The CDC study on guns...shut down.
Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:40 PM PDT
The CDC study on guns...shut down.
by lutznancy
...In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he and other researchers at the CDC started looking at gun violence in America.......their conclusions caused the NRA to to lobby Congress and put enough fear into our esteemed politicians to cause them to withdraw the funding.....it shut the whole study down. But look what they found!...
SNIP
..."We started looking at gun violence as a public health problem at the CDC in the late 80s and early 90s." Rosenberg says. "The standard line from the NRA is that you should have a gun in your house to protect you."
The results of their study speak for themselves: not only does owning a gun not protect you, but it increases the risk of homicide for people in the home three times, and increases the risk of suicide five times.
The same science that researchers use to study traffic deaths and other safety issues can be applied to the study of guns and their impact on the health of society.
"We're being held hostage to firearm violence," Rosenberg says, citing the NRA as the cause. "All of the science that could possibly give us answers is being stopped."
While a tremendous amount of research has been done to stop other leading causes of death, like cancer, or traffic deaths, Rosenberg says that the NRA has successfully put a stop to any work that might have been done to decrease firearm injuries and deaths.
Gun control has not been an issue in this country in years. Democrats have dropped the entire issue. They are so afraid of the NRA that even after all the horrific gun violence in our country in the last year, not a peep about any new gun control laws.
When will this insanity stop?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/06/1141136/-The-CDC-study-on-guns-shut-down
= new reply since forum marked as read
after a while, thay must get tired of agreeing with each other.........
Gah!
It's a pony!
You are like, the third person who thinks it's a dog. Philistines, ALL OF YOU.
Take away the mohawk and bam... Chihuahua
Also, thanks to this conversation I just discovered the existence of "Bronies" *shudder* It's a sign of the end of days.
It's really 
> hy are there fewer murders if there are many more households with guns?
So "more guns" = "more households with guns"? Not "more guns = nearly same households with more guns per household"?
> eel free to provide some evidence. nt
Your claim in your original post:
> Why are there fewer murders if there are many more households with guns?
You made the claim, you back it up! That's how this chatboard thing works.
For proving your own post wrong! 50% had guns in 1991, vs. 47% today.
It's always fun to watch the links provided by Delicate Flowers prove that they themselves are wrong.
BTW I greatly appreciate that historical account you gave me. 
to shoot the coyotes. They don't take any action by themselves.
Just a little logic fail there, maybe? 
Invent stuff, much? 
(1) Leaving aside your lack of concern about the other poster's death, you have not proposed ANY prohibition/control which lessens any threat to your life; in fact, you haven't even noted what that threat is. You seem to have issue with carrying of firearms ("If you keep your fucking funs in your own home, then fine."
, but the Constitution protects my right to BEAR arms. IMO, the individual states have powers to regulate method of carry. Chiefly, these are 'open' carry or 'concealed carry.' You CANNOT ban both or be in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (the latter's incorporation clause).
(2) Since you have not really given a credible reason why you are "threatened," then it is hard to give much credibility to your "request" to "restrict guns." The Constitution's Bill of Rights charges the federal government with protecting one's individual rights. The Articles empower the government with "promoting the general welfare," but it CANNOT do this in violation of the enumerated rights. Incidentally, feeling threatened is no grounds to infringe or abridge any of those rights.
(3) Please explain "anarchy is the national principle."
As I stated above, when you propose a prohibition/control, you have to explain WHAT THAT IS and how it will address a societal problem within the purview of the government. Merely throwing out another prohibition won't do. As for now, I will continue enjoying my life in this country.
Otherwise
and shooting is a normal human physiological function. Makes perfect sense to me.
Whew!
Not sure how you make that intellectual leap, but it was amusing. Feel free to explain that logic-chain. Should be entertaining.
They are a tool used in violent death, typically suicide or homicide. But they are not the cause of death. The cause of death is almost always either a) a person deciding to kill another person, or b) a person deciding to kill himself. There are very few accidents with guns.
So (t)he same science that researchers use to study traffic deaths and other safety issues can be applied to the study of guns and their impact on the health of society might be a little bit off. I'd rather have people figuring out how to get less people murdered or suicidal than figuring out how to get less people using a gun to murder or suicide.
Of course, the single biggest aid to reducing homicides would be to legalize drugs, but that's not even an option. Can you imagine the CDC issuing a paper saying the best way to reduce gun-related murders was to legalize drugs??? If you think the NRA has some power with the voter, wait until you see the power Big Pharma has with lobbyists and Congresscritters in DC.
