About time for some real research outside of partisan interest groups.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-funding-gun-violence-research-again_n_5df847d8e4b03aed50f4054f?ncid=APPLENEWS00001&guccounter=1

Both sides have delved into questionable stats regarding a real problem.

Gun violence is a public health issue, so it should be studied as one.

10 thoughts on “About time for some real research outside of partisan interest groups.

    1. Speaking of news, I’ve changed my morning news ritual. I’ve started watching Cox 136 – NEWSY. Not bad, just reporting without commentary or even eye-rolls, except from me. Brief excursions to CNBC during commercials, but all in all a much more pleasurable coffee experience.

      Two nostalgic notes — clearly the producers on the channel never watched SNL in the 70s because they actually have a Roseanne Roseannadanna look-alike reading the news, and during one commercial, I flipped up a channel, or two, and caught a couple of minutes of an old WB “Cheyenne”. Jeez, Clint Walker was HUGE! A regular mountainoid. Looked like Dorothy among the Munchkins.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Ah, but the CDC has already extensively studied the self defense and deterrent value of privately owned firearms, first between 1996 and 1998 and again in 2013.

    What? You never heard of those studies? That’s because they didn’t get the results they wanted.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#40bbbc1b299a

    Both times they studied the issue, their researchers found that defensive firearms uses greatly outnumbered criminal uses and that gun owners used their firearms effectively, and that private ownership of firearms deterred crimes against persons. So, they buried the results and never even issued a press release.

    So, if you’re wondering why we don’t trust the CDC to provide accurate data on firearms, there you go. They will keep torturing the data until they get the politically correct answers they want.

    https://reason.com/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o/

    https://reason.com/2018/09/04/what-the-cdcs-mid-90s-surveys-on-defensi/

    Like

    1. Of course, you do realize those were done with partial survey data, certain states and no to little effort to verify results. People lie.

      During the same time period Congress passed laws mandating that the States and local police departments collect gun use data from the crimes, including defensive use, but few, if any, have complied.

      Like

  2. As your own link says:

    “ We still don’t really know how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) there are each year.”

    The Forbes opinion bottom line is that the information is so hard to get and so unreliable as to be useless.
    So why publicize useless or inaccurate data. 500,000 to 3 million DGU’S? Really? Kind of a broad range that says nothing.

    And he misinterprets the CDC official to make him sound looney.

    Here is what he actually said:

    “ We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” Rosenberg’s thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we’d go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.”

    Is it good that guns are “cool, sexy and macho”? Or should we look at gun ownership as a right that needs to be protected by responsibility? A right that few nations have to the same extent we do. Or do we let the gun lobby spin “getting your man license” as a reason to own a deadly weapon?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Even at the low end, 500,000 successful defensive uses plus an unmeasurable, but no less real, deterrent effect still greatly outweighs criminal uses of guns.

    As we previously discussed, firearms homicides not related to gang violence are less than 1/100K per year, about the same as Australia or Britain. So, when did the CDC start calling epidemics that affect less than 1/100K?

    There is a media induced PERCEPTION of an epidemic, but outside of gang violence, it is not real, and disarming good people would likely have the unintended consequence of reducing that deterrent that makes us safe.

    The drive for gun control is purely emotional, and in no case is there a rational basis that supports it.

    Like

  4. So you have no problem with gang violence in your own nation? And the innocent victims. And the detrimental effects on future generations of fellow Americans.

    I think you are dismissing millions of us who suffering from the absolute over saturation of weapons.

    But, it’s just a “disease” for poor people. They’re not taxpayers, after all. We can’t worry about everyone.

    But so long as we worship guns, and we do, that keeps guns in the sexy, cool and macho spectrum and to me that is a big part of the problem.

    IMHO

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s