Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dont understand that comment, I realize they did studies and found cigarettes to be deadly and dangerous, but other than that, NOTHING changed, anyone 18 and over can go into just about any store and buy as much as they like, so basically no restrictions on access were imposed, even though they were found to be deadly.
Listen to the arguments here and elsewhere in the gun control debate.
Both sides pro gun and anti gun.
Anti gun crowd is compelled by emotions and superstition.
Pro gun crowd is compelled by facts, logic, and leaves emotion at the door.
Both arguments are incompatible.
Take that CDC data I posted. Take the anti gun crowd argument of kids finding guns and killing themselves/their peers.
Look at the data posted. What does it say? Accidental discharge of a firearm.
Age brackets
Under 1 year old-1
1-4 years old-22
5-14 years old-26
15-24 years old-109
That's 158 deaths as a result of accident/negligence. If you take their prior arguments made here and elsewhere that gun owners are a minority and comprise only 30% of the United States Population of 323 million, that is 96,900,000 households that have firearms. 96 million, 900 thousand. Put the emotions and concerns aside from the spread of manufactured fear via inflammatory news reports. Calculate the risk in a percentage. 158 is what % of 96,900,000?
It comes out to be 0.00016305469556243552% chance that if you own firearms and include 18-24 year olds their risk of succumbing death as a result of accident/negligence/unsafe improper handling of a firearm, less than 1% chance of death. Doesn't fit the anti gun crowds arguments with kids being bullet magnets and dying in massive numbers now does it?
All things being relevant to accidents, how many kids die in car accidents and drownings?
CDC reports drownings/Accidental submersion.
Age brackets
Under 1 year old-29
1-4 years old-388
5-14 years old-230
15-24 years old-507.
That's a total of 1,154 deaths to drowning if we include 18-24 year olds in the CDCs flawed data of age brackets.
Bodies of water are what % more deadly than firearms?
Solve for X. 1,154 is what % of 158?
730.379746835443% more deadly than firearm accidents. Where's the screeching for common sense river, lake, creek, stream, pool, pond, bathtub control?! 730% more deadly than a household with firearms!
Automobile accidents.
Under 1 year old-68
1-4 years old-405
5-14 years old-829
15-24 years old-6,709
That's a total of 8,011 deaths in automobile accidents if we include 18-24 year olds in the CDCs flawed data of age brackets.
Automobiles are what % more deadly than firearms?
Solve for X. 8,011 is what % of 158?
5070.2531645569625% more deadly than firearm accidents.
Where's is the screeching for common sense car control?
Homicide. CDC rankings for the top 113 ways to die in this nation.
Looking at the PDF file I downloaded from the CDC.
Firearm homicides and firearm Accidental discharges do not rank in the top 10. The top 20. The top 30.
Where do firearms rank?
Coming in at #100 Accidental discharge of a firearm. A grand total of 461.
Coming in at #105 Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms. A grand total of 21,386
Coming in at #107 homicide/assault with a firearm. A grand total of 11,008.
Know what the number 1 rank of death according to the CDC is?
Salmonella infections. Keep eating at Chipotle. Don't have Feinstein screech about high capacity infectious burritos.
The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”
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.
Typical of Democrats to create a problem, then wish to punish others for what they've caused. Mass shootings occur because of the cultural rot that Democrats have shoved down our throats and now they wish to punish law abiding people for one of the symptoms of that rot.
Listen to the arguments here and elsewhere in the gun control debate.
Both sides pro gun and anti gun.
Anti gun crowd is compelled by emotions and superstition.
Pro gun crowd is compelled by facts, logic, and leaves emotion at the door.
Both arguments are incompatible.
Take that CDC data I posted. Take the anti gun crowd argument of kids finding guns and killing themselves/their peers.
Look at the data posted. What does it say? Accidental discharge of a firearm.
Age brackets
Under 1 year old-1
1-4 years old-22
5-14 years old-26
15-24 years old-109
That's 158 deaths as a result of accident/negligence. If you take their prior arguments made here and elsewhere that gun owners are a minority and comprise only 30% of the United States Population of 323 million, that is 96,900,000 households that have firearms. 96 million, 900 thousand. Put the emotions and concerns aside from the spread of manufactured fear via inflammatory news reports. Calculate the risk in a percentage. 158 is what % of 96,900,000?
