It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The CDC Gun-violence Study (Yes, it did get done)

page: 1
21

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
***Disclaimer - I'm posting this in the Mud Pit for two reasons. Honestly, the main reason is to reach as many people as I can. No, it's not for stars and flags. In fact, I will urge everyone right now not to star and flag this post because it's really not about that. If the mods can somehow disable or remove any S&F I get for this, I'm welcome to it. I'm dead serious. The second reason is obvious, because this is related to a very heated issue especially right now. But I am posting this for informational purposes.***

**Warning: Long post. For those with short attention spans, the link to the research is in the 4th paragraph below. But that's long too. Put some effort in.**

Since the shooting last week in Florida, there's been a lot of gun control conversations pretty much everywhere, here, social media, water coolers, dinner tables. I'm a big 2nd Amendment supporter and gun rights advocate. I've had a lot of conversations the past week with gun control advocates. Some of them have been very good conversations, when people are willing to listen. One thing has cropped up repeatedly though, and I thought I should share this because it seems a lot of people simply aren't aware of it: the 2013 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study on gun-violence.

For a little background, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in late 2012, President Obama made a strong push for stricter gun control laws. He announced a plan including executive actions he could take himself and a number of recommendations for Congress. One of the executive actions he took was to direct the CDC to conduct research on gun violence.

Now, for many gun control advocates, that appears to be where the buck stops. I've talked to a number of people in the last week who are under the impression that study never got done. They blame Republicans in Congress or the NRA for blocking it, and to this day you'll still find articles claiming gun violence research is banned. That is, in fact, not true. The CDC did indeed commission research into gun violence, at President Obama's direction, in 2013. That research was completed and published. Many people on both sides of this issue simply haven't heard about it. To me, the reason is plainly obvious but I'll discuss that later. Let's get to the research.

Here is a link to the study itself. I highly encourage everyone who is interested in this subject, no matter what your views, to read it yourself before you read this thread any further. One of the major problems with this and many other political issues is that people receive very little scientific data and a whole lot of analysis from people who have already made up their minds and are trying to tell you what to think. Read it yourself, form your own opinions. I will be offering my opinions, that's the nature of discussion, but I urge everyone to read the research themselves before they read other people's reaction to it, including mine. That's the best way to get informed.

Now, I've posted this on here before within threads about gun control, and it is usually ignored. Some of the common reactions I get are as follows:

"That's not from the CDC." That's true, this link isn't to the CDC's website. However, that doesn't mean it's not CDC research. The CDC doesn't do all of its own research in-house. It uses federal money to commission research which is done by outside organizations. See here. Many CDC research opportunities are farmed out to other organizations, CDC just pays for it. And honestly, would you rather have a government entity like CDC doing it? Before you answer that, keep in mind that Donald Trump is your President and controls the Executive Branch, of which CDC is a part. He could fill CDC with pro-gun bureaucrats and have them do "research" that supports a pro-gun agenda. Or would you rather they just pay the academic community to do it? Furthermore, you can see right on page 1, this is indeed research commissioned and funded by the CDC:


In January 2013, President Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, the interventions that might prevent it, and strategies to minimize its public health burden. One of these executive orders noted that “in addition to being a law enforcement challenge, firearm violence is also a serious public health issue that affects thousands of individuals, families,and communities across the Nation,” and directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with other relevant federal agencies, to immediately begin identifying the most pressing firearm-related violence research problems.

The CDC and the CDC Foundation2 requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC), convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence—its causes, approaches to interventions that could prevent it, and strategies to minimize its health burden.


"But that's not what President Obama wanted." In fact, this is not true either. President Obama was well aware that the CDC would likely not be doing the research themselves (and no, that's not because they're banned from doing it themselves, I'll address that in a separate post below). You can read his executive memorandum for yourself. My emphasis:


Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, shall conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.


