Guns and Watertown

[Fern]

How often do you think guns are used in self defense each year? If you say 2 million, you're using bad stats.

-snip-
What that article doesn't mention is that by the estimates of those who cite the 2-3 million figure, guns were used defensively in more than 100% of burglaries in the entire United States in an average year. Quite an impressive job, thwarting 101%+ of burglaries. It's a wonder thieves keep getting away with stuff.
-snip-

You would be ignoring the possibility that someone brandishing a weapon and thus thwarting a crime (theft etc) might not report it, or, even if reported, might not show up in the statistics. Who knows how police might report the incident even if they showed up, look around and found no one.

Moreover, in you're arguments regarding the cost/benefit or actual utility of having a gun you're disregarding the possibility that assumed possession of a gun is likely a sufficient deterrent to a criminal. i.e., If I live in an area thought to have a high incident of gun ownership are criminals more likely to avoid my area (unless they can sure no one is present)? Instead, might they choose a neighborhood where gun ownership is unlikely?

In this way, possession of a gun is a deterrent much like weapons owned by countries. If country A knows that country B can defend itself and is therefore reluctant to attack the weapons have acted as a deterrent without having been used or brandished.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

So many political issues are base on what I analogize as optical illusions.

Gun radicals are correct in their argument that usually, if you take one of these mass killings, and you arm the victims at that moment, it'll greatly reduce the killing.

The problem is, that's all they consider. Issue closed, arm everyone everywhere always.

Now, when you calculate all the OTHER killings, the bad killings that any such policy would cause - increases in suicide, accidental shootings, arguments that escalate into shootings, the use of handy guns for random acts of violence, and even cases like the one with Gabby Giffords where a person who DID have a gun during the shooting came less than a second from shooting the guy who was attacking the shooter, mistakenly - the math changes dramatically. But gun radicals don't look at that.

They use a grain of truth - 'what if the moviegoers in aurora all had guns'- to prove a lie.

Thing is, when are these people ever exposed to the 'other side'? Not by the NRA, not when they tell each other their views at the shooting range, not by Fox News.

That's where you get to the 'law of unintended consequences', just like Louisianana voting to make guns a 'fundamental right' - letting felons buy them, oops.

What's it all really about? It seems it's about people who want to profit from gun sales stoking paranoia among voters to get them to support radical policies on the issue. The money they spend translates into enough votes to get them a lot of political influence, because most citizens who support gun control don't vote based on the issue.

 

[Abraxas]

Your first "point" is somewhat self-evident, but Charles' statement is still true as you pointed out. It is not ridiculous to point out the truth.

It certainly can be. If I spent the rest of this debate drawing comparisons between your posts and the mating calls of a cockatiel, everything I say may well be technically true, but my inclusion of inane, irrelevant, and tenuously connected at best content does not make my commenting on it any less ridiculous. I'll bet nobody in Watertown said on that day, "I sure wish my kid wasn't sticking his face in this tank of flesh eating bacteria" also, trying to infer something from that is still ridiculous.

Your second "point" is, um, pointless. Guns may not have helped materially, but they certainly contributed to a feeling of security among those who had them.

You know this how? Second, does that feeling of security do them any favors if they aren't more secure? There is a huge amount of overlap between feeling secure and being overconfident and the latter gets you and other people killed.

And your third "point" is directly refuted by your second; given that there are "probably quite a few guns" in Watertown and yet there was no evidence of "a bunch of panicky morons shooting anything that moves because they are on edge, under stress, and in the general vicinity of a known mad bomber."

It might be refuted, had you not omitted half my remark and thus divorced the last half from context. In my second point, I said there were probably several guns, in the third I was discussing a hypothetical in which everyone, or close to it had weapons, As this was not the case, point two says nothing about point three.

As for your and ivwshane's point, it is quite humorous. These are men (well, manlike animals) who intentionally placed bombs behind children. Your contention is that you are most safe from them if you and everyone around are powerless to fight back and simply don't attract their notice, yet they were perfectly capable and willing to come into the apartment building and kill everyone inside had the cops not kept them a bit occupied. You are first assuming that you are relatively safe from them unless someone fires on them, which is simply not true. They were terrorists; anyone around them without a giant "I am a Muslim" tee shirt is at risk, because that's what they do.