The best way to reduce guns to criminals, if that's your goal, is to have mandatory background checks for for all firearm transfers, both commercial and private. And this would only work if the states kept the database of criminals and mentally deficient up-to-date. BUT, it has to be done on a state-by-state level; it cannot be federally regulated because DC doesn't have the jurisdiction.
And the cities and states need to stop pleading down accused criminals that use guns to commit crimes, or convicted criminals that are caught with guns. Strict guns laws don't work if enforcement is lax. Get the potheads out of prison and put in armed felons instead!
A 12-gun-a-year limit would also be possible and reasonable. Not 1-gun-a-month, but 12 guns a year. This would reduce trafficking. If you want to buy 13 or more guns a year, get some kind of state or federal permit.
get nasty with people you don't agree with, well, have at it, I won't play that game.
Have a good day.
you must have been here for a long time.....or is the stalking something you learn at the Polize Academy?
Not by a long shot. I've got a very thick skin learned from 30 years of dealing with criminals. But you just keep on trying, meanwhile, you have a great day.
gunz gunz gunz
oneshooter
iron penises abound here
100% of all murders are BY people.
People don't murder because they have a gun. They murder for other reasons and USE a gun... or a knife, or a club, or whatever.
16,000 people a year are killed. Nearly all of them die in single-incident homicide crime scenes (about 95%) so that means we have about 15,000 people a year who murder somebody else... in other words, we generate 15,000 murderers annually.
Take away the guns, the 11,000 or so murderers who would normally use a gun will most likely use "something else".
Also, our current non-gun homicide rate is the same or higher than the total homicide rate in most "civilized" countries.
If you want to lower gun homicide rates AND the total homicide rates, legalize drugs. Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazine will have no discernible impact on crime but will have an enormous and negative impact on politics.
It finally shows to more and more people that -- you ready for this? --
There ain't nothin' liberal about gun-control.
Keep settin' up those "targets." We'll keep knocking 'em down!
anything you don't like, you wish to shut up, how democratic of you.
Meanwhile, you have a great day, I am, I'm on vacation for another 3 weeks.
On edit: if you don't like what I say, don't read it. seems simple enough.
Click the red X like I'm doing to you in 3, 2, 1
Buh Bye Mr. Polize mans
I've known some cops like that.
Meanwhile, you have a great day.
"Long after you're gone from here I won't be..."
Been here since 2006, and was told that stuff then. See my profile.
You need to re-examine your position. "Gun-control" wasn't even mentioned in the Democratic Party Platform until the Zombies had charted all their biggest hits (1968). If you would drop some of the passion, it would be worth a discussion as to why "gun-control" suddenly cropped up at this time (not that there weren't attempts here and there before, esp. in the antebellum and Jim Crow South). The most curious thing I find about the gun-control outlook (it is hardly a movement given its lack of popular base/activism) is that it wouldn't have any legs at all if it weren't for MSM's almost uniform advocacy of its ideology. But that doesn't explain the motivations for the outlook.
Some say it was the assassinations of the 60s; others, including some early gun-control proponents said otherwise (to their credit), that in reality the 1968 GCA was a thinly-veiled attempt to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, but not to encroach upon the "well to do's" ability to arm themselves (there were, of course scores of major "inner city" riots in the latter 60s). The Jim Crow foundations of gun-control have been well-documented. But even this cannot explain all the motivations.
Some believe that after the Civil Rights era, there was a burning resentment toward Southern Culture (On the Skids!), and a wider resentment toward white males in general, and the best way to get at them was through disarmament (this outlook is seen in a significant number of "feminist" writings in the 70s and 80s, esp. regarding hunting).
Perhaps also, this was a period of MSM's highest power and its concomitant ability to shape national issues (something collapsing with the new social media), and gun-control was seen as a "quickie" social issue and would somehow move this country toward a "new man" of more benign beliefs and actions, all of which would reflect well on the Fifth Estate's power in a democracy. Of course, the "quickie" turned out to be a political nightmare.
Then there is always this country's fascination with prohibition. Gin, Guns, Gays, Ganja, Abortion and the new kid on the block, tobacco. We don't seem to learn much from using prohibition as social policy.
What do you think?
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the NRA. ("You may be seated."
I just wanted to give our gun defenders from the NRA in this thread a woody...............
means they're not real don't you?
BTW, did I tell you to have a great day?