CDC did indeed sponsor this research. It is CDC research. It is precisely what President Obama asked for. End of story. Even after I posted this evidence in a thread once, one gun grabber still refused to accept this was the CDC research President Obama directed to be done and still wanted to pretend it had been blocked somehow. You just can't help some people.

So, why do you suppose this didn't get much media coverage? Why do so many gun control advocates not know about this? Analysis below.




posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Now I’m going to start going into my personal views so I’d like to again stress, if you haven’t read the research yet, read it then come back to participate in thread. Form your own views, don’t read them from other people before you’ve even read the research for yourself.

As you’d expect any objective study to be, it’s a mixed bag. It validates that gun violence is a significant public health risk. It highlights the vast numbers of people killed and injured by firearms every year in the United States. It agrees there is a risk factor associated with owning a gun, just like there’s a risk factor associated with owning a car, a pool, a chainsaw or pretty much anything else that can kill you. It also says more research needs to be done. That’s all stuff gun control advocates would agree with, and that’s not all. I’m sure pro-gun-control posters will be highlighting other points for their side in the responses below. So why don’t gun control groups refer to this study more often? Why can’t I find a single article about this study on CNN’s website, or other pro-gun-control media outlets? (I did a Google search for “CDC gun violence site:cnn.com” with a data range of 1 Jan 2013 to 31 Dec 2014, and found nothing. I did the same search for MSNBC, with no luck. This study was released in 2013, and I gave them an extra year. If they did cover it, I’d welcome a link, I just couldn’t find one. The only results are articles and op-eds claiming the CDC is banned from doing this type of research, which is obviously false since it was done.)

To me, the answer is most likely because they don’t want to bring attention to it and have people wind up reading it for themselves and discovering that it also contains pro-gun conclusions. For example, it validates that guns are an effective means of self-defense. It backs up the claim that the vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding and appear to be responsible owners, given the relatively low number of accidents (numbering in the hundreds yearly) compared to the vast number of owners (numbering in the millions). It suggests the vast majority of gun deaths, suicides, are driven by socioeconomic factors. It reveals that other methods of committing suicide, such as suffocation, are statistically just as effective, so removing guns from the equation wouldn’t necessarily prevent most deaths attributed to guns they would simply die by other means. Rural areas, where people own more guns, have lower rates of firearm homicides.

Here’s the big reason why I think this study is mostly ignored though: it does not look good for gun control, in general. In the section titled Firearm Violence Prevention and Other Interventions, the conclusions are almost universally that gun control laws are either ineffective, or at best that the effects are inconclusive and further research is needed. Criminals circumvent the law to obtain guns. Community-based programs and targeted policing are more effective at reducing gun violence.

Now is usually when I get "That's just what the authors of the study think." Specifically, someone pointed to this part on page ii, my emphasis:


This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.


Okay, so what’s your point? All research is the views of the author or the research. Who else’s views do you want them to represent? Actually that weighs heavily in the whole “ban on research” argument I’ll discuss in a bit. But this is how research is done. They collect data, and then they draw conclusions from that data. All the authors and reviewers names are listed, along with their credentials. Are we supposed to pretend they’re all on the NRA’s payroll or something? Who else do we want to do this?

Well, that’s where the “ban on firearms research” comes in. The long and short of it is, there is no such ban. I challenge anyone to cite a law or federal regulation which bans the CDC from conducting firearms research. What they’re referring to is the Dickey Amendment, which was attached to an omnibus bill in 1996. Rather than banning firearms research, it merely states that the CDC may not use government funds to advocate for gun control. Research can obviously be conducted legally, since this study was indeed done. You just can’t use government funds to pay biased groups like the Brady Campaign to do the research. That’s what gun control advocates want to change. That’s just as absurd as if President Trump directed the CDC to fund a gun study that would be done by an NRA-affiliated group. There is no ban on firearms research, there’s no ban on the CDC conducting or sponsoring firearms research. And there’s definitely no ban on studying it as a public health issue, which is what this study recommended. This was a preliminary study, which is exactly what President Obama asked for, yet as far as I can tell he never directed CDC to conduct any further research, despite the conclusion that that was the next logical step. My guess would be that he was disappointed they didn’t come back with a bunch of recommendations to ban x, y or z. Now, as I recall, he did a press conference talking about the results of this a little bit and said he wanted “more to be done” or something to that effect, but I haven’t been able to find any further official action, such as another memo or executive order directing CDC to do a more comprehensive study.

