Statistics and estimating the effects of more open and concealed carry firearms

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bone

Not really - though this is now quibbling. This says the net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research. You said the CDC spent zero dollars. Those are different statements.

Well, yes, they are different statements. Your cite, as I quoted, said that research was “effectively halted.” Not slowed down, not diminished, not a “net…overall reduction”: effectively halted. Which is what I said.

Based on your new criteria with the lookback 2-3 years, here are a list of awards from the National Institute of Justice related to studying gun violence. Not the CDC, or the HHS, but part of the Department of Justice.

Right: not the CDC. Which is what I said. Are you conceding this point? I feel like at this point you should, but I also kind of think you’re not, even though your cites support such a concession.

With regards to conducting research - sure, great. The CDC is not the right place for it though as they are tainted beyond repair for gun issues, IMO.

Not only are they not “tainted beyond repair,” they are of course the right place for it, inasmuch as they study public health. As I said elsewhere, gun regulation opponents tend to look at only the criminal deterrence effects of gun ownership, whereas gun regulation advocates too often look only at the public health effects of gun ownership. A full picture may only be gained by examining both, and while the DOJ is the best place to examine the former, the CDC is the best place to examine the latter.

Even Dickey agrees:

@Dickey

It turned out that that’s [cutting off all research on the effects of guns or gun ownership in society] what happened, but it wasn’t aimed at that. And it wasn’t necessary that all research stop.
…
The highway industry spent money in their scientific research to figure out what could be done, assuming that they were going to allow cars to continue to be on our highways. Enormous reduction of head-on collisions has been caused just by that little 2-and-a-half, 3-foot fence. We could do the same in the gun industry.

[Bone]

@iiandyiiii

I would guess “yes”. I have a feeling you’re setting me up for something.

No setup. My aim was to see if defensive gun uses (DGU) would fall under the umbrella of what you are talking about. So if preventing injury, death, or even protection of property counts on the side of the equation of ’ total incidents in which the use of a firearm prevented injury or death’, then at least we have a basis of comparison.

On the costs side, wrt to unintentional events, we know that those figures are roughly 18K. On the benefit side, we have only estimates. Some put more faith in the estimates than others, depending on source and nature of the estimate. And there have been many discussions of DGU on the board previously.

Some key estimates in this arena are from the NCVS which if I recall correctly estimated just north of 100K incidents of DGU, to the Hemenway study I linked upthread which states:

The NCVS focuses on six specific serious crimes (for example, assault, rape, robbery) and asks the respondent whether s/he has been the victim of an attempted or completed crime within the preceding six months. Follow up questions ask whether the offender used a gun in the criminal attempt, as well as what, if anything, the respondent did to protect him/herself. Estimates from the NCVS suggest that each year about one million violent crimes involve guns while victims use guns in self defense perhaps 60 000 to 120 000 times.

The NCVS survey upon which this is based does not actually ask if the respondent used a gun for self protection and has a number of other weaknesses when used for the purpose of quantifying DGU. And while I think the Hemenway study has other serious weaknesses and the conclusions suspect not necessarily on point to this thread, this is another data point from a staunch gun control proponent about DGU incidents. The study does say later on:

However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude. It appears we can obtain substantially higher rates of self defense gun use if we ask respondents about events in the previous six months rather than the previous five years.7 On the other hand, we can obtain substantially lower rates of self defense gun use if we eliminate the handful of respondents who report the vast majority of uses, the various respondents who report uses that do not appear to meet reasonable criteria for actual use, or the respondents whose use appears offensive rather than defensive.

---

Here are summaries of 7 studies (6 of which have an estimate). Since that time, there have been at least 7 more. Every study that estimates the amount of DGU has a figure north of 700k except for one. Even that one has a figure north of 100k (NCVS). My point is not to quibble over the detail figure. It is to say that DGU is not rare and occurs in such significant amounts that the efficacy of gun ownership is high.

