Help me to answer this guy!

[mikerault]

I posted a blog about gun controls negative effects and this fellow posted a link to this blog:

http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/important-data-trends-nra-doesnt-want.html

Has anyone seen these statistics he sites?

Mike

here is my blog entry:

http://mikerault.blogspot.com/search?q=gun+control

 

[walnutred]

I wonder where they got the data for the original article. Going to the CDC web site the most recent study I could find was a 1993-1997 study which came to the conclusion that firearms related deaths were steadily dropping. Interestingly the CDC study breaks down the statistics by qualifiers such as location of shooting, was the shooting the result of an assault, was the shooting law enforcement intervention related, etc.

If the article is using 15 year old data I'm not sure how relevant it is, other than as an example of data manipulation. Though in theory, according to the CDC, if all LEOs in the US were disarmed death by firearm would drop by 43% because that's the number of deaths that are recorded as LEO intervention. Yeah right! No one in their right mind would propose that but it's interesting how numbers can be twisted.

I'd counter by asking for links to the raw CDC data, not manipulated data. If the original data is flawed or irrelevant the conclusion is also flawed or irrelevant.

 

[walnutred]

OK, I do regulatory research as part of my job and along with that health and safety research. It was frustrating not being able to find the CDC data quoted in the article on their web site. So frustrating I called the CDC data information center. The reason I could not find the data is that it does NOT exist as presented. According to the CDC they do not have this information broken down by State.

 

[mikerault]

Walnutred,

Thanks! Just the information I needed. I wondered at not being able to track down his numbers as well. usually I am a pretty net savvy fellow and it bugged me I couldn't track them down.

 

[badguybuster]

Seems odd to me.

 

[lagavulin62]

truth is even if the statistics were accurate and current I still wouldn't care. I have been the victim of assault living up north and I know what it's like. nothing serious just bs I should not have had to experience. I will take the chance of running into a madman as long as I am armed to defend myself.

on another point saving a few lives while giving up our freedoms is never worth it in my opinion. we get into this discussion every year about a well known fishing spot in galveston that claims a life or two each year. you get the usual "we should close that area and if it saves one life it's worth it". well no it's not. just like saving a few lives while taking away our guns isn't either.

I know you can't use that in congress but they can have their civil debates all they want and gun owners will hold on to their guns when it's all over regardless.

just my thoughts.

 

[walnutred]

Ironically according to the latest CDC study firearms has dropped to #3 behind automobiles and poison as the cause of accidental deaths. I know not much can be done about automobiles. However based on CDC statistics the nation would benefit as a whole if more emphasis was placed on poison control.

 

[oldman45]

The CDC is anti gun as well. Their definition of a gun death includes shooting by law enforcement, suicide and justifiable homicide. Eliminate the aforementioned numbers and the figures are actually very low and drowning would be a greater cause of death.

 

[walnutred]

The CDC is anti gun as well. Their definition of a gun death includes shooting by law enforcement, suicide and justifiable homicide. Eliminate the aforementioned numbers and the figures are actually very low and drowning would be a greater cause of death.

Actually, more accidental deaths occur among children from 5-gallon plastic buckets than firearms. The CDC may very well be anti-firearm but in most of their studies they do have separate categories for circumstances of death, even with firearms. It's the people mining that data that lump all causes of death together in most instances.

Apparently the statistics simply are not there to back up what the antis are saying, so they have to manipulate the data or simply make it up.

Now there is a remote possibility that the blogger will come up with a reference to a CDC study that back up his claims. But I could not find the study on the CDC web site and the CDC has a toll free number to help people like me find statistics. IF the blogger comes back with verifiable data I'll have to apologize. The fact that the original article does not cite the alleged CDC study or even give the date of the study should be the first indication something is not correct.

 

[b52buff]

Using the cell phone and texting while driving have probably caused more deaths in the past year than legally owned handguns or rifles. Maybe our government should ban texting and cell phone use and put a long jail terms if caught while driving and that would make our streets safer.