At this point, that’s what we need is more impartial data. Maybe President Trump will order some. Regardless of whether you agree with my opinions or not, I hope this will have at least informed some people that there is no ban and President Obama’s called for research was indeed done, perhaps just without the results he was hoping for.

*Again, please do not star or flag this post.*
edit on 19 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

OK. No S&F


However, you have given me hope. This level of thought and study is how I see the world. Most days, I feel alone and hopelessly unable to communicate with those needing a more immediate conclusion.

I will spread this on my FB page and it will be ignored but, as they say, silence is consent. In this case, consent to remain ignorant.

It also gives me hope somebody in DC is actually thinking about the welfare of the citizens. Oddly refreshing.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Mass shootings are part of a larger, complex firearm violence burden that encompasses nonfatal and unintentional injuries, homicides, suicides, and crimes involving firearms. In the past decade, firearm-related violence has claimed the lives of more than a quarter-million people in the United States.2 By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.


Bull and snip.

Take your pick.

Drugs, vehicles, or abortion.

When they intentionally inflate that numbers by a decade.

They do it for no other reason than FEAR MONGERING.

Looking at who comissioned and paid for it.



This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor


And THIS GUY.



On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced Now Is the Time, a plan to address firearm violence1 in order “to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson” (White House, 2013a, p. 2).


Enter the dossier part deux Or the pre dossier.




At this point, that’s what we need is more impartial data.


Not really.

At this point what we need is people to stop paying lip service to civil liberty.

They can stop trying to justify their fascism because that piece of paper created so many years ago.

Wasn't a limit on the people's power, but the federal state.



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Facts and logic are just not being considered with this debate. The gun grabber side is not interested in hard data and unemotional logic. I can only surmise that their intentions are not as they claim.

When analyzing gun violence, I think it is important to define gun violence by the types that occur.

1) Urban gun violence

vs

2) Mass shootings

These two types of gun violence are not the same, nor should the approaches to gun control be the same.

The vast majority of gun violence is the urban gun violence. This is largely a city/urban phenomenon, but also largely relegated to black and hispanic communities. Most of this violence is committed by ILLEGALLY obtained firearms and is mostly one thug shooting another thug. No amount of gun control is going to address this issue because the perpetrators are not law abiding citizens.

Despite the media coverage, mass shootings are barely even register statistically. They are like large commercial airplane crashes. Tragic and get a lot of coverage, but not really a big issue in the scheme of things.

The issue with mass shootings is that there are always going to be nut jobs. Because we decided early on that regular citizens will have access to firearms, there really is not much that can be done to prevent people from going postal without severely limiting access to firearms.

I think most gun advocates don't necessarily have an issue with mental health checks or background checks. The issue is that the gun grabbers often are the give an inch, take a mile types. Poorly worded legislation or ambiguous restrictions can be used for further restrictions. How is mental health defined? Is anyone who has ever seen a psychologist for any reason going to be denied a firearm? Is someone falsely accused of domestic violence going to have their ability to own a firearm taken?



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Centers for Disease Control gonna do a gun violence study, eh.

Here's how to tell if its politically motivated in their particular context:

Do they mention the Mass Shooter Contagion Effect?

If anything, that's all CDC should be talking about.

You see Mass Shooter Contagion Effect is the combination of the Emotional Contagion Effect, and the Copycat Effect.

Which is well documented now as a major driving force behind the perpetual waves of new mass shootings.