It comes out to be 0.00016305469556243552% chance that if you own firearms and include 18-24 year olds their risk of succumbing death as a result of accident/negligence/unsafe improper handling of a firearm, less than 1% chance of death. Doesn't fit the anti gun crowds arguments with kids being bullet magnets and dying in massive numbers now does it?
All things being relevant to accidents, how many kids die in car accidents and drownings?
CDC reports drownings/Accidental submersion.
Age brackets
Under 1 year old-29
1-4 years old-388
5-14 years old-230
15-24 years old-507.
That's a total of 1,154 deaths to drowning if we include 18-24 year olds in the CDCs flawed data of age brackets.
Bodies of water are what % more deadly than firearms?
Solve for X. 1,154 is what % of 158?
730.379746835443% more deadly than firearm accidents. Where's the screeching for common sense river, lake, creek, stream, pool, pond, bathtub control?! 730% more deadly than a household with firearms!
Automobile accidents.
Under 1 year old-68
1-4 years old-405
5-14 years old-829
15-24 years old-6,709
That's a total of 8,011 deaths in automobile accidents if we include 18-24 year olds in the CDCs flawed data of age brackets.
Automobiles are what % more deadly than firearms?
Solve for X. 8,011 is what % of 158?
5070.2531645569625% more deadly than firearm accidents.
Where's is the screeching for common sense car control?
Homicide. CDC rankings for the top 113 ways to die in this nation.
Looking at the PDF file I downloaded from the CDC.
Firearm homicides and firearm Accidental discharges do not rank in the top 10. The top 20. The top 30.
Where do firearms rank?
Coming in at #100 Accidental discharge of a firearm. A grand total of 461.
Coming in at #105 Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms. A grand total of 21,386
Coming in at #107 homicide/assault with a firearm. A grand total of 11,008.
Know what the number 1 rank of death according to the CDC is?
Salmonella infections. Keep eating at Chipotle. Don't have Feinstein screech about high capacity infectious burritos.
Great post.
I guess it comes down to how much money the particular industry in question is raking in, putting major restrictions on cars would be disastrous for the auto industry and all the industries that depend on them, it would also be very bad for the insurance industry.
Same thing with tobacco, if they restricted access and cracked down, the tobacco industry would go bankrupt, meaning no tax revenue and LOTS of people out of a job.
Although I truly think it has more to do with Govt wanting the people to disarm themselves, in other words, they dont want to suddenly impose tough gun control and go door to door searching for guns...that would possibly lead to a public uprising or revolution, better to 'brainwash' the people that guns are bad and only law enforcement and military should have them.
I guess it comes down to how much money the particular industry in question is raking in, putting major restrictions on cars would be disastrous for the auto industry and all the industries that depend on them, it would also be very bad for the insurance industry.
Same thing with tobacco, if they restricted access and cracked down, the tobacco industry would go bankrupt, meaning no tax revenue and LOTS of people out of a job.
Although I truly think it has more to do with Govt wanting the people to disarm themselves, in other words, they dont want to suddenly impose tough gun control and go door to door searching for guns...that would possibly lead to a public uprising or revolution, better to 'brainwash' the people that guns are bad and only law enforcement and military should have them.
And what sells in the media. Manufactured fear.
Not a word is said in national headlines about daily deadly car accidents.
There could be a 30 car pileup with 20 fatalities or more in a single incident. If and that's a very big if, if it does capture headlines it's not in a constant barrage like firearms.
Should a big rig be involved? Even if not at fault. We need more restrictions on truck drivers. Electronic logs and mandatory rest periods are not enough. We must lower the weight these things can haul so they can stop in shorter distances or increase the brake system capacity more so that they can have decreased stopping distances
Not a word would be said about the idiot that didn't check their blind spot and the GPS said turn right now for an exit and at last minute pit maneuvered a car or ricocheted off the big rig and the domino effect take place...
I'll bet if I got every single media outlet, local, national coverages, to bombard people with inflammatory reporting on car accidents, and spin up Muh Childrunz.
