re: Obama's CDC study on Firearms.

quote:

---

What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes. We have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.

---

How about we change people attitudes towards mental illness? If we put the crazies in a place where they cannot harm anyone else (or themselves) it stops these mass shootings. Almost all of these mass shooters are on some type of prescribed meds for mental illness.

Taking the guns away from Cruz might have stopped it, because he could have bought another gun off the street or stolen one from a neighbor. The only way to make sure Mr. Cruz does not kill 17 people in a school is if he is locked away. No amount of gun control will fix it like that would.

quote:

---

John Lott has studied the same topic exhaustively, in far more detail and has continued to update his research as more data has come available and has drawn the opposite conclusion. Gun-control advocates have created a cottage industry in discrediting Lott but they have never been able to argue against the data or his methodologies.

---

Additionally there was a Harvard study done by Don Kates and Gary Mauser at the link here:

LINK

That seeks to determine the efficacy of gun bans. The conclusion to this study is here:

quote:

---

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence  from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual  portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the  general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific  evidence  cannot  remotely  approach  the  persuasiveness  of  conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal  more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on  that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least  require showing that a large number of nations with more  guns have more death and that nations that have imposed  stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions  in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are  not observed when a large number of nations are compared  across the world. 

---

quote:

---

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to  determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better  contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was  with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did  not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us  where not to aim public health resources.150  

---

In my humble opinion, we need to concentrate resources on dealing with mental and emotional health issues. Too many crazies walking the streets and too many cucks not able to handle the wife/girlfriend kicking them to the curb.

Politicians like obama need to be in prison

You've been brain-washed. Wake up!

quote:

---

I will read this report tonight, but there was an ecological study published in 2015 in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine called "Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime,

---

Nevermind my previous question. I found this study.

It is complete horseshite. I'll break it down for everyone.

The authors regressed violent crime on gun ownership. The null hypothesis here would be that there is no relationship.

There are at least three alternative hypotheses here.

A) Gun ownership deters violent crime. If this is true, we would expect a negative relationship.
B) Gun owners commit more violent crimes. Positive relationship.
C) People that live in areas with lots of crime buy more guns. Positive relationship.

Now, it should be noted that these alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. They could all true to varying degrees.

Maybe A and C are true while B is false. This would be great for pro gun people, but depending on the relative strength we could see a negative, positive, or no result.

Anyway, the authors find a positive result and conclude that the evidence doesn't support A.

However for B and C, we don't know which is primarily driving the result.

To try to address that issue, the authors regress violent crime in 2002 and 2004 on gun ownership in 2001. They then claim that this shows that gun ownership drives crime.

This is false. We've already established a positive relationship between gun ownership and crime. To restate this test, all they show is that high crime in 2001 is related to high crime in 2002 and 2004. In other words, all they've shown is autocorrelation in crime rate. Places that are high crime this year are likely to be high crime next year and the year after.

Finally, one of the authors receives funding from the Joyce Foundation. I'll drop this quote from wikipedia about the Joyce Foundation

quote:

---

The Foundation is notable for its support of gun control measures.

---

In conclusion, a pro gun control organization financed a shoddily done study that supports gun control.

The study

Interesting that not a single liberal has chimed in on this study. Does anyone who thinks the USA shouldn't have the right to firearms have anything at all to say about this?

quote:

---

ongressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”

---

are you just conveniently glossing over this?

quote:

---

are you just conveniently glossing over this?

---

Of course not. Are you glossing over that any study that shows more guns = more gun deaths (almost all of them) is classified as "advocating or promoting gun control" by the zealots in the Republican Party, thus rendering any and all research illegal unless you're willing to risk losing all funding (they're not)?

Did you know that countries that have more cars have more vehicular deaths?