Pay attention Charles, this is a strawman. I never said any such thing. My contention was that when you have a group of bomb hurling terrorists pinned down by police gun fire, they are not terribly likely to dick around with random civilians unless they are close enough to take as hostages. Humans, animals, or other, they have the basic capacity for threat recognition and are likely to continue to focus their attention on what is threatening them at any given moment. If you change the equation and come at them from an elevated firing position with a clear line of sight behind the cover they have chosen, you just moved to the top of the list of things threatening them which means they are very, very likely to try and kill you. When their chosen weapon for trying to kill you is a bomb, that means everyone near you is also endangered.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow...so you're suggesting that the only time these defensive gun uses happen is during burglaries? I think there's a slight flaw in your thinking there

No, I'm not saying that. This 2-3 million defensive use figure has been around for awhile. Back in the 90's someone looked into that figure. It basically breaks down like this. According to that figure, guns were used 34% of the time to prevent a burglary. (thus about 850,000 times) In the year of the survey there were about 6 million burglaries in the US and people were only home for about 20% of them (ie: only a chance for self defense 1.2 million times). Less than half of US households own a gun, and even when people are home they are usually asleep during the whole burglary.

When you take it into account it turns out that guns that year were used to prevent 850,000 of about 200,000 possible burglaries. That is a preposterous figure.

Now you're going to ignore the comparative analysis aren't you? Super conservative estimate is 100k, over 3x as many "deaths"...seems reasonable to want a gun to be more safe to me

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Research with unknown "judges" playing Monday morning quarterback...and as irishScott said many of those would depend on what jurisdiction things happen in as to whether or not they would be a "crime"

You realize the whole job of a judge is to help determine if someone is guilty of a crime, right? I feel like their opinion on what a crime is would be highly relevant. The fact is that in quite a number of cases things that people believe they are doing to 'defend' themselves are quite likely crimes they are perpetrating against other people. That's a strike against gun ownership, not a point for it.

 

[woolfe9998]

Moreover, in you're arguments regarding the cost/benefit or actual utility of having a gun you're disregarding the possibility that assumed possession of a gun is likely a sufficient deterrent to a criminal. i.e., If I live in an area thought to have a high incident of gun ownership are criminals more likely to avoid my area (unless they can sure no one is present)? Instead, might they choose a neighborhood where gun ownership is unlikely?

In this way, possession of a gun is a deterrent much like weapons owned by countries. If country A knows that country B can defend itself and is therefore reluctant to attack the weapons have acted as a deterrent without having been used or brandished.

Fern

Murderers don't seem to pick states without the death penalty to commit their murders. Hence, I find it doubtful that murderers and other kinds of criminals pick areas with tighter gun control to commit their crimes. It's a pretty close analogy.

 

[Abraxas]

Well there's this nice summary of current estimates.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense



It's notable that there is NO estimate I can find that puts the number of defensive gun uses at lower than, or even in the neighborhood of 30,000 (approximate combined gun homicides and suicides). If even one of these estimates is within 60,000 of the accurate figure, which can be up to 60% error depending on the estimate, it's statistically worth it to have a gun, as you're more likely to use it defensively as opposed to being hurt by it.

But of course, these are just estimates. We'd need a full-blown study for hard evidence, and such a study TMK does not exist.

Why are we comparing all defensive gun use against only the uses of guns that end in death? Are armed robberies, muggings, assaults with a firearm, etc. not equally worth considering if we are talking about the number of crimes firearms prevent or defend against? Per this, there were 122,00 armed robberies using a firearm in 2011 and 136,000 aggravated assaults with a firearm, do they count for anything?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ed_offenses_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

 

[irishScott]

Why are we comparing all defensive gun use against only the uses of guns that end in death? Are armed robberies, muggings, assaults with a firearm, etc. not equally worth considering if we are talking about the number of crimes firearms prevent or defend against? Per this, there were 122,00 armed robberies using a firearm in 2011 and 136,000 aggravated assaults with a firearm, do they count for anything?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ed_offenses_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

This whole discussion started because Eskimopie posted a study, claiming that it showed owning a gun increased risk of death, with (he claimed) no off-setting benefits. The estimates were posted to refute this and demonstrate that guns prevent more death than they cause. Thus the discussion was always about how firearms are related to statistical death.

