CDC Study: Use of Firearms For Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’

[GGJohn]

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

The White House unveiled a plan in January that included orders to the CDC to “conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence.” According to the White House report, “Research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

2 years old but still relevant.
And there are those that still insist that the CDC is prevented from studying gun violence because of the NRA.

[HassleCat]

1. Does it count...

...if I shoot myself before someone else shoots me?

[GGJohn]

2. Hmmm, don't know, but I doubt it. eom.

[guillaumeb]

3. Interesting finding,

But so is this:
"Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.1 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

And also:
"A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.5 The V.P.C. also found that for every one justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides.6 This ratio does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives lost in gun suicides or accidental shootings every year."

Read more here:
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

I suppose people can always find a report to confirm what they want to believe, and the gun manufacturers want to keep selling large quantities of guns to the US public.

[GGJohn]

4. Violence Policy Center?

The same VPC that's been caught numerous times skewing the numbers?
I don't believe the millions of times either, but it's also considered a DGU even if the weapon isn't fired, just displayed, so there are more than the VPC is claiming.

[guillaumeb]

10. Sources can be cited and debated, as can numbers.

Another interesting correlation:

Although an estimated 40 percent of adults in the United States report keeping a gun in the home for recreational or protective purposes (3), the risks and benefits of this practice are widely disputed in the literature (4, 5). Ecologic analyses have suggested a link between the prevalence of gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide (6–8) and between regulations restricting access to firearms and rates of homicide and suicide (9–12). Although these studies are useful in demonstrating an association between access to firearms and rates of homicide and suicide at the aggregate level, it is not possible with this methodology to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of a violent death at the individual level.

Read more at the link:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[gejohnston]

12. the problem with MDs doing gun studies

like the public health studies, the quality is almost always very poor not worth being taken seriously.

[guillaumeb]

15. Or is it that the conclusion reached does not confirm your opinion?

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm


Opponents of any form of gun control will argue that control does not work. When studies and evidence are produced that show gun control does work, the studies are rejected as not being applicable to the US. As if US citizens are genetically predisposed to own firearms.

[gejohnston]

17. no, it is from reading the actual studies

and the studies they cite. The researchers, often paid for by the the likes of Bloomberg or the Joyce Foundation show that gun control laws work. Those done by criminologists funded by DoJ or others generally show they do not. The latter appear in peer reviewed criminology journals, the former are neither peer reviewed nor published in a related field journal. Yet the latter is derided as "NRA shill studies" while proclaiming the actual shill studies as truth.

When studies and evidence are produced that show gun control does work, the studies are rejected as not being applicable to the US. As if US citizens are genetically predisposed to own firearms.

the problem is that the studies are done by nonscientists and do not follow the scientific method. The evidence, if you want to call it that, is simply one of a few logical fallacies and lying by ommisson. Can you point to a single peer reviewed study by criminologists and published in a criminology or sociology journal that shows that gun control works?

Contrary to this picture of dispassionate scientists under assault by the Neanderthal NRA and its know-nothing allies in Congress, serious scholars have been criticizing the CDC's "public health" approach to gun research for years. In a presentation at the American Society of Criminology's 1994 meeting, for example, University of Illinois sociologist David Bordua and epidemiologist David Cowan called the public health literature on guns "advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact." Bordua and Cowan noted that The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, are consistent supporters of strict gun control. They found that "reports with findings not supporting the position of the journal are rarely cited," "little is cited from the criminological or sociological field," and the articles that are cited "are almost always by medical or public health researchers."

Further, Bordua and Cowan said, "assumptions are presented as fact: that there is a causal association between gun ownership and the risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence." They concluded that "ncestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce an artificial bias into scientific publications. Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled." In a 1994 presentation to the Western Economics Association, State University of New York at Buffalo criminologist Lawrence Southwick compared public health firearm studies to popular articles produced by the gun lobby: "Generally the level of analysis done on each side is of a low quality. The papers published in the medical literature (which are uniformly anti-gun) are particularly poor science."

http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots

[guillaumeb]

27. I offer a study, or studies,

like this one,

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

and you attempt to dismiss the findings because they do not confirm what you believe. In another study, and from the study:

