|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine.
At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/
|
On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/
I don't get it.
You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks.
Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here?
I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words?
|
|
|
On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words?
Fantastic point, that I think could be generalized to more subjects than just gun control, but yeah if it's that there's a thread for it.
|
On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words?
I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct.
The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction.
|
On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction.
I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google?
Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on.
|
On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction.
So where did they re-directed the research to?
|
On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on.
For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time.
On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to?
As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though.
For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose.
As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government.
I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different.
The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends.
|
On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends.
There should be papers on the possible benefits of gun control. There should also be papers on the possible negative impacts of gun control, or on the fact that it wouldn't accomplish what it set out to do. The point is, there should be papers. Which there aren't because of gun control lobbyist dollars.
|
On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends.
Doesn't seem to be, based on what you've posted. Sounds more like 'scientists are lying' 'deep state' 'evil elitists' blah-ba-dee-boo. Lots of emotions in that NR piece, not may facts.
|
Pretty sure even the author of the amendment said it was a mistake and wanted it axed.
|
On April 23 2018 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. Doesn't seem to be, based on what you've posted. Sounds more like 'scientists are lying' 'deep state' 'evil elitists' blah-ba-dee-boo. Lots of emotions in that NR piece, not may facts.
Then read it again. Only near the end does he mention that maybe we should want these things decided by the citizenry. This article is shorter than the deep dives this author does regularly, but it quotes from those in charge and cites a Reason piece that consolidates criticism of the way the CDC was operating.
I mean, it ends this way
By all means, let’s keep collecting data and debating its meaning. The gun debate in America will never be over; nor should it be. Even the Bill of Rights can be changed if the people are determined that some rights just aren’t worth protecting anymore. Defenders of gun ownership should not fear that debate. But we shouldn’t be delegating such important social questions to agenda-driven advocates operating behind the illusion that they are doing disinterested scientific research. We shouldn’t let them spend our money to support only one side of a debate over a right enshrined explicitly in the Constitution.
Also, I didn't see any emotion. I guess that's why this topic has it's own thread. The things people say about it are ...interesting.
On April 23 2018 08:31 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure even the author of the amendment said it was a mistake and wanted it axed.
That's mentioned, and it has been axed.
|
On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends.
If you're going to say there was good reasons to block the CDC from spending money from researching gun control, you can't also blame the CDC for not publishing papers on survey data related to gun use in the United States (while they still made all the data publicly available). That's having your cake and eating it too. It's like refusing to make the ACA insurance payments then later complaining about how much the federal government is having to pay or passing a tax bill everyone knew would lead to deficit increases then complaining about how high the deficit is getting...oh wait...that's pretty common these days.
|
On April 23 2018 09:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. If you're going to say there was good reasons to block the CDC from spending money from researching gun control, you can't also blame the CDC for not publishing papers on survey data related to gun use in the United States (while they still made all the data publicly available). That's having your cake and eating it too. It's like refusing to make the ACA insurance payments then later complaining about how much the federal government is having to pay or passing a tax bill everyone knew would lead to deficit increases then complaining about how high the deficit is getting...oh wait...that's pretty common these days.
The CDC still collects and publishes gun data, it's just data. That's what Wegandi's article was about, as far as I read it.
+ Show Spoiler +As an aside, we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem and I'm annoyed when people can't see the difference.
|
On April 23 2018 08:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. Doesn't seem to be, based on what you've posted. Sounds more like 'scientists are lying' 'deep state' 'evil elitists' blah-ba-dee-boo. Lots of emotions in that NR piece, not may facts. Then read it again. Only near the end does he mention that maybe we should want these things decided by the citizenry. This article is shorter than the deep dives this author does regularly, but it quotes from those in charge and cites a Reason piece that consolidates criticism of the way the CDC was operating. I mean, it ends this way Show nested quote +By all means, let’s keep collecting data and debating its meaning. The gun debate in America will never be over; nor should it be. Even the Bill of Rights can be changed if the people are determined that some rights just aren’t worth protecting anymore. Defenders of gun ownership should not fear that debate. But we shouldn’t be delegating such important social questions to agenda-driven advocates operating behind the illusion that they are doing disinterested scientific research. We shouldn’t let them spend our money to support only one side of a debate over a right enshrined explicitly in the Constitution. Also, I didn't see any emotion. I guess that's why this topic has it's own thread. The things people say about it are ...interesting. Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 08:31 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure even the author of the amendment said it was a mistake and wanted it axed. That's mentioned, and it has been axed.
The entire article is emotional pandering, and I really don't see how they made any case that the CDC's research was poor.