If you want to expand the conversation to muggings and aggravated assaults, I'd respond with asking how many of those guns were bought legally, and how much of it was related to gang violence.

 

[werepossum]

As for your and ivwshane's point, it is quite humorous. These are men (well, manlike animals) who intentionally placed bombs behind children. Your contention is that you are most safe from them if you and everyone around are powerless to fight back and simply don't attract their notice, yet they were perfectly capable and willing to come into the apartment building and kill everyone inside had the cops not kept them a bit occupied. You are first assuming that you are relatively safe from them unless someone fires on them, which is simply not true. They were terrorists; anyone around them without a giant "I am a Muslim" tee shirt is at risk, because that's what they do.

Pay attention Charles, this is a strawman. I never said any such thing. My contention was that when you have a group of bomb hurling terrorists pinned down by police gun fire, they are not terribly likely to dick around with random civilians unless they are close enough to take as hostages. Humans, animals, or other, they have the basic capacity for threat recognition and are likely to continue to focus their attention on what is threatening them at any given moment. If you change the equation and come at them from an elevated firing position with a clear line of sight behind the cover they have chosen, you just moved to the top of the list of things threatening them which means they are very, very likely to try and kill you. When their chosen weapon for trying to kill you is a bomb, that means everyone near you is also endangered.

Ahem. If one is going to assert that I have misinterpreted one's point, one should probably not make that exact same point in one's assertion.

 

[fskimospy]

This whole discussion started because Eskimopie posted a study, claiming that it showed owning a gun increased risk of death, with (he claimed) no off-setting benefits. The estimates were posted to refute this and demonstrate that guns prevent more death than they cause. Thus the discussion was always about how firearms are related to statistical death.

But you realize that no evidence has been produced that actually shows that guns prevent more death than they cause, certainly not to their owners... right?

 

[Fern]

Murderers don't seem to pick states without the death penalty to commit their murders. Hence, I find it doubtful that murderers and other kinds of criminals pick areas with tighter gun control to commit their crimes. It's a pretty close analogy.

I don't think it's a close analogy at all.

I do think criminals choose 'soft targets'.

I also understand that most murders are 'hot blooded' with no thought but rage.

Fern

 

[Abraxas]

This whole discussion started because Eskimopie posted a study, claiming that it showed owning a gun increased risk of death, with (he claimed) no off-setting benefits. The estimates were posted to refute this and demonstrate that guns prevent more death than they cause. Thus the discussion was always about how firearms are related to statistical death.

If you want to expand the conversation to muggings and aggravated assaults, I'd respond with asking how many of those guns were bought legally, and how much of it was related to gang violence.

I don't see how those are relevant questions to whether or not guns do more harm than good. Do you honestly think it is an apples to apples comparison to weight only the criminal uses of a gun that result in death against every purported defensive use of a firearm? The only way I could see that being fair is if you are contending every single defensive use of a firearm saved a life or lives and that doesn't seen even remotely likely. How do you go about determining which defensive uses and in what proportion are lifesaving? Simply saying guns were used x many times defensively doesn't demonstrate they prevented x many deaths.

 

[Abraxas]

Ahem. If one is going to assert that I have misinterpreted one's point, one should probably not make that exact same point in one's assertion.

Except those two points aren't logically equivalent, not even close. I never said anything about being powerless, I never even said that you shouldn't own a gun. That was your invention. Likewise, I didn't say anything about not attracting their notice, whether they notice you isn't all that important with one important exception, that being if they notice you as a threat.

Further, them being capable and willing to come into the apartment doesn't appear anywhere in my argument either, we have no idea if they were either. The door could very well have been locked and they may have had a lot of other priorities that made them unwilling to spend the time and ordinance necessary to terrorize an apartment.