From a Kleck book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (page 46):
For example, David McDowall, faced with nearly unanimous evidence that DGU is extremely common, has switched from flatly and recklessly stating that DGU is “rare,” as he did in a 1994 publication (McDowall and Wiersema 1994), to adopting a position, just one year later, of scientific conservatism and declaring that “the frequency of firearm self-defense is an issue that is far from settled” (McDowall 1996:136). Certainly this issue is no more finally resolved than any scientific issue ever is, but it is distinctly misleading to imply to readers that the body of relevant evidence is somehow evenly balanced between studies indicating that DGU is rare and those indicating the opposite, or that the evidence is not consistent enough to draw even tentative conclusions. As of 1995, at least fifteen surveys indicated 700,000 or more annual DGUs [McDowall acknowledged the existence of only three of these (1995:137)], while just one (the only one relied on in the McDowall and Wiersema 1994 study) indicated fewer than 100,000.

In any event, in every attempt to quantify the number of DGU, the figure is well north of the 18K above.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Right: not the CDC. Which is what I said. Are you conceding this point? I feel like at this point you should, but I also kind of think you’re not, even though your cites support such a concession.

I concede effectively halted. This is not to say that they are prohibited from doing research - it’s just that they basically don’t.

But to touch on your larger point - given the CDCs penchant for wanting to reduce the number of guns, I’m not sure how they could be trusted to produce quality data. Even if the CDC were able to be perfectly impartial - why fight that battle when they have so much baggage where any message they push will be attacked and ineffective? Do research through DOJ or FBI, and shed the history of wanting to ban guns that the CDC carries. And I’m unconvinced that the CDC is the best place to examine the public health impacts of firearms - I don’t even know what the parameters of that are.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

No setup. My aim was to see if defensive gun uses (DGU) would fall under the umbrella of what you are talking about. So if preventing injury, death, or even protection of property counts on the side of the equation of ’ total incidents in which the use of a firearm prevented injury or death’, then at least we have a basis of comparison.

On the costs side, wrt to unintentional events, we know that those figures are roughly 18K. On the benefit side, we have only estimates. Some put more faith in the estimates than others, depending on source and nature of the estimate. And there have been many discussions of DGU on the board previously.

Some key estimates in this arena are from the NCVS which if I recall correctly estimated just north of 100K incidents of DGU, to the Hemenway study I linked upthread which states:

The NCVS survey upon which this is based does not actually ask if the respondent used a gun for self protection and has a number of other weaknesses when used for the purpose of quantifying DGU. And while I think the Hemenway study has other serious weaknesses and the conclusions suspect not necessarily on point to this thread, this is another data point from a staunch gun control proponent about DGU incidents. The study does say later on:

---

Here are summaries of 7 studies (6 of which have an estimate). Since that time, there have been at least 7 more. Every study that estimates the amount of DGU has a figure north of 700k except for one. Even that one has a figure north of 100k (NCVS). My point is not to quibble over the detail figure. It is to say that DGU is not rare and occurs in such significant amounts that the efficacy of gun ownership is high.

From a Kleck book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (page 46):
For example, David McDowall, faced with nearly unanimous evidence that DGU is extremely common, has switched from flatly and recklessly stating that DGU is “rare,” as he did in a 1994 publication (McDowall and Wiersema 1994), to adopting a position, just one year later, of scientific conservatism and declaring that “the frequency of firearm self-defense is an issue that is far from settled” (McDowall 1996:136). Certainly this issue is no more finally resolved than any scientific issue ever is, but it is distinctly misleading to imply to readers that the body of relevant evidence is somehow evenly balanced between studies indicating that DGU is rare and those indicating the opposite, or that the evidence is not consistent enough to draw even tentative conclusions. As of 1995, at least fifteen surveys indicated 700,000 or more annual DGUs [McDowall acknowledged the existence of only three of these (1995:137)], while just one (the only one relied on in the McDowall and Wiersema 1994 study) indicated fewer than 100,000.

