Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by RainbowSingularity, Apr 25, 2018.
where is it ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
As I understand it the CDC is banned from collecting such data. That means that, at a minimum, you need to collate fifty states' worth of information. They'll have different definitions and different standards.
It seems that:
The CDC is not/was not "banned" from collecting data on gun violence, they were banned from advocating for "gun control".
Meanwhile in the new spending bill there is a sentence noting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.
"causes" ok maybe an "objective opinion" would be possible?
The CDC was never banned from studying the causes of "gun violence"
And awkward statistics could be equated as "advocating".
Perhaps, a look at the Kellermann study will shed some light on the subject?
i dont mind the thread being diverted by people to discuss other subjects.
specially when they are linked on moral social or legal ideologies.
what i do want to note here is that your referring to a study done by a person who was not doing the study for the US government.
additionally and more soo the point, the study is not an actual publication of statistics of the incident reports.
obviousely your making a snipe
i have read the actual wording that was officialy published in regard to the CDC collecting and publishing data on gun violence.
soo... considering the wording is laced with identity politics it suggests the identity politics is in control of the CDC.
which brings us back to the subject
noting... all the data that is put out and published is all by non government organisations.
there is no official publication of the crime statistics of shooter data and victim data.
even though in theory.
the police and justice department should have all that data already.
which is completely at odds with how the media report information about violent crimes and how the police and politicians react on TV.
there is this massive clamour for information about 1 inccident and endless repeated detailing of emotional critic responses to the event..
while the actual data is synthesised to become almost cartoon like.
should citizens be asking why it is not published ?
do the majority really care ?
Following Sama's "the CDC is banned from collecting such data.:
a look into the Dickey amendment seemed appropriate
Wherein the CDC was forbidden advocacy for "gun control"
The events leading up to the Dickey amendment were errors on both sides of the Kellermann study
The gun control guys focused on the perceived dangers of having a gun in the home while ignoring the other risk factors mentioned in Kellermann
The anti gun control guys then focused on Kellermann(who received CDC funding for the mentioned research paper) without, themselves focusing on the studies limitations and conclusions. ergo, your:
is and was in error.
Quite often, threads within this forum are much like a braided river with channels diverging and converging and enhanced and enlarged by the added flow of tributaries. Going with the flow, one travels downstream at a leisurely pace, chancing upon islands where one might picnic and do a little napping and/or fishing.
And now for my opinion:
The cdc self precluded it'self from data collection because they were led by a gutless wonder who was more interested in funding and power..........
The ability to determine who will get CDC grants and who will not is really power. (EG)If, they should be willing to research ducks but not geese---then----konrad lorenz you're outta here .........
The reason I recommended reading Kellermann was so that people would see for themselves how both sides had overreacted to the published study.
as to who exactly should be responsible for collecting the data requested by you
I agree with your:
no intro music ?
referring people to a study without naming the persons full name or the name of the study and without providing a link to the actual study is a bit flakey.
you are personally aware of internal identity politics running the CDC ?
you note another report with no link yet this time give the first name
what published study ?
does it contain raw data ?
if so what raw data does it contain ?
or... is this an emotional conversation about the identity politics that governs media reports about scientific studys and the false flag normalcy used to pervert scientific process ?
the larger game is the setting up of the question that dictates the filter and mixing of data to begin with.
"feelings and emotions around how gun control influences feelings of saftey in the home and violent street crime impacts"
then they throw in street crime statistics and throw in blind survey results. then mix in unverified telephone polls and produce a glossy emotional identity politics piece to kiss-ass one of the groups who will give them money or fame.
like the us national election polling.
the polling was correct, however they did not factor in how the voting worked in each state. which for a polling company should be basic knowledge when your being paid to produce something.
anywho... nothing new
There's a bit of good news there. The recent budget bill, passed last month, contained language allowing the CDC to once again research the public health risks of guns.
hopefully it will be a bit more scientific than the jobless reports.
which are a complete sham
the CDC should also be funded to study unemployment rates(which you would think in a capitalist country[or any country that likes money or building stuff] would be mandatory)
The Center for Disease Control should have some limits on its scope of expensive field research and raw data collection, one would think. One would presume they could rely on some data bases assembled by departments of economics, census, and taxation, etc, for raw data on certain aspects of employment; law enforcement, for certain raw data on gun violence.
If the gigantic bureaucracy created under Homeland Security has no established setup anywhere under its purview for standardizing, collecting, and organizing raw data on gun violence - which would perforce include suicide and accident, if only to preclude mistaken pattern recognition - then that would appear to be gross incompetence on that front; the CDC would not be the front line here, and would be operating well outside its areas of expertise.