Most importantly, you basically handwaved away the most important part of my point. They didn't just happen to be engaged in a gun battle with police, that was the bloody crux of the thing. My point was then and is now, that when bomb hurling terrorists are pinned down fighting with police, entering the fight is not only dangerous for you, it is dangerous for those around you.

Hell, consider it from the cop's point of view. You've been engaged in a running gun battle with mad bombers through the streets of Boston. The bombers seem intent on making it to ground. They come to a stop in front of an apartment behind cover continuing to fire with intent to kill you. Suddenly, above them in a window, a third person in civilian clothes brandishing a firearm appears. What do you do? Do you just assume they're a good guy or do you think they might be an accomplice? You could just as easily get killed by the cops as the terrorists.

 

[irishScott]

But you realize that no evidence has been produced that actually shows that guns prevent more death than they cause, certainly not to their owners... right?

So long as you realize that no evidence has been produced that demonstrates the converse, yes.

 

[irishScott]

I don't see how those are relevant questions to whether or not guns do more harm than good. Do you honestly think it is an apples to apples comparison to weight only the criminal uses of a gun that result in death against every purported defensive use of a firearm? The only way I could see that being fair is if you are contending every single defensive use of a firearm saved a life or lives and that doesn't seen even remotely likely. How do you go about determining which defensive uses and in what proportion are lifesaving? Simply saying guns were used x many times defensively doesn't demonstrate they prevented x many deaths.

They're relevant questions because if you bring in the whole swath of every crime committed with a gun and say "large numbers of crimes are committed with guns, therefore they do more harm than good." You're committing the fallacy of lumping in criminal ownership of guns with legal ownership of guns. Obviously more guns in the hands of criminals is a bad thing, but are more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a good thing? And how do the two interact? Those are the questions that fundamentally matter, and to simply quote crimes committed with guns as an argument that legal ownership isn't worth it is like quoting illegal immigrant numbers and saying we should ban legal immigration as well.

A better example might be narcotic pain medications. There are those who use it to get high and those who use it for legitimate medical conditions. Would anyone argue that narcotic pain medications do more harm than good? No, because you can't compare patients to druggies or assume that one will inevitably turn into the other.

With the discussion we've been having with eskimopie, the question was "does legal gun ownership increase your likelihood of death more than it protects you?". If you want to ask the broader question of "does civilian ownership of guns do more harm than good?", that's a whole new ball game.

 

[Abraxas]

They're relevant questions because if you bring in the whole swath of every crime committed with a gun and say "large numbers of crimes are committed with guns, therefore they do more harm than good." You're committing the fallacy of lumping in criminal ownership of guns with legal ownership of guns. Obviously more guns in the hands of criminals is a bad thing, but are more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a good thing? And how do the two interact? Those are the questions that fundamentally matter, and to simply quote crimes committed with guns as an argument that legal ownership isn't worth it is like quoting illegal immigrant numbers and saying we should ban legal immigration as well.

A better example might be narcotic pain medications. There are those who use it to get high and those who use it for legitimate medical conditions. Would anyone argue that narcotic pain medications do more harm than good? No, because you can't compare patients to druggies or assume that one will inevitably turn into the other.

With the discussion we've been having with eskimopie, the question was "does legal gun ownership increase your likelihood of death more than it protects you?". If you want to ask the broader question of "does civilian ownership of guns do more harm than good?", that's a whole new ball game.

For the most part I don't disagree with you, I just feel like you are missing my broader point.

My point is that on the one hand, you are framing eskimospy's position in very narrow terms, that firearms increase the possibility of death. There are plenty of other negative consequences firearms can increase the possibility of such as injury or property loss, but for the purposes of this argument, those have been put aside to focus on the one. That's fine and it is legitimate to focus a discussion on just one consequence.

However, on the reverse, you are applying your counterclaim very broadly, that firearms can be used to protect you and are a hundred thousand times minimum per year. The problem I have with this is that you are requiring eskimospy to frame his argument in specific terms but you aren't doing the same. Guns can be used to protect yourself from a lot of things, including property loss, injury, or, yes death.