In any event, in every attempt to quantify the number of DGU, the figure is well north of the 18K above.

Those numbers are shockingly high – if these events are so common, such that there might be hundreds or more per day, why are they reported upon so rarely? What are some examples of the most common types of DGU?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bone

But to touch on your larger point - given the CDCs penchant for wanting to reduce the number of guns, I’m not sure how they could be trusted to produce quality data.

Three things:

1. On what basis do you say they wanted, prior to 1996, to reduce the number of guns, or to ban guns?
2. On what basis do you say they currently want to do so?
3. Unless you’re suggesting that the CDC will engage in systematic fraud regarding gun research–something I doubt you’re suggesting–there’s no need to “trust” them–their data will be examined just as anyone else’s will be. For example, for all the surveys reporting tens of thousands of DGUs, we can look at actual reports of DGUs instead of highly problematic self-reports, and discover that the numbers of proven DGUs are far, far smaller.

Now, there’s a legitimate debate around whether we should limit ourselves to cases in which a gun is fired; surely a display of a gun, unfired, ought to be considered, right? In doing so, we’re criticizing the Phoenix study, which is exactly what we would do to a CDC study, and we should be sure we’ve read the entire study before making this, or other criticisms… The idea that we must rely on trust, and not skeptical critique, is not sound.

[Bone]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Three things:

1. On what basis do you say they wanted, prior to 1996, to reduce the number of guns, or to ban guns?
2. On what basis do you say they currently want to do so?
3. Unless you’re suggesting that the CDC will engage in systematic fraud regarding gun research–something I doubt you’re suggesting–there’s no need to “trust” them–their data will be examined just as anyone else’s will be. For example, for all the surveys reporting tens of thousands of DGUs, we can look at actual reports of DGUs instead of highly problematic self-reports, and discover that the numbers of proven DGUs are far, far smaller.

Now, there’s a legitimate debate around whether we should limit ourselves to cases in which a gun is fired; surely a display of a gun, unfired, ought to be considered, right? In doing so, we’re criticizing the Phoenix study, which is exactly what we would do to a CDC study, and we should be sure we’ve read the entire study before making this, or other criticisms… The idea that we must rely on trust, and not skeptical critique, is not sound.

[ol]
[li]There are numerous quotes to this effect, but I’ll start with this: The parent agency of the CDC, the US Public Health Service had as it’s goal to “to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership,”:[/li]

The Public Health Service has
targeted violence as a priority concern.
Two of the 1990Health Objectives for
the United States include lowering the
homicide rate among black males
15–24 years of age as well as the
suicide rate for all persons 15–24
years of age. There is a separate
objective to reduce the number of
handguns in private ownership

[li]I see no evidence that their position would have changed. [/li][li]I think the nature of the studies they fund, given the history of advocacy, colors their choices and biases. And even if arguendo they are perfectly neutral, there are some folks who will always look askew at them.[/li][/ol]

[iiandyiiii]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Three things:

1. On what basis do you say they wanted, prior to 1996, to reduce the number of guns, or to ban guns?
2. On what basis do you say they currently want to do so?
3. Unless you’re suggesting that the CDC will engage in systematic fraud regarding gun research–something I doubt you’re suggesting–there’s no need to “trust” them–their data will be examined just as anyone else’s will be. For example, for all the surveys reporting tens of thousands of DGUs, we can look at actual reports of DGUs instead of highly problematic self-reports, and discover that the numbers of proven DGUs are far, far smaller.

Now, there’s a legitimate debate around whether we should limit ourselves to cases in which a gun is fired; surely a display of a gun, unfired, ought to be considered, right? In doing so, we’re criticizing the Phoenix study, which is exactly what we would do to a CDC study, and we should be sure we’ve read the entire study before making this, or other criticisms… The idea that we must rely on trust, and not skeptical critique, is not sound.

I could not find a comparable annual DGU total in your link – is there one?