It's driven in particular by the specific ways the MSM reports the shooting events. And they wont change their ways, because its good for business, its good for The Agenda, meanwhile they keep US all arguing over the guns themselves and we all ignore them making it the perfect habitual crimeon their part. So you wont see them mention it on the hyponotoob.

But here's a tastey little morsel getting at why I insist that now only should CDC have mentioned it, but hell they should have done a report all about it long ago:


Two centuries ago, a wave of suicides swept across Europe as if the very act of suicide was somehow infectious. Shortly before their untimely deaths, many of the suicide victims had come into contact with Johann von Goethe's tragic tale "The Sorrows of Young Werther," in which the hero, Werther, himself commits suicide. In an attempt to stem what was seen as a rising tide of imitative suicides, anxious authorities banned the book in several regions in Europe (Phillips 1974, Marsden 1998).

During the two hundred years that have followed the publication and subsequent censorship of Goethe’s novel, social scientific research has largely confirmed the thesis that affect, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour can indeed spread through populations as if they were somehow infectious. Simple exposure sometimes appears to be a sufficient condition for social transmission to occur. This is the social contagion thesis; that sociocultural phenomena can spread through, and leap between, populations more like outbreaks of measles or chicken pox than through a process of rational choice.

The term contagion (ken­tâ-jen) itself has its roots in the Latin word contagio, and quite literally means "from touch". Contagion therefore refers to a process of transmission by touch or contact. The Microsoft Dictionary (Microsoft 1997) defines contagion as the

"transmission of a disease by direct contact with an infected person or object; a disease or poison transmitted in this way; the means of transmission; the transmission of an emotional state, e.g. excitement; a harmful influence."

From this definition, contagion refers to 1) the social transmission, by contact, of biological disease, and 2) the social transmission, by contact, of sociocultural artefacts or states.
web.stanford.edu...

edit on 19-2-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   


the 2013 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study on gun-violence.

Maybe they should stick to what they know ? And stay out of the political arena .
Their responsibility (and the reason I pay their wages) is in their name



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

When analyzing gun violence, I think it is important to define gun violence by the types that occur.

1) Urban gun violence

vs

2) Mass shootings

These two types of gun violence are not the same, nor should the approaches to gun control be the same.

The vast majority of gun violence is the urban gun violence.



That reminds me of something I forgot to include in the OP. The ONLY reference I could find to this study from CNN was not on CNN but was a radio interview that left-wing host Don Lemon did after he had read the study. While still heavily in favor of gun control, the study did open his eyes somewhat that despite their absurd amounts of coverage given to mass shootings, they are statistically rare as you said.

Business Insider piece on Don Lemon interview, including link to the audio

He still has plenty of bias, but if someone like him could open his eyes a little bit after reading this, you'd think anybody could.

ETA: This is also further evidence to befuddle the people that still try to pretend this study never took place. Even Don Lemon acknowledged it and read it.


originally posted by: Edumakated
I think most gun advocates don't necessarily have an issue with mental health checks or background checks. The issue is that the gun grabbers often are the give an inch, take a mile types. Poorly worded legislation or ambiguous restrictions can be used for further restrictions.


This is another key part I've been trying to explain to gun control advocates all week. They often come out trying to impose over the top restrictions that have nothing to do with what happened. For example, after Sandy Hook everyone thought for sure something would get through Congress this time. But instead of just a narrowly focused bill to address the problem, Democrats came out with an absurdly overarching bill that was basically a gun control wish list. They thought the country was so angry that they'd be able to pass anything and they tried to take advantage of the situation and they couldn't even get all Democrats on board. They will likely do the same thing this time and shoot themselves in the foot. At this point I almost think they do it on purpose so nothing gets passed so they can keep using it as a campaign issue.
edit on 19 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't recall seeing that effect mentioned, but I do agree with you that should be studied and the media should accept part of their responsibility to stop turning these nutjobs into celebrities.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me, you are willing to forego all star and flag profits from this thread?? My first thought was "this guy is INSANE", but then it started to sink in... holy crap, you guys! I think this guy might be The Real Deal!!!!!!!