The issue is you are comparing the number of instances guns are being used to protect from anything and everything to only the cases of firearm use that result in death. To me, that comparison is inherently unfair because the two qualities being compared are unalike. From my perspective, in order to get a fair read you would need to only count the cases where the firearm prevented death to be compared to the cases the firearm caused it, something that is grossly impractical.

On the reverse however, you can get a good measure of all firearm defensive uses from everything and also firearm criminal uses from everything and compare those numbers to get a good sense of how the guns are being used in society.

To Eskimospy's specific point, unless we can get solid numbers showing not just how many defensive uses in general take place, but specifically how many lifesaving defensive actions took place, a meaningful comparison cannot be made.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally Posted by eskimospy
But you realize that no evidence has been produced that actually shows that guns prevent more death than they cause, certainly not to their owners... right?

So long as you realize that no evidence has been produced that demonstrates the converse, yes.

I suggest we all pause here for a minute to wonder why this might be. Wouldn't it be interesting to collect data to answer questions about the balance of increased/decreased risks of gun ownership of various types in various situations? Why isn't this research being done?

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

:hmm:

What research there has been seems to suggest that there are some increased homicide/suicide risks that go along with gun ownership.

 

[irishScott]

For the most part I don't disagree with you, I just feel like you are missing my broader point.

My point is that on the one hand, you are framing eskimospy's position in very narrow terms, that firearms increase the possibility of death. There are plenty of other negative consequences firearms can increase the possibility of such as injury or property loss, but for the purposes of this argument, those have been put aside to focus on the one. That's fine and it is legitimate to focus a discussion on just one consequence.

However, on the reverse, you are applying your counterclaim very broadly, that firearms can be used to protect you and are a hundred thousand times minimum per year. The problem I have with this is that you are requiring eskimospy to frame his argument in specific terms but you aren't doing the same. Guns can be used to protect yourself from a lot of things, including property loss, injury, or, yes death.

The issue is you are comparing the number of instances guns are being used to protect from anything and everything to only the cases of firearm use that result in death. To me, that comparison is inherently unfair because the two qualities being compared are unalike. From my perspective, in order to get a fair read you would need to only count the cases where the firearm prevented death to be compared to the cases the firearm caused it, something that is grossly impractical.

On the reverse however, you can get a good measure of all firearm defensive uses from everything and also firearm criminal uses from everything and compare those numbers to get a good sense of how the guns are being used in society.

To Eskimospy's specific point, unless we can get solid numbers showing not just how many defensive uses in general take place, but specifically how many lifesaving defensive actions took place, a meaningful comparison cannot be made.

True enough, although I'd like to note that I gave eskimopie's argument the benefit of the doubt as well, though I'll admit said benefit was a far slimmer concession.

As you say, we have no reliable numbers with which to make convincing arguments. Estimates and benefit of the doubt are all we have to go on.

 

[irishScott]

[/I]



I suggest we all pause here for a minute to wonder why this might be. Wouldn't it be interesting to collect data to answer questions about the balance of increased/decreased risks of gun ownership of various types in various situations? Why isn't this research being done?

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

:hmm:

What research there has been seems to suggest that there are some increased homicide/suicide risks that go along with gun ownership.

That's an extremely one-sided link. Treating gun violence as a "public health phenomenon" typically means categorizing gun violence as the disease and guns as the contagion, with little regard to the apparently massive majority of gun owners who are "immune." Gun violence is a crime, culture, and economic issue, and should be treated as such. Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming rats for the Black Death while ignoring the actual pathogen. It's simply intellectually dishonest.

I'll admit I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of every gun control study to date, but of those I've see that are pro-gun control, they typically follow a similar pattern.

And I'm sure a Clinton-era CDC publicly denied that they were following any agenda, just like every Democrat ever is for the "rights of hunters and sportsmen."