[Bone]

I should have added - yes we can critique any study available. The idea behind getting the CDC involved is to lend legitimacy to the result, no? The fact that it is a CDC study grants credibility in a way that a NewsMax study would not. If you accept that to be true, either for yourself, or for others, why do you think they get that treatment?

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

I should have added - yes we can critique any study available. The idea behind getting the CDC involved is to lend legitimacy to the result, no? The fact that it is a CDC study grants credibility in a way that a NewsMax study would not. If you accept that to be true, either for yourself, or for others, why do you think they get that treatment?

Because they have a good track record, right?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[quote=“Bone, post:25, topic:744198”]

[ol]
[li]There are numerous quotes to this effect, but I’ll start with this: The parent agency of the CDC, the US Public Health Service had as it’s goal to “to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership,”:[/li][/quote]

That’s a footnote referencing a 1979 document, as near as I can tell; I’m having trouble digging up the original document in order to determine whether this footnote is accurately representing the original. Is that footnote about a report issued by another agency the entire basis for your belief that they have a “history of wanting to ban guns”?

[quote]
[li]I see no evidence that their position would have changed. [/li][/quote]

Given that the people who wrote that document wrote it nearly 40 years ago, there’s a decent chance that they’ve all died by now, and a very high chance that not a single person who wrote that document still has any job at all with the government. Are you seriously suggesting that health objectives have not changed since 1979?

[li]I think the nature of the studies they fund, given the history of advocacy, colors their choices and biases. And even if arguendo they are perfectly neutral, there are some folks who will always look askew at them.[/li][/ol]

If their research shows biases, critique them for it. Instituting a chilling effect because of fear of what biases might show up based on a footnoted interpretation of a 37-year-old report does not seem like a proportionate response; indeed, it’s exactly the sort of response that leads to less data, exactly the sort of thing that Dickey regrets having created.

If folks look askew at research because of outdated worries, that’s a problem with those people, and they need to get straight. Unsupported worries are no basis for public policy.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Okay, some notes. Sorry, that was in the conclusion, not the footnote–the name of the report referenced was in the footnote, and here it is. Check out page 244:

The primary factor impeding progress toward this objective [reducing homicide rates among black males] is that there are currently no known means of effectively reducing homicide short of drastic social measures, such as handgun confiscation, that would be acceptable to large segments of the U.S. population.

BUT WAIT! I found the goal! And the other cite correctly described the 1979 document:

By 1990, the number of handguns in private ownership should have declined by 25 percent.
…
Progress toward meeting this objective cannot be measured…Public policies with respect to the…ownership of handguns are established by the political system at the federal, state, and local levels. In the absence of major changes in existing policies, it is unlikely that the number of firearms in private ownership will decrease.

So there we go. In 1979, somebody suggested that maybe it’d be good for public health if fewer people owned firearms. In 1986, someone wrote a sentence with a dangling modifier that only makes sense if it means that confiscation would not be acceptable, and acknowledged that this goal set in 1979 won’t be met unless there are political changes.

And THAT is the basis for intimidating researchers, and for feeling good about said intimidation?

Seriously?

[Bone]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That’s a footnote referencing a 1979 document, as near as I can tell; I’m having trouble digging up the original document in order to determine whether this footnote is accurately representing the original. Is that footnote about a report issued by another agency the entire basis for your belief that they have a “history of wanting to ban guns”?

It’s actually 1990, about 6 years before the Dickey amendment. But yes, it’s old and no, it’s not my entire basis for my belief. I don’t think it’s necessary to lay out a manifesto supporting the belief, but there are many examples. Then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, an arm of the CDC, Mark Rosenburg said:

Yet four years earlier, in a 1987 CDC report, Rosenberg thought the area adequately scrutinized, and his understanding sufficient, to urge confiscation of all firearms from “the general population,” claiming “8,600 homicides and 5,370 suicides could be avoided” each year. In 1993 Rolling Stone reported that Rosenberg “envisions a long term campaign, similar to [those concerning] tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” In 1994 he told The Washington Post, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.”