The original "ban" was by clout in the first place - a total budget cut matching exactly the money granted to gun injury research, a message sent without the accountability of explicit regulation. That message still looms - Trump's administration is well known for abusing the funding mechanisms of government, on top of the Republican Congress that still exists as it did on first message sending.
A recent - April 14 - Science News magazine has a two page article on the lack of good data and research into any aspect of mass murder by firearm in the US. The various criminologists and sociologists and psychologists quoted pretty much agree: all the commonly presented causes and factors are speculation based on anecdote, and some of them are simply wrong.
Two things: the per capita rate of mass shootings in the US seems not to have risen for a century or more; the number killed per event does seem to have risen recently - nobody knows why, for sure.
So you are all waiting for a mass atomic bomb terror attack to figure out the bigger the weapon the more will die?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well, I don't know about how your google works, but if you plug in "gun statistics US" into the search bar, my google comes up with the following as the top resources:
BJS - Bureau of Justice Statistics
CDC - Homicide statistics
FBI - CIUS or Crime in the US statistics
BATFE - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Statistics
almost all news or reports that discuss guns should have these sources as it's the only data collected that can be validated through secondary means (as in: it's not just a general poll requiring self-reporting). This data is also problematic and it's mentioned on more than one occasion in various links, for instance:
So the information you glean from sources has to take into consideration their reporting.
Some reporting isn't very expansive. In the FBI database for my state where you can check the statistics for your city, there are no cities even mentioned from my county, which I know have had crime occasionally, if only typically misdemeanor bullsh*t stuff for the most part.
Another problem that most people ignore when reading news articles is the source material and it's disclaimers. CBS published a report called "Murder map: Deadliest U.S. cities", and what most people ignored was that the report was based on Prelim data (from the Major Chiefs Survey - [MCS]) where it was known there was undisclosed data.
also note, that MCS is for cities over 100K, so is a limited scope survey for large urban area's. It doesn't reflect true statistics for the nation, only certain urban centers.
There is also a series of survey's floating around based upon the reporting of a limited number of states. Any survey that is limited to [x] states can never be a factual representation of US statistics, yet I see the pro-gun control use these surveys a lot.
When comparing against other nations, you need to consider their reporting definitions: there is no worlwide common reporting method. Comparing violent crime and gun crimes between two countries is difficult when there is no standard reporting method - you would have to parse through each crime and redefine it based upon your national reporting method, and that assumes you can access the data on that level to determine how to place it.
that really is only the tip of the iceburg, mind you.
[emphasis mine - GPO bill linked: Public Health Service Act (above in quote)]
during that time, the CDC was openly biased: CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.”
the decline since then may be indicitive of the political ideology moreso than the factual analysis of data, and they even described their long term tactics to the public in order to achieve the goal
When you have a bias and you go looking for ways to confirm this bias, it's not science, it's politics. That is the primary reason the CDC was dinged in the bill.
you don't know how to look for the data, as it's linked above in my last post. and it's official publications of crime stats, just not specific shooter data
for that you will need considerable training and the ability to access public health records. You may be able to glean some data through the studies that the ISU uses when profiling for serial criminals, but that would also include training, background checks, specialised permissions and working in a related field. You can see some of that here
Note: ViCAP has the data you are looking for but you will not be able to get access to it.
Is it better to;
give a man a fish?
or teach him to fish?
According to the Rand study recently - the most authoritative I know of - there is very little good data or well-performed research into any aspect of gun violence as it relates to policy in the US. Explore at your leisure: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
In addition, we note an aspect underplayed by the Rand corporation but visible in other links I have posted here: what little data we have is often compiled by State, while gun culture, gun prevalence, and gun violence are not distributed by State. That introduces all kinds of problems into the data's interpretations. Rand recognizes this in a way - it's inside this:
but does not highlight that most common and generally misleading aspect of the public discussion.
Mind, the Rand corporation is solidly on the side of governmental authority, heavy government restrictions and controls on firearms. If they have a bias, it's in that direction.
We're waiting for evidence that the weapons are bigger. Here are the weapons brought by the shooter in a classic mass shooting in 1966, at a school in Texas:
The rifle used at the Parkland mass shooting (and at Sandy Hook) was "smaller" than a couple of those.
Bigger - as in more destructive power per second
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you can get anyone else to go along with that, figure out how to measure it, sure.
Now: the evidence - - - - -
Separate names with a comma.