I'd like to point out that the most recent relevant CDC study, conducted in 2004 at the expiration of the Clinton AWB, found no consistent relationship between the AWB and gun crime. While the study does attribute this largely to lack of information, lack of proper analysis of various convoluting factors, and properly notes that lack of evidence of effectiveness should not be taken as evidence of ineffectiveness, it's telling that 10 years of a magazine and assault weapons ban resulted in nothing visible, even with a significant depth of research.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

[PowerEngineer]

That's an extremely one-sided link. Treating gun violence as a "public health phenomenon" typically means categorizing gun violence as the disease and guns as the contagion, with little regard to the apparently massive majority of gun owners who are "immune." Gun violence is a crime, culture, and economic issue, and should be treated as such. Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming rats for the Black Death while ignoring the actual pathogen. It's simply intellectually dishonest.

I'll admit I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of every gun control study to date, but of those I've see that are pro-gun control, they typically follow a similar pattern.

And I'm sure a Clinton-era CDC publicly denied that they were following any agenda, just like every Democrat ever is for the "rights of hunters and sportsmen."

I'd like to point out that the most recent relevant CDC study, conducted in 2004 at the expiration of the Clinton AWB, found no consistent relationship between the AWB and gun crime. While the study does attribute this largely to lack of information, lack of proper analysis of various convoluting factors, and properly notes that lack of evidence of effectiveness should not be taken as evidence of ineffectiveness, it's telling that 10 years of a magazine and assault weapons ban resulted in nothing visible, even with a significant depth of research.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

What certainly seems to be true is that the NRA and other advocates for the gun industry lobby against any kind of data gathering or study of how gun ownership changes one's risks of being a victim of crime, homicide, suicide, etc.

You put your own interesting spin on the CDC report you cite. It's hardly "telling" that no conclusions about effectiveness could be drawn because of a lack of data. Choosing to close your eyes so that you do not see what might be in front of you does not mean that there's nothing there.

I'm thinking we'd both be happier (and debates about gun ownership would be much more productive) if we had much more objective information to consider.

 

[irishScott]

What certainly seems to be true is that the NRA and other advocates for the gun industry lobby against any kind of data gathering or study of how gun ownership changes one's risks of being a victim of crime, homicide, suicide, etc.

You put your own interesting spin on the CDC report you cite. It's hardly "telling" that no conclusions about effectiveness could be drawn because of a lack of data. Choosing to close your eyes so that you do not see what might be in front of you does not mean that there's nothing there.

I'm thinking we'd both be happier (and debates about gun ownership would be much more productive) if we had much more objective information to consider.

That's an oversimplification. It's telling not because they found nothing, but because what they found was contradictory and erratic. At the very least it indicates that other factors far outweigh the effects of the Clinton AWB in terms of determining gun crime. When isn't really all that surprising IMO.

In any case, yes I'm all for objective research into the subject. Unfortunately guns are even more politicized than global warming.

 

[PowerEngineer]

That's an oversimplification. It's telling not because they found nothing, but because what they found was contradictory and erratic. At the very least it indicates that other factors far outweigh the effects of the Clinton AWB in terms of determining gun crime. When isn't really all that surprising IMO.

In any case, yes I'm all for objective research into the subject. Unfortunately guns are even more politicized than global warming.

Well, yes. Analogies by their very nature always are!

Without data to determine the effects of the AWB, it is logically impossible to make any comparison to its effect to "other factors".

I certainly agree with you about the politicized nature of the gun debate. I also have no doubt that both sides will try to twist the results of any objective research to support their preconceived views; we can sort that bias out over time. What's unconscionable IMHO is either side blocking objective research out of fear that the results will not support their view.

 

[Craig234]

What's unconscionable IMHO is either side blocking objective research out of fear that the results will not support their view.

Well, exactly one side has done that, voting for legislation that specifically prohibits the Center for Disease Control from doing any research on the effects of gun policies.

But the right's voters don't hold them accountable. Show me ONE Republican voter who said "I won't vote for him or her because they opposed that research".

Politicians know these issues well, where you might have over 90% say they're for a position - but none of them will vote based on it, and they can be ignored.