There’s much more at the link. You may agree, disagree, or think some of the critique is neutral. In any event, many gun rights advocates don’t support the CDC, and won’t. Using them to fund future research will lose effectiveness from that standpoint alone.

I don’t know if the CDC’s objectives, personnel, or culture have changed since the Dickey amendment. I suspect it has in some ways and hasn’t in others. Here’s the thing - they were critiqued for their biases - that’s the whole basis for the funding restriction. They can still do research at this very moment! Or do you think the ban on gun control promotion and advocacy should be lifted so they can engage in more of the same?

If they want to do research, they are free to do so. The chilling effect wasn’t because of a single footnote - it was because they were pushing an agenda. Have you looked at the history before this thread?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bone

It’s actually 1990, about 6 years before the Dickey amendment.

No. The report was written in 1979, setting national health care goals to be achieved by 1990. Have you actually read the report?

But yes, it’s old and no, it’s not my entire basis for my belief. I don’t think it’s necessary to lay out a manifesto supporting the belief, but there are many examples. Then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, an arm of the CDC, Mark Rosenburg said:
There’s much more at the link.

We’re verging into Gish Gallop territory here. We have a 1979 proposal that you’ve not cited directly and didn’t understand when it was written; the only summary I can find of it makes it clear that confiscation wasn’t part of the plan. You’ve cited a polemic that summarizes the words of a CDC subprogram administrator, with no record of his actual statement. And you’ve told me there’s plenty more where this comes from.

So far, the evidence is entirely unpersuasive.

Do you have a single primary source to support the contention that the CDC, at some point, engaged in inappropriate advocacy? As in, an example of inappropriate advocacy? Is the 1979 document the best evidence?

I believe that anti-gun-regulator advocates don’t always summarize their opponents’ positions accurately. At this point, a link to another summary isn’t going to carry much persuasive weight.

You may agree, disagree, or think some of the critique is neutral. In any event, many gun rights advocates don’t support the CDC, and won’t. Using them to fund future research will lose effectiveness from that standpoint alone.

This is a terrible basis for public policy. It amounts to saying, “Some people are going to argue unreasonably on the subject, so we should bow to their demands.” No, no, no–or do you support a similar approach to gun regulation, e.g., because some people misunderstand assault weapons, it’s advisable to bow to their demands for banning them?

Or do you think the ban on gun control promotion and advocacy should be lifted so they can engage in more of the same?

You yourself happily admitted that a chilling effect exists. The ban should be clarified, such that robust research on the public safety implications of firearm ownership and use may be better understood.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bone

It’s actually 1990, about 6 years before the Dickey amendment.

No. The report was written in 1979, setting national health care goals to be achieved by 1990. Have you actually read the report?

But yes, it’s old and no, it’s not my entire basis for my belief. I don’t think it’s necessary to lay out a manifesto supporting the belief, but there are many examples. Then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, an arm of the CDC, Mark Rosenburg said:
There’s much more at the link.

We’re verging into Gish Gallop territory here. We have a 1979 proposal that you’ve not cited directly and didn’t understand when it was written; the only summary I can find of it makes it clear that confiscation wasn’t part of the plan. You’ve cited a polemic that summarizes the words of a CDC subprogram administrator, with no record of his actual statement. And you’ve told me there’s plenty more where this comes from.

So far, the evidence is entirely unpersuasive.

Do you have a single primary source to support the contention that the CDC, at some point, engaged in inappropriate advocacy? As in, an example of inappropriate advocacy? Is the 1979 document the best evidence?

I believe that anti-gun-regulator advocates don’t always summarize their opponents’ positions accurately. At this point, a link to another summary isn’t going to carry much persuasive weight.

You may agree, disagree, or think some of the critique is neutral. In any event, many gun rights advocates don’t support the CDC, and won’t. Using them to fund future research will lose effectiveness from that standpoint alone.

