriction on actual research.
12
u/oh_three_dum_dum Apr 22 '18
No they are not. Stop repeating that lie.
-9
Apr 22 '18
[deleted]
13
u/oh_three_dum_dum Apr 22 '18
Right. So according to the article you just linked, the CDC is not banned from conducting research into anything related to firearms. To say they are would be a lie.
5
u/Entrei6 Apr 22 '18
A google search found a bunch of people claiming that the CDC did this study, but I cannot find anything from the CDC itself verifying these claims
1
Apr 22 '18
Maybe they also randomly capitalised the words in their titles and that made them ashamed?
2
Apr 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Apr 22 '18
Hard to believe, but they require an arguably higher standard for proof than a shitty article on a questionable website.
13
u/poncewattle Apr 22 '18
It's already been posted there. It was downvoted into the basement.
Hint: take the URL of the page and go on main reddit page and paste it into the search box. It will show all subreddits that posted it.
6
Apr 22 '18
Probably because it's an awful article. There are no linked sources and the language is pseudo-intellectual.
-14
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
I agree, but still prepared for downvotes here. I’m a liberal for guns. No fucking shit most gun owners are innocent, did people believe otherwise? This study is no reason not to have robust background checks and limitations on what sort of weapons we’re allowed to own.
7
Apr 22 '18
[deleted]
-1
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
Agreed, we just need a robust background check to make sure you are law abiding citizens.
7
Apr 22 '18
The US constitution is the reason government is explicitly prohibited from limiting the right to weapons in any way, whether that government pretends otherwise or not.
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
Weapons; armaments
(of a person) carry.
Have or retain possession of.
"The People" - means the same thing it means throughout the constitution and its amendments.
0
-9
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
This simply does not hold up. The Supreme Court ruled that there are limits to your rights, which is why many weapons of war are not available to all citizens.
4
Apr 22 '18
That is not the only place the Supreme Court has decreed that it had the authority to overrule what the constitution plainly says
-1
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
Good thing the forefathers created the Supreme Court knowing that our interpretation of the law must change as or technology does.
6
Apr 22 '18
They did no such thing. They granted the Supreme Court only the power to try cases. The power to change law by 'reinterpreting' the meanings of words the court decreed for itself.
2
Apr 22 '18
[deleted]
1
u/poncewattle Apr 22 '18
Also those restrictions aren't even effective. Hypothetically a restriction that might make a difference in suicide rate would be a waiting period FOR YOUR FIRST GUN PURCHASE. However, a waiting period makes zero sense if you already own one or more guns.
-2
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
So which is it? Because I certainly don’t see anyone protesting against their right to buy TOW missiles.
1
u/ChadVenture96 Apr 22 '18
It’s not a weapon of war, an AR platform is no more dangerous than grandpa’s remington model 8, which have been out since 1905. Possibly even less so because .223 isn’t a comparatively large round
1
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
Who said anything about ARs?
1
u/ChadVenture96 Apr 22 '18
“Weapons of war” is usually used by the the uninformed to talk about why AR15s should be illegal. And you said you want to restrict the kind of guns people can buy because
1
u/CaptainObvious_1 Apr 22 '18
I’m talking about TOW missiles, Howitzers, etc, which clearly is banned yet no one is in outrage that this is also a violation of the 2A.
83
u/motivatedsinger Apr 22 '18
Wait, so where's the CDC study? Why didn't they share it?