I'd bet the same folks here who argue for the repeal of the 2nd and shilling for more gun control would be shrieking over private modes of transportation. I could get those idiots to submit their vehicles to the junkyard and be dependent upon public modes of transportation within 2 years time. Easy. After I have the lemmings convinced owning a car is deadly and they've shilled to Congress for them to "do something!" I would have every auto manufacturer folded up and only pumping vehicles out like buses trolleys and for folks that travel an hour or more taxes to fund their being picked up from home and transported to work an hour away.
I could get them to turn on everything. From food to video games to cars you name it. All in the name of Common sense. Universal. And Control. Exploiting their fears following media at the National and local level and social media bombardment with inflammatory reporting and CDC data.
And I would do it all by capitalizing on their fears through media manipulation. Just like they do with firearms.
Fear is one hell of a motivator and tool for manipulation...
I could turn every single anti gun shill here and elsewhere into anti anything hammering them with manufactured fear on the daily. I could have them with the help of CDC data, politicians, and inflammatory reporting on cherry picked current events into a frenzy calling for more government and less independence. Banning this that the other. In the name of Common sense, the Children, etc.
I'd have them terrified of whatever I wanted them to be and in support of any idea I bring forward to address their fear. Those that oppose would be denounced as troglodytes and shunned. Even if they knew it was BS and called it out as such with supporting facts and stats.
I just mobilize the useful idiots to boycott protest boo and carry on like a lemming army.
The landmark study in 1993 showed that bringing a gun into the home puts everyone at much greater risk. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”
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.
More people are likely to die by a gun in homes with a gun or guns than without them.
If people refuse to think about the consequences and are so paranoid and scared that they must keep a gun in the home (as opposed to an alarm system), any deaths by the gun is on them. Period. If they want to hide their heads in the sand, that is their problem.
I've lived alone in apartments in NYC and Miami, and in a cabin by myself with a dog in the mountains of New Mexico (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) and still have never had need of a gun or thought about getting one. If there are places that one cannot even think about living without a gun, I wouldn't live there. I'll never need or want a gun.
the CDC was set up to study diseases, not gun violence, thus they should NEVER have been tasked with the study of gun violence. that should fall under teh perview of the BATF or the FBI.
Not only that, the Dickey amendment is over 20 years old.
The OP simply wanted to attribute a BAN (the favored action of the left) to the NRA.
What's that? A CDC report that says 11,008 homicides via firearms. 461 fatalities by accident with firearms.
What's this?
FBI UCR data showing 11,004 firearm homicides.
What's this?
IIHS report that car accidents are responsible for 37k more deaths than firearm accidents.
What's this?
A number of NICS checks performed from 1998 on through part of 2018.
It is somewhat of an indication of how many firearms were sold. It does not include totals from states that do not perform NICS checks if they have a concealed carry permit. Nor the amount of weapons transferred on a 4473.
Given the above chart compared to your beloved CDC chart and an average of 11,006 homicides committed by firearms, and a total of 461 "accidents" I'd say your priorities are backwards and just want to pizz tax dollars away needlessly, in a nation of 323 million+ with such relatively low numbers for firearm related accidents and homicides.
Such a long post just to quote statistics, do you know the difference between a study and a statistic but I'm glad they didn't ban statistics on guns.
that may be, but they have no business doing so. they are tasked with studying diseases, not whether a toaster might have flaws in their design. leave that the the UL which IS tasked with such things, and likely do a much better job than the cdc would.
Why should they refrain from studies on guns, why isn't more information better.
Here are the results of the CDC's actual study on "gun violence". It turned out rather different from what the gun-rights-haters wanted. See it at: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix
Now you know why funding was hastily taken away from the CDC after this came out.
-----------------------------------------
CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama
Kyle Wintersteen August 27th, 2013
In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.
So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.
Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
2. Defensive uses of guns are common: "...more than 3 million per year…"
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.
What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it.
The study by The National Academies Institute of Medicine and National Research is 121 pages long and the major point it made was that more studies are required. No additional studies have been done in the last 5 years so again, why not more studies to provide details.
The authors suggested focusing on five areas: the characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology and the influence of video games and other media. The document is peppered with examples of how little we know about the causes and consequences of gun violence -- no doubt the result of an 18-year-old CDC research ban.
But gun-rights supporters zeroed on in a few statements to make their case. One related to the defensive use of guns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