This is a terrible basis for public policy. It amounts to saying, “Some people are going to argue unreasonably on the subject, so we should bow to their demands.” No, no, no–or do you support a similar approach to gun regulation, e.g., because some people misunderstand assault weapons, it’s advisable to bow to their demands for banning them?

Or do you think the ban on gun control promotion and advocacy should be lifted so they can engage in more of the same?

You yourself happily admitted that a chilling effect exists. The ban should be clarified, such that robust research on the public safety implications of firearm ownership and use may be better understood.

Have you looked at the history before this thread?

I believe that I knew less about it than you, but I also believe I knew less incorrect things about it than you :). Consider the evidence we’ve drilled down on in this thread, and how mistaken you were about aspects of it. There’s a narrative about this issue that is ideologically driven, and it relies on inaccurate representations of the history.

[Bone]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

No. The report was written in 1979, setting national health care goals to be achieved by 1990. Have you actually read the report?

I read the report that I linked which was dated 1989 and lists it as a 1990 goal. It was likely referencing an earlier document. Though from your link, the information presented isn’t about reducing the number of handguns as a goal so I’m not sure that’s the original source material. My link was a 1989 document that stated the specific item I quoted. The document you linked is several hundred pages and I haven’t read all of that beyond the pages you referenced.

We’re verging into Gish Gallop territory here. We have a 1979 proposal that you’ve not cited directly and didn’t understand when it was written; the only summary I can find of it makes it clear that confiscation wasn’t part of the plan. You’ve cited a polemic that summarizes the words of a CDC subprogram administrator, with no record of his actual statement. And you’ve told me there’s plenty more where this comes from.

So far, the evidence is entirely unpersuasive.

Do you have a single primary source to support the contention that the CDC, at some point, engaged in inappropriate advocacy? As in, an example of inappropriate advocacy? Is the 1979 document the best evidence?

I don’t know what “Gish Gallop” means. The Reason article was written by Don Kates, a leader in the field of gun rights advocacy. Do you doubt the quotations of Rosenburg that are written in the article? They are searchable. The reason I don’t find it necessary to write a manifesto on the topic is precisely illustrated by your attempts to cast doubt here. Look at your characterization of the CDC statement*, “… somebody suggested that maybe it’d be good for public health if fewer people owned firearms. In 1986, someone wrote a sentence with a dangling modifier…”*. Your phrasing implies it was simply some lackey and not the official position of the CDC. Why characterize it that way when the stated goal is clear - “There is a separate objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”. This is directly on point to your question #1 above, yet you seem unsatisfied with the answer. You ask why I think they wanted to reduce the number of guns, and I respond with a direct quote from the CDC materials that states the exact premise.

You characterize Rosenburg similarly, downplaying his role at the CDC. You call him a CDC subprogram administrator, which may be accurate, but as the head of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control he would have a key role in the direction the agency takes in its gun research.

So beyond the stated beliefs of the head of the department of the CDC that would conduct the research, I’m not sure what kind of source you’re looking for. Are you making a distinction between inappropriate advocacy and advocacy?

I believe that anti-gun-regulator advocates don’t always summarize their opponents’ positions accurately. At this point, a link to another summary isn’t going to carry much persuasive weight.

Ok. If you notice, many of these quotes are from the 80s and 90s. The reason I believe is because at that time gun control was a stronger movement - people spoke more freely about their goals. Brady used to be called Handgun Control Inc. There’s much less statements made nowadays since it’s a loser issue - e.g. the CDC - but I have no reason to believe the sentiment has changed.

This is a terrible basis for public policy. It amounts to saying, “Some people are going to argue unreasonably on the subject, so we should bow to their demands.” No, no, no–or do you support a similar approach to gun regulation, e.g., because some people misunderstand assault weapons, it’s advisable to bow to their demands for banning them?