 

[Big Cholla]

IMHO, the referenced Blogger is a clear cut case of, "Liars Using Statistics." The guy is just trying his best to give a scientific justification to his subjective anti-gun beliefs. I wouldn't waste my time trying to repudiate his methodology. You are never going to change his mind. ........... Big Cholla

 

[moonclip]

After reading your blog, I've come up with a few questions -

Gun control is a hot button item with liberal democrats and conservative republicans. The desire of the most rabid of the gun control crowd is to remove all guns from everyone except the police and military (and some would take the guns from the police as well!) The conservatives want almost no limits on gun ownership. I believe the reality of the matter should be somewhere in between.
- I guess I'm one of those Conservatives you speak so disparagingly about. Have you read the Constitution? There is no mention of the prohibitions you condone. It's been my experience that those who find "sensible gun control" to be okay, are actually part of the problem. The anti-gunners aren't going to think you're an okay guy and leave you alone. You're just giving them fodder for more lies, such as "gun owners agree with us regarding sensible gun control measures. "

Do I think the average citizen should own fully automatic weapons, flame throwers, grenade launchers or Abrams tanks? No, definitely not.
- Why not? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

I am all for limits based on cyclic rate of fire and clip size, but not so loosely specified that it can produce a cascade effect onto sporting rifles.
- Oh, I see. As long as your hunting rifles are not touched, everything is good. I guess you support the bill Carolyn McCarthy proposed today (1/19) which limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

The one thing that the liberals who propose these bans forget is that criminals don’t follow the law, that is implicit in their being criminals.
- This sentence defeats all your arguments for "sensible gun control", and that is exactly what you're condoning, "sensible gun control"

Remember, it is already illegal to own or sell fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers and generally illegal for anyone to own anything other than a rifle or handgun that can be used for hunting or sport shooting.
- This is wrong. There are quite a few states in which the common man can own and transfer ownership of these weapons.

I agree that before a person can own a gun they should have to take a gun safety course.
- Who determines what the requirements are? What are you hoping to achieve with this? Exactly what areas should the licensee have to show proficiency in? Is mandated testing free? Is it readily available? This scheme currently exists in Chicago. The problem is, there are no shooting ranges in Chicago where testing can be done.

However, beyond restrictions on fully automatic weapons, ridiculous calibers (bullet sizes) and rocket launchers, if Granny wants a semiautomatic AK47 with a case of ammo, the more power to her!
- Again, who makes the determination of what bullet sizes are okay? I suppose nothing bigger than a .22LR wouldn't fly with you because you couldn't stoke your hunting rifle with them.

If gun laws will make us safe then why are the states and cities with the most restrictive gun laws the most unsafe? If laws make us safe then we should have nothing to fear since it is illegal to commit a crime with a gun, it is illegal for felons to own guns and the most dangerous fully-automatic guns are already illegal. Face it, the reason most politicians want guns banned is they are afraid that if they really screw up we will hold them accountable for it, an unarmed population is much easier to control than an armed one.
- Again, you defeat all your arguments for "sensible gun control".

Be careful what you wish for my friend, the anti-gunners want your hunting rifle too. One of their biggest ploys is to divide and conquer, and apparently it's working. Your solutions will not keep the wolves from the door.

......moon

 

[mikerault]

Moonclip,

As long as we stand up and shrilly yell "NO RESTRICTIONS" no one will seriously listen to us. Yes I know if you pay the right fees and get the right stamps there are some places where fully auto is allowed. Of course those are also the first things they will take away if they do it. Full auto is what results in thousands of rounds being required for one kill in Viet Nam and other modern conflicts. Full auto is only useful for covering and suppression fire, not something a majority of us will ever need in our entire lifetime.

With most conflicts in urban settings being ended in 2.5 rounds or so, what do you need a 30 round magazine for in a hand gun? In a carbine I can see 30 rounds, but what is the reliability or need for a 100 round magazine? Isn't that rather like getting a huge 4-wheel drive with a riser kit just to drive around town in? Are we compensating a little perhaps?

