5 ms·

Why was the CDC asking about firearms?

by lainga 9y ago

wglb 9y ago
Public health hazard. [Edit] The author, Gary Klek, is a firearm-ownership supporter.
- daenz 9y ago
  >[Edit] The author, Gary Klek, is a firearm-ownership supporter. Can you state clearly the implication of this?
  - wglb 9y ago
    The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck talks about his research, advocacy, and testimony.
  - opportune 9y ago
    Perhaps someone who makes a living advocating for gun rights might focus on finding supporting arguments for gun ownership?
    - daenz 9y ago
      If the data is sound, what does it matter what they believe?
      - wglb 9y ago
        Check the wikipedia article below. There is not universal agreement amongst researchers.
glibgil 9y ago
Epidemiologist study epidemics
wereHamster 9y ago
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the leading national public health institute of the United States. (source: wikipedia). People dying is a health issue, and it's CDCs job to investigate how to prevent / minimise deaths. Doesn't matter if the health issues come from viruses or guns. They also investigate deaths related to motor vehicle crashes etc. And IIRC they can ask about anything, just not publish it themselves (what a stupid law the americans came up with). So other people getting their hands on those numbers and publishing themselves, why not…
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
The "main goal" of the CDC "is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and internationally" [1]. Guns cause injury and disability. The CDC's work around guns has been an area of "partisan dispute" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention#Gun_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an...
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Guns don’t cause injury and disability more than they prevent it. Sorry, but that’s the truth. We have 340,000,000 people, more guns than that. And 10,000 homicides where the vast majority are drug and gang related. We have a problem, but it’s not with guns. Edit: more truth, more downvotes. I’m curious as to why there is such effort against an enumerated right - when putting even 1/10th the effort into fighting heart disease which kills 700,000 a year would have such a greater impact?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lordnacho 9y ago
    Guy says it's an area of partisan dispute, and you write a post that proves it. Yes, it's partisan. Your facts may be right, but the argument is one sided.
    - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
      It’s not partisan to me, i could care less how fellow gun owners vote. One side has emotional plees, logical fallacies, or stubborn ignorance of the topic - I won’t appologoze for not being on that side.
  - kharms 9y ago
    Guns have an amplifier effect on suicides, domestic violence.
SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
They shouldn’t be, but it’s not new. The big fuss about the CDC and guns happened in 92/93/94 when Clinton came in and wanted ammo for his upcoming gun ban proposals. Funded some absolutely junk science that had been almost all entirely discredited. Such gems as “you are X % more likely to die of a gun if you own one” that was based on police reported deaths only where the victim owned a gun then applied to all citizens. The data for these “studies” was never fully released. The 1996 congress came in and slapped the CDC down from being used as a propoganda tool again. The Dickey amendment never banned research as many like to claim - but did ban advocacy of gun bans - imagine that once they couldn’t be used as a tool the junk science stopped. Should the CDC be focused on guns? Explicitly no, but it’s not new. Of the studies since 96, none have found a link to guns and violence or gun ownership and higher death rates. Edit: downvotes for truth, please don’t turn into reddit.
nonbel 9y ago
Looks like there are some people trying to use the "anti-smoking" campaign as a blueprint for an "anti-gun" campaign. I found a couple links like this when I searched: http://theconversation.com/public-health-research-reduced-smoking-deaths-it-could-do-the-same-for-gun-violence-60994 http://theconversation.com/public-health-research-reduced-sm... I doubt any "motivated" research like this is going to be good science. It just seems impossible.

Why was the CDC asking about firearms?

by lainga 9y ago

Why was the CDC asking about firearms?

wglb 9y ago

Public health hazard. [Edit] The author, Gary Klek, is a firearm-ownership supporter.

daenz 9y ago
>[Edit] The author, Gary Klek, is a firearm-ownership supporter. Can you state clearly the implication of this?
- wglb 9y ago
  The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck talks about his research, advocacy, and testimony.
- opportune 9y ago
  Perhaps someone who makes a living advocating for gun rights might focus on finding supporting arguments for gun ownership?
  - daenz 9y ago
    If the data is sound, what does it matter what they believe?
    - wglb 9y ago
      Check the wikipedia article below. There is not universal agreement amongst researchers.

glibgil 9y ago

Epidemiologist study epidemics

wereHamster 9y ago

> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the leading national public health institute of the United States. (source: wikipedia). People dying is a health issue, and it's CDCs job to investigate how to prevent / minimise deaths. Doesn't matter if the health issues come from viruses or guns. They also investigate deaths related to motor vehicle crashes etc. And IIRC they can ask about anything, just not publish it themselves (what a stupid law the americans came up with). So other people getting their hands on those numbers and publishing themselves, why not…

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

The "main goal" of the CDC "is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and internationally" [1]. Guns cause injury and disability. The CDC's work around guns has been an area of "partisan dispute" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention#Gun_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an...

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
Guns don’t cause injury and disability more than they prevent it. Sorry, but that’s the truth. We have 340,000,000 people, more guns than that. And 10,000 homicides where the vast majority are drug and gang related. We have a problem, but it’s not with guns. Edit: more truth, more downvotes. I’m curious as to why there is such effort against an enumerated right - when putting even 1/10th the effort into fighting heart disease which kills 700,000 a year would have such a greater impact?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lordnacho 9y ago
  Guy says it's an area of partisan dispute, and you write a post that proves it. Yes, it's partisan. Your facts may be right, but the argument is one sided.
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    It’s not partisan to me, i could care less how fellow gun owners vote. One side has emotional plees, logical fallacies, or stubborn ignorance of the topic - I won’t appologoze for not being on that side.
- kharms 9y ago
  Guns have an amplifier effect on suicides, domestic violence.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago

They shouldn’t be, but it’s not new. The big fuss about the CDC and guns happened in 92/93/94 when Clinton came in and wanted ammo for his upcoming gun ban proposals. Funded some absolutely junk science that had been almost all entirely discredited. Such gems as “you are X % more likely to die of a gun if you own one” that was based on police reported deaths only where the victim owned a gun then applied to all citizens. The data for these “studies” was never fully released. The 1996 congress came in and slapped the CDC down from being used as a propoganda tool again. The Dickey amendment never banned research as many like to claim - but did ban advocacy of gun bans - imagine that once they couldn’t be used as a tool the junk science stopped. Should the CDC be focused on guns? Explicitly no, but it’s not new. Of the studies since 96, none have found a link to guns and violence or gun ownership and higher death rates. Edit: downvotes for truth, please don’t turn into reddit.

nonbel 9y ago

Looks like there are some people trying to use the "anti-smoking" campaign as a blueprint for an "anti-gun" campaign. I found a couple links like this when I searched: http://theconversation.com/public-health-research-reduced-smoking-deaths-it-could-do-the-same-for-gun-violence-60994 http://theconversation.com/public-health-research-reduced-sm... I doubt any "motivated" research like this is going to be good science. It just seems impossible.