It’s not simply a basis for public policy. It is reality though. It’s like the BATFE using mentally handicapped people in sting operations, or having that same agency be responsible for promulgating rules on background checks. When that came about, the leading comment I remember was a question, “If I’m a federal agency, and I want to sell guns to a Mexican drug cartel, do I need to be a licensed dealer?” The reality is, these folks have no credibility in this arena. Maybe they can earn it back at some point.

You yourself happily admitted that a chilling effect exists. The ban should be clarified, such that robust research on the public safety implications of firearm ownership and use may be better understood.

I’m not sure why you characterize these things in this way. I didn’t happily admit anything. I conceded your extended point. Your original statement that they spent zero was and is unsupported. I can let it go because it’s irrelevant, but if you mischaracterize that as something more than it is then I’m not sure why.

And you should be happy that Obama has clarified the ban. We can rejoice in all the studying and research that will flow!

I believe that I knew less about it than you, but I also believe I knew less incorrect things about it than you :). Consider the evidence we’ve drilled down on in this thread, and how mistaken you were about aspects of it. There’s a narrative about this issue that is ideologically driven, and it relies on inaccurate representations of the history.

There hasn’t been any area that I’ve been mistaken on in this thread. Well, I said 1990 but the report was dated 1989. I think that was just rounding from memory. If that’s your claim to victory then have at it. I’ve probably forgotten much more as well.

In any event, you may disagree that the CDC was engaged in shitty studies - but that is the stated (paraphrased) reason their funding was cut and the ban on advocacy implemented, and renewed. They are free to study all they want.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bone

I read the report that I linked which was dated 1989 and lists it as a 1990 goal.

The 1989 report referenced a 1986 progress report referencing a 1979 document setting goals for 1990. The 1986 report appears to all but abandon the objective of reducing gun ownership, a full decade before Dickey.

1979 is the only time you’ve offered any clear evidence of anyone in the government (not in the CDC, in the government) wanting to reduce gun numbers–and even this is a long way from the claim you made earlier that the CDC has a “history of wanting to ban guns.”

Though from your link, the information presented isn’t about reducing the number of handguns as a goal so I’m not sure that’s the original source material.

The link I provided is to the exact document yours referenced by footnote. Reread the bit I cited in post 30. Several minutes of Googling failed to turn up the original 1979 document–which, again, is the only place you’ve referenced, however indirectly, that anyone in the federal government called for reduction in handgun ownership. It would be very interesting to see that original document. Did it offer rationale? Did it offer methods?

I don’t know what “Gish Gallop” means. The Reason article was written by Don Kates, a leader in the field of gun rights advocacy. Do you doubt the quotations of Rosenburg that are written in the article?

I doubt that they are in context; the quotations offered, the ones you cited, never put anything about confiscations in quotes, instead paraphrasing those remarks and using quotes for terms like “the general population.”

No, actually, I don’t trust leaders in the field of gun rights advocacy to represent their opponents’ words correctly. Searching for the specific quotes of Rosenburg being referenced is almost impossible, given the article’s lack of citations. If they’re searchable, perhaps you’d do the favor of citing the primary source, rather than an opponent’s summary of what Rosenburg said.

…
I’m not going to line-by-line the rest of your post. When I reference people as “someone,” I’m simply not bothering to go up and dig through the entire Internet to find the names of the authors of the 1979 report; you didn’t do so either. I certainly concede those someones are government workers. When I describe Rosenburg as working in a subprogram, I’m aiming for accuracy, not diminishment–I couldn’t call him the head of the CDC, I couldn’t call him merely a staffer, I was trying to peg his position accurately.

The idea that, despite the passage of nearly four decades, attitudes at the CDC haven’t changed except to go underground–that’s bordering on conspiracy theory, and I don’t see a reason to entertain it.

The idea that we should accept the reality of people being unreasonable about the CDC is also silly. When people are being unreasonable, we should coax them into reason, not enable their nonsense. And it is absolutely nothing like the BATF and mentally challenged gun stoolies–what an offensively terrible analogy.