This paper summarizes some of the key problems with the data and data analysis and interpretation of studies that claim gun-carrying in public and gun ownership results in substantial reductions in violent crime.
Abstract: Such studies include a 1998 study by economist John Lott, Jr. and a study by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The argument by Lott and other proponents of permissive gun-carrying laws is that if more people could legally carry guns in public spaces, criminal predators would be deterred under the risk that would-be victims would be well-armed. The potential risk of these more permissive gun laws comes from the possible misuse of guns by those with concealed-carry permits and the potential complications that such laws may pose for police efforts to prevent illegal gun-carrying. Another cost is the possibility of an "arms race" between criminals and law-abiding citizens. Currently, some 75 percent of robbers do not use guns to commit their crimes.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=204874

But again, if the study makes you uncomfortable, simply dismiss the authors as not meeting your particular standard for acceptable credentials.

[gejohnston]

34. Hemenway is just the shill described

and I read his "studies" before, including that one. All of them come from the inhouse publication of his department, none of them are peer reviewed and do not appear in criminology journals. He is also an activist who is a member of Brady Campaign and is funded by the Joyce Foundation.

http://smartgunlaws.org/about-gun-laws/
Here Hemenway gets an award for his advocacy.
http://smartgunlaws.org/19th-anniversary-dinner-june-14th-2012/
objective scientist my ass.

Here is Kleck's response
https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for the resulting book from that study. No, he is not an NRA member, has no connection to the gun lobby.

[gejohnston]

21. Opponents of any form of gun control

don't exist. Or at least, I don't know of any. The US has had gun control on the state level, especially in the South, since the founding and the federal level since 1927 (there are four or five federal gun control laws currently, depending if you count the 1938 law that was repealed and replaced by the 1968 Gun Control Act.)

[sarisataka]

32. That's rich

Or is it that the conclusion reached does not confirm your opinion?

When Gun Control and yourself discount or completely ignore the 2013 CDC report specifically commissioned by President Obama.

Instead old papers are hauled out to "prove" past surbeys were wrong- although careful reading of those reports revrals they never actually counter one iota of data, they suggest possible reasons the data might be wrong- or quote propaganda papers from lobbying groups.

All the while complaining that the CDC should be allowed to study gun violence.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Indeed

[sarisataka]

6. So the CDC

Is just another report? No better than a lobbying organization that is notorious for getting caught in lying about data?

I suppose the CDC is just another shill for the gun industry? Somebody should tell the President.

[gejohnston]

8. actually, it hasn't been discredited

That is like the false claim by Everytown's "research director" that Kleck failed peer review, when in fact his study, and the resulting book, actually earned an award for the most significant contribution to criminology. The only "debunker" is David Hemenway who speculated in a study that wasn't a study, was not peer reviewed, and is accepted only among gun control advocates.

Is the VPC study peer reviewed, or is it like the AEI studies on climate change? VPC is an advocacy group, they don't do objective studies. They do shill studies.

the site's original name was Legal Community Against Violence
What amuses me is that the legal director doesn't know about the 1968 Gun Control Act and could not show laws affecting violent crime rates.

&index=39&list=FLGjp21lBK0TiXCoaaHdkeSw

[FuzzyRabbit]

5. This is an strong indictment of our national priorities.

In 2001, Islamic terrorists killed 3,000 Americans in the US, and the US government enacted laws restricting everyones freedoms and privacy.

From the CNS article: “In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”

So in 2010, Americans with guns killed more than 30,000 Americans, and no laws restricting guns were enacted.

[GGJohn]

7. I see that you failed to note that of those 30,000 firearm related deaths,

2/3 were suicides and most of the rest were criminal on criminal deaths.

[Electric Monk]

9. 10,000 is still more than 3x 9/11's death toll. Year after year after year. nt

[GGJohn]

11. And the majority of those 10,000 are criminal on criminal firearms deaths. eom.

[FuzzyRabbit]

16. I am sure you do not mean that it is OK for criminals to shoot other criminals.

Your post can be interpreted to discount these deaths as not being tragedies.

[GGJohn]

18. No, I don't,

I was just stating a fact.

[Electric Monk]

19. Most firearm homicides occur in socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

(another way of framing that same fact)

[GGJohn]

20. IOW, criminal on criminal or drug related?

Isn't that what I just said?

[Electric Monk]

22. or someone with a criminal record for something they did years ago

but you're saying they're no big deal if they're killed because they have a previous criminal record? I don't want to misinterpret what you're trying to say here, but that's how it reads to me.