But! These evil elitists were using your majestic tax dollars to take away your democracy freedoms! Bill of rights! Constitution! Obama! Whaba-doo!
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 guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.
^ totally not intended to stir up emotions with the reader. Totally!
If you really think research is bad - publish your own damn papers. The fact that the research was shut down without moving funds to wherever the hell they thought would be objective says a lot.
|
On April 23 2018 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 08:32 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. Doesn't seem to be, based on what you've posted. Sounds more like 'scientists are lying' 'deep state' 'evil elitists' blah-ba-dee-boo. Lots of emotions in that NR piece, not may facts. Then read it again. Only near the end does he mention that maybe we should want these things decided by the citizenry. This article is shorter than the deep dives this author does regularly, but it quotes from those in charge and cites a Reason piece that consolidates criticism of the way the CDC was operating. I mean, it ends this way By all means, let’s keep collecting data and debating its meaning. The gun debate in America will never be over; nor should it be. Even the Bill of Rights can be changed if the people are determined that some rights just aren’t worth protecting anymore. Defenders of gun ownership should not fear that debate. But we shouldn’t be delegating such important social questions to agenda-driven advocates operating behind the illusion that they are doing disinterested scientific research. We shouldn’t let them spend our money to support only one side of a debate over a right enshrined explicitly in the Constitution. Also, I didn't see any emotion. I guess that's why this topic has it's own thread. The things people say about it are ...interesting. On April 23 2018 08:31 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure even the author of the amendment said it was a mistake and wanted it axed. That's mentioned, and it has been axed. The entire article is emotional pandering, and I really don't see how they made any case that the CDC's research was poor. But! These evil elitists were using your majestic tax dollars to take away your democracy freedoms! Bill of rights! Constitution! Obama! Whaba-doo! Show nested quote +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 guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths. ^ totally not intended to stir up emotions with the reader. Totally! If you really think research is bad - publish your own damn papers. The fact that the research was shut down without moving funds to wherever the hell they thought would be objective says a lot.
To be frank your post seems to contain more of the emotionalism you are criticizing. And yes, how dare he quote the people who would/could/ had been in charge research. Fear-mongering!
Other people DO publish papers, but not the CDC. This is not what I expect from a jonny post.
edited for precision and clarity
2nd edit: the reason article points out the issues with their actual work. Moreover this is a political issue and I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Perhaps all thr CDC should do is give raw data.
|
The dickey amendment was HEAVILY pushed by the NRA. It's creator even called himself "the NRA’s point person in Congress". The fox was clearly in the hen-house and any excuse he gives for being there is suspect. Furthermore, even if the CDC's actions were suspect the solution provided went entirely too far to the point that even its creator regretted it.
On April 23 2018 09:47 Introvert wrote:
Other people DO publish papers, but not the CDC.
You might as well say we don't need psycologists because doctors already study the brain. It's true but also horribly disingenuous. It's the CDC's job to research injury prevention. Nobody else is going to do that for them with any regularity.
On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:
For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose."
Objectively false. All they did was add a quote saying that it doesn't prevent research into gun violence. This has always been true so it seems unlikely that very much is going to change. Even the NRA claims "The #DickeyAmendment remains unchanged".
|
Right, they still can't advocate gun control.
edit: in fact they technically always could research it if we want to be super accurate
|
Technically yes, but it's a distinction without a difference. It's just as true that I could build a spaceship in my backyard and fly to the moon if i wanted to but for some reason i keep putting it off.
The dickey amendment was so ambiguous in what it forbid that "no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out" where its boundaries lie. The CDC's feared it so much that a 2013 report indicated that "since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000". For all intents and purposes the CDC's research was stopped dead in its tracks and the footnote that was recently added to the amendment doesn't remove what's already there.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
|
On April 23 2018 13:21 patrick321 wrote:
The dickey amendment was HEAVILY pushed by the NRA. It's creator even called himself "the NRA’s point person in Congress". The fox was clearly in the hen-house and any excuse he gives for being there is suspect. Furthermore, even if the CDC's actions were suspect the solution provided went entirely too far to the point that even its creator regretted it.
This right here is IMO the most important point.
Straight up destroying the CDC's mandate with regard to gun safety is NOT how you address that there may have been malpractice. That was political opportunity seized at the expense of sanity (nothing less could be expected of the dearest NRA).
Hell, even an extreme solution like outright firing every member of research staff who knew about any said malpractice and just replacing a fair chunk of your department over the next years would have been chilling, and taken a while to recover from, but the department would still be able to do its job without worrying about crossing some dubious legal lines. Outside of an actual ban on researching anything gun-related at all, this was the worst way of destroying the CDC's ability to give input on the topic and accomplishes much the same thing for less political capital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