Eta Just reread the OP. Yep, its as I thought, he said hes "dead serious" about the star flag thing. I THINK we might want to start taking this guy a little more seriously you guys..
edit on 2/20/2018 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: face23785

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me, you are willing to forego all star and flag profits from this thread?? My first thought was "this guy is INSANE", but then it started to sink in... holy crap, you guys! I think this guy might be The Real Deal!!!!!!!

Eta Just reread the OP. Yep, its as I thought, he said hes "dead serious" about the star flag thing. I THINK we might want to start taking this guy a little more seriously you guys..


Sadly, I really wasn't looking for S&F. I wanted people to read the study and acknowledge it actually did get done. As predicted, none of our resident gun-grabbers have responded. Maybe they read it and just decided not to post, but I doubt it. It hasn't been that long, and it's a fair bit of reading. I hope more people read it.



posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Just in case anyone comes across this in the future, I'll add this as additional information:
Washington Post article about the study.

Also, I did find an article on CNN that mentions it.


On January 16, 2013, then-President Barack Obama issued an executive order directing federal agencies to study gun violence. The National Academy of Sciences Engineering and Medicine convened a special committee, which was chaired by Leshner, to perform a consensus study. This request came from the CDC in response to the executive order.

The result was a June 2013 report, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the threat of Firearm-related Violence," which outlined a research agenda.

"We laid out a bunch of questions -- a list of researchable questions -- scientifically testable questions that one would ask in order to get to a better understanding of both the nature of the problem and what to do about it," said Leshner.

The report's proposed questions and areas of research are organized as: characteristics of firearm violence, including the types and numbers of firearms; risk and protective factors associated with firearm-related violence; firearm violence prevention and other interventions, including unauthorized gun possession; impact of gun safety technology; and a review of the impact of video games and other media.

So what happened next?

"Nothing," said Leshner. "Because of Obama's executive order, we thought the CDC would mount the research agenda, but people had left CDC who had requested the study and the agency had other priorities by the time the study came out."

While some assume gun advocates outright squash research, that is not necessarily the case, said Leshner.

"Every group on every side of the issue" had testified to his committee, said Leshner, and "every single group said it would be a good idea to have a research base."

Gun Owners of America Legislative Counsel Michael Hammond said "we have no problem with scientific research."
"We would benefit from solid scientific research but we don't expect the CDC would give that to us," said Hammond, noting his organization exists for the purpose of promoting the Second Amendment and the constitutional rights of its "1.5 million law-abiding" members and followers.

Hammond said the science produced by CDC would only serve "the purpose of promoting a political agenda" that does not support the right to bear arms.

Meanwhile, some researchers claim their goal is not to disarm citizens, but to save lives.



posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The CDC should not be conducting the study. guns are not a disease. There is a gov't agency called the ATF which is better suited to conduct a gun-violence study.



posted on Mar, 11 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: face23785

The CDC should not be conducting the study. guns are not a disease. There is a gov't agency called the ATF which is better suited to conduct a gun-violence study.


Obviously CDC is the wrong place to go to study it from a criminology standpoint. But as a public health issue, statistics of death and injury rates, and especially the mental health side of it, I have no problem with them studying that. CDC isn't only responsible for studying diseases, despite what the agency name may suggest. Ironically this study says they were told not to address the mental health part.


In accordance with the CDC’s charge, the committee did not focus on public health surveillance and potentially related behavioral/mental health issues, as these will be addressed separately.


To my knowledge, no other research was commissioned looking at the mental health aspect. This study was published in April, 2013. It stresses several times that further research is needed. As far as I can tell, President Obama did not direct CDC to commission any follow-up research.
edit on 11 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21

log in

join