[gejohnston]

23. no, but they are still prohibited from possessing

firearms under the Gun Control Act and likely state law. Also, most are gangs killing each other.

[GGJohn]

24. I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

or someone with a criminal record for something they did years ago
but you're saying they're no big deal if they're killed because they have a previous criminal record? I don't want to misinterpret what you're trying to say here, but that's how it reads to me.

Of course that's how it reads to you, you have a habit of wrong interpretations when it comes to pro 2A members on this board, but just to satisfy you, no, I'm not saying that, as I said in an earlier post.

[Electric Monk]

25. You're the one trying to discount all those deaths as insignifigant. I'm trying to understand why.

Please, do feel free to elaborate.

[GGJohn]

26. No, I'm not and I don't have to elaborate anything to you. eom

[Duckhunter935]

28. please just stop it

It does not make you look good at all

[Electric Monk]

29. Because I think firearm homicides matter, even if the victim had a previous criminal record?

I think it makes GGJohn look bad to be taking the stance on this that he has. I suspect the real reasoning why he won't elaborate further is if he did it'd make him looks racist. That those deaths don't really count because it's black on black inner city crime. Well, I say their lives matter, too.

[GGJohn]

30. I think it makes GGJohn look bad to be taking the stance on this that he has

Of course you think that, I would be shocked if you didn't.

I suspect the real reasoning why he won't elaborate further is if he did it'd make him looks racist.

Still trying to bait me to get a hide or a ban? Sorry to not accommodate you.

That those deaths don't really count because it's black on black inner city crime.

That's your interpretation of my remarks, which are lies.

Well, I say their lives matter, too.

No shit, I believe that also, but you'll just interpret as something else.
If I bother you this much, why don't you just put me on ignore?

[Duckhunter935]

33. No stop putting words in peoples mouths

now you just seemed to call him a racist. Doubling down, I see.

He has said nothing about race and we all know it is more about being poor, white or black. Drugs do not care what race you are as I am in a mixed area but the meth issue is much more predominant with whites. All SCG said and correctly that a lot of the firearms murders are done by criminals. He has never said they do not matter and many times has said work on the drug and poor issues it will do much more than some of the "gun safety" stuff you push.

[gejohnston]

36. I think all homicides matter

Elliot Rodger's first three victims, who were stabbed, as the three that were shot. Carole Bowne matters to me as much as someone shot.
The 18 thousand suicide victims who use other means mean as much to me as those who use a gun. Are you saying they don't matter to you?
Yes, all lives matter. The question is, are we going to work on the real causes or just tinker with symptoms while restricting the rights of people who are not the problem?

[Electric Monk]

37. I also think all homicides matter, but this thread and this Group are about guns, specifically. nt

[gejohnston]

38. fair enough, but

The question is, are we going to work on the real causes or just tinker with symptoms while restricting the rights of people who are not the problem?

[Shamash]

39. +1 to that

[Shamash]

13. So is obesity, cigarettes, auto accidents and alcohol-related deaths, among others

Do you have a consistent point to make, or did you just feel a need to remind everyone of your biases?

10,000 sounds like a big scary number, but those of us whose math education made it past 3rd grade realize that 10 thousand out of a nation of 300 million is three one thousandths of one percent.

Which does not seem very scary at all. In fact, it's roughly the same chance of winning the jackpot in New Jersey's Pick 6 lotto game if you buy a ticket each day for a year. Personally, I don't live my life worried about what I'm going to do with all that money and neither am I all that worried about being shot.

I guess some of us are just more paranoid and insecure than others.

[Electric Monk]

14. I'm for tighter regulations of HFCS, tobacco, and DUI's as well, since you bring it up.

Speed limits, seat belts, and airbags are all good things, too, in my books. Yet, some people don't like those either, because "Freedom!". Just like yahoos who feel a need to carry guns in church, or oppose UBC, limits on mag sizes, mandatory gun safes/trigger locks (etc) because "Freedom!".

If you feel the need to carry a gun in public, you're more paranoid and insecure than I am.

[Shamash]

31. Unlike you, I am not insecure enough to demand "preventative morality" for -other- people. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

35. well his group is not very busy again

He has plenty of time to come to his favorite group and post. I just hope he does not try and to tell people what they can post and run it like he has tried before.

He is allowed and I agree he should be able to post here, but it is not a safe haven for him and he will be challenged.