 

[irishScott]

Well, yes. Analogies by their very nature always are!

Without data to determine the effects of the AWB, it is logically impossible to make any comparison to its effect to "other factors".

I certainly agree with you about the politicized nature of the gun debate. I also have no doubt that both sides will try to twist the results of any objective research to support their preconceived views; we can sort that bias out over time. What's unconscionable IMHO is either side blocking objective research out of fear that the results will not support their view.

How is it logically impossible to determine that other factors have more significance? The AWB was supposed to limit gun crime, no? So it's passed. 10 years later, there is no consistent pattern in gun crime reduction. So obviously something else, likely many things, got in the way of the AWB's objective and thus collectively "outweigh" the effectiveness of the AWB. Clearly the AWB was not a deciding factor in many cases. If it was we'd see a consistent decline in gun crime.

Ironically enough, we've seen said consistent decline over the years after the AWB was lifted; where we should be seeing a consistent rise if it had actually been effective in its goals.

Yeah, blocking research out of fear alone is wrong. Blocking it because it's intellectually dishonest, not so much. In any case, I chalk it up to those years being the Clinton Era and the NRA getting desperate, pulling out every stop it could. If the CDC insists on treating guns as a disease, I'd like the NRA to publicly poke holes in that concept to all hell while sponsering their own independent research.

 

[Craig234]

How is it logically impossible to determine that other factors have more significance? The AWB was supposed to limit gun crime, no? So it's passed. 10 years later, there is no consistent pattern in gun crime reduction. So obviously something else, likely many things, got in the way of the AWB's objective and thus collectively "outweigh" the effectiveness of the AWB. Clearly the AWB was not a deciding factor in many cases. If it was we'd see a consistent decline in gun crime.

Ironically enough, we've seen said consistent decline over the years after the AWB was lifted; where we should be seeing a consistent rise if it had actually been effective in its goals.

Yeah, blocking research out of fear alone is wrong. Blocking it because it's intellectually dishonest, not so much. In any case, I chalk it up to those years being the Clinton Era and the NRA getting desperate, pulling out every stop it could. If the CDC insists on treating guns as a disease, I'd like the NRA to publicly poke holes in that concept to all hell while sponsering their own independent research.

The CDC does not treat guns as a disease. That's pathetic and absurd. The NRA isn't about to do any quality 'independent research', the fact you think they will... says a lot.

I mean, come on with the quality of argument - you're making a claim based on the word disease being in the agency name.

That's like saying Hawaii and Alaska can't be states because they don't touch the rest of the country, and these are the UNITED states.

Or when the Surgeon General comments on nutrition he's out of line, because he's the SURGEON General not the DOCTOR General.

 

[irishScott]

The CDC does not treat guns as a disease. That's pathetic and absurd. The NRA isn't about to do any quality 'independent research', the fact you think they will... says a lot.

I mean, come on with the quality of argument - you're making a claim based on the word disease being in the agency name.

That's like saying Hawaii and Alaska can't be states because they don't touch the rest of the country, and these are the UNITED states.

Or when the Surgeon General comments on nutrition he's out of line, because he's the SURGEON General not the DOCTOR General.

Lol, do your research Craig.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

A major danger of treating gun violence as a public health issue is that invites a false, politically-driven association of guns with disease, rather than the addressing much more fundamental mental health and social causes underlying violent behavior in general. This mischaracterization is made clear in 1994 American Medical News interview with Dr. Katherine Christoffel, head of the “Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan”, a CDC-funded organization who said: “guns are a virus that must be eradicated… They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.”

In the same article, Mark Rosenberg, who then headed CDC, agreed: “Kathy Christoffel is saying about firearms injuries what has been said for years about AIDS: that we can no longer be silent. That silence equals death and she’s not willing to be silent anymore. She’s asking for help.”

That same year, Rosenberg told the Washington Post: “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” And in the previous year, he had subtitled his part of an article on the public health approach to violence published in Atlanta Medicine: “The Bullet as Pathogen.”

Edit: Yes it's Larry Bell, but a lot of the facts he quotes check out in this case.