I’m not sure why you characterize these things in this way. I didn’t happily admit anything.

This, however, I apologize for. I remembered your admitting there’s a chilling effect, and I remembered the smiley in that post, but I thought the smiley was right after the admission. It was a sentence later, referencing something else. I was wrong to say you were happy about the admission, and I apologize.

[carnivorousplant]

How about taking the numbers quoted by each side and taking the average?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@carnivorousplant

How about taking the numbers quoted by each side and taking the average?

Science!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bone

But to touch on your larger point - given the CDCs penchant for wanting to reduce the number of guns, I’m not sure how they could be trusted to produce quality data. Even if the CDC were able to be perfectly impartial - why fight that battle when they have so much baggage where any message they push will be attacked and ineffective? Do research through DOJ or FBI, and shed the history of wanting to ban guns that the CDC carries.

Let’s review this paragraph, which is where the point of contention occurs. There are a few different possibilities:

1. The CDC prior to the Dickey Amendment, spent significant funds to advocate or promote gun control. Congress was responding to a real issue.
2. The CDC was engaged in public safety research of the sort they do on all sorts of subjects (volcanic emissions, tuberculosis, unintentional falls, etc.), but when their research touched on firearms, the NRA responded, worried that too much research on the subject would make it harder for the NRA to control the conversation. Their lackeys in congress obliged, quashing research.
3. Some high up officials in the CDC expressed support for gun control, as their personal opinion and not as official agency position, and when Gingrich’s revolution took power in 1995, it was time for payback; the amendment was intended to shut those people up and to make them worry about their jobs, not to have any real effect on research.

Me, I suspect it’s a combination of 2 and 3. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence for 1: you’ve described what other agencies have done, you’ve offered out of context quotes that are uncited, you’ve suggested there’s a mountain of additional evidence in a Gish Gallop.

If you think the CDC–not some other agency, mind, the CDC itself–was engaged in significant activities indicating an agency “history of wanting to ban guns” (not wanting to reduce their number, wanting to ban them), that’s what you should be citing. Again, not other agencies, not what someone may have said out of context or off the cuff or whatever (we don’t know what words of Rosenburg’s were paraphrased in that article). Actual cites to the CDC’s history of wanting to ban guns.

Or instead, back off of the claim that the CDC has a history of wanting to ban guns, and help other anti-gun-regulation advocates understand why this claim is false.

[steronz]

@iiandyiiii

Unless I’m mistaken, none of the numbers you discuss include accidental shootings. That’s what I’m wondering about – whether lives saved from more guns is greater or less then lives lost due to accidental shootings from more guns.

I’d suggest that you also need to include suicides in that number, especially since frequently the victim isn’t the gun owner (e.g., a teenage son uses his father’s handgun).

@iiandyiiii

[QUOTE=Bone]
What if the homeowner is the only person with a weapon and the burglar was only attempting to steal property, would that count as prevention of an injury?

I’ll tentatively say “yes” to both questions.
[/QUOTE]

Baloney, and you’ve opened yourself up to the ridiculous “DGU” distraction. If a burglar was unarmed and had no intention of harming the homeowner, why on earth would that count as a prevented injury? We’re trying to suss out whether or not guns have a net benefit; at no point does this require us to trust gun owners’ to accurately speculate about alternate realities.

The research that has been done, which I find convincing (and Bone most likely does not), is that owning a firearm provides no net safety advantage, which is to say the chance of accidental or intentional use against the owner or a family member is slightly higher than the chance of preventing injury or death from violent crime. The question you may be asking is slightly different, though; if society reaches some critical mass of people who carry every day, does that sufficiently change the calculus to provide a net safety advantage. To the best of my knowledge, this research hasn’t been done, and I’m not convinced that the effect could be isolated anyway.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, I’m curious what kind of borderline-post-apocalyptic society the Americans have where their handguns prevent hundreds of assaults and rapes per day, yet they still have an overall assault and rape rate higher than Canadians who own far fewer handguns.