Yes, huge clips are fun to shoot with at shooting ranges and when plinking. Do I need one to hunt? No. It took 4 rounds for me to kill three deer over two hunting seasons, a 100 round magazine was hardly needed. the 5 round magazine built into my hunting rifle was more than what was needed.

Perhaps if we would stop yelling shrilly at each other over the issues, we could reach some useful and helpful dialogs that would help everyone.

 

[moonclip]

Read the Constitution.

......moon

 

[Janitor]

mikerault -

So your take on it, is that it's ok to regulate firearms based on:

1) What statistics say is average for self defense. (2.5 rounds per 'event')
2) What you have found you've needed for hunting? (there should be no need for more than four rounds every couple years)


What about the guy behind you that's saying it's ok to regulate for everything except for hunting?

And the guy behind him who says you can buy meat at the market?

 

[walnutred]

Must be easy to make up your mind when you don't have to consider facts.

 

[mikerault]

Guys,

I am not for gun control, back off a little. We have the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that doesn't mean we can take any drug we want to anytime we want, it doesn't mean we can yell "FIRE" it a crowded theater because we think it is a hoot, nor can we drive our car at 120 MPH though downtown just because it makes us happy.

I didn't say limit to 2.5 cartridges, nor to 4 in 2 years. If you read the constitution so poorly no matter you are having difficulty understanding I am not the bad guy here, neither are you.

Would limiting magazine size to what can fit in a 5 inch long pistol grip really hurt you? I can fit 16+1 rounds in my XD in that amount of space. Would limiting cyclic rate of fire to 5 or 10 per second really take the edge off your shooting? Or limiting the magazine size in a rifle to 30 rounds? Do you just have to have that bazooka for home defense? Last time I checked .50 cal machine guns weren't really on anyone's list for varmint shooting and are really overkill for home defense, and have you ever tried to carry one into a tree stand to hunt with?

Now if you want a .50 cal Barrett for long range target shooting and have the 12K to fork over, go for it! Want an AK47 or AR semi-auto with a 30 round clip, knock your self out.

Unfortunately, as you point out, only law abiding citizens will follow the rules. However, most gun shops are run by law abiding citizens which means things that shouldn't be sold, won't be available through legal channels. While this won't eliminate the BG getting them, it will make it more difficult.

Just as there are some (not many) limits on 1st amendment rights (against the law to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater) there should be a few intelligent, reasonable limits (again, not many) on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. In fact, most of them are already in affect, if not overly so.

Punishments for crimes using guns should be made as harsh as possible.

Should training be required before being able to get a carry permit? Yes! Would you just hand over the keys to the car to a 16 year old with no training? If we could trust people to get the needed training or mandate it as part of schooling then that would be one thing, but to allow anyone to just get a permit with no training whatsoever is irresponsible. I was trained in the military and from a family that did hunting.

I'll bet the first comment you make when you see someone has shot themselves or someone else by accident is "They should have known better!" how will they unless they are trained? Look outside of your world view, most people aren't exposed to the gun culture until they decide they want to buy a gun and all they know is what they see in the movies, is that where you want them to get their gun knowledge?

 

[silvertip43]

Moonclip, I completely agree with your and others rebuttal, but it makes me wonder why this guy comes to a firearms forum to promote gun control.
---sonny

 

[walnutred]

Moonclip, I completely agree with your and others rebuttal, but it makes me wonder why this guy comes to a firearms forum to promote gun control.
---sonny

Silvertip, I don't know if you remember or not but in late 2007 through mid 2008 most shooting web sites, including this one, were infiltrated by posters swearing up and down Obama was NOT interested in gun control. I think for a while you can expect posters saying that mag capacity restrictions are a "reasonable restriction". If for no other purpose than so anti-gun sites can point to those posts and say "See! Even shooters are saying mag restrictions are reasonable.". Shills are a long tradition in politics. I'm just embarrassed I was taken in.

 

[mikerault]

So, someone doesn't agree with you 100% and immediately they think you are a secret agent from the "other side" and a shill for libral gun control freaks. Paranoid much?