Monday, November 26, 2012

Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue

The Denver Post reports
Gun violence must be treated as a public-health issue — such as alcohol, smoking and traffic — say people concerned about gun-related death rates from mass shootings and random shots nationwide.

"Guns are where tobacco was in the 1950s," said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program, who practices emergency medicine at the University of California at Davis School of Medicine. "There's a little bit of science and a great deal of reluctance to do anything with the results." 

In the mid-1980s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began to look at gun-related deaths and injuries as a public-health problem and to finance scientific studies into the root causes of gun violence. 

But in 1996, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied to block funding for such research. Little publicly funded research has been conducted since. As a result, there are few strategies for reducing firearm-related deaths, but the toll is moving upward, according to the latest data from the CDC. 

 In 2010, there were 31,672 deaths in the United States from firearm-related injuries, up from 31,347 in 2009.
Well, I guess that's another nail in the coffin of "more guns equals less crime." Gun related deaths have INCREASED between 2009 and 2010.

It's amazing how the cherry-picking, mendacious gun-rights advocates will get on something and keep pushing it regardless of it's true worth. Most of them don't even think, they just repeat anything that supports their mandate.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. It's amazing how the cherry-picking, mendacious gun-control advocates will get on something and keep pushing it regardless of it's true worth. Most of them don't even think, they just repeat anything that supports their mandate.

    It seems that we can sling those words both ways. Let's look at what pushed those numbers up.

    According to CDC WISQARS 2009-2010:
    Homicide DOWN 415 (-3.61%) Nope that's not it.
    Legal Intervention UP 11 (+3.30%)Yep, cops killing bad guys, that's part of it.
    Suicide UP 657 (+3.5%), yep people killing themselves. Oh, Noes, it's the guns causing the self killin'. Well, not quite because...
    Non firearm suicide is UP 798 (+4.39). Wow, non firearm suicide outpacing firearm suicide. We should ban ropes, poisons and tall buildings.

  2. A gun in the house means that you are 6-9x more likely to have a suicide, homicide or other crime in that house. A gun in the car means that instead of thinking you rely on the gun. Most gun owners are fucking morons, who are stupid and allow the gun to think for them.

    1. Talk about idiots repeating claims without thinking...

    2. No, that was extremely thoughtful, I thought.

  3. Crime is not the same thing as "gun death". Every time you guys don't like a stat you try to substitute "gun death" for whatever we are talking about and pretend no one noticed.

    Crime is down over the last decade.
    So are violent crimes.
    So are murders.
    All while gun rights and gun buying has been up up up.

  4. Gun ownership and carry is on a steady increase, and the best you've got is a slight increase in gun-related deaths? This, while the population is also rising.

    Mikeb, if your narrative were correct, there would be millions of gun deaths per annum.

    With regard to the source article, guns are fundamentally different from tobacco. Tobacco is poisonous without qualification. Guns are more like alcohol. They have many legitimate and safe uses, and they can be used responsibly without harming any innocent person.

    1. If alcohol where to be regulated like other drugs, it would be listed in the prohibitive first schedule the CSA, along with heroin and cannabis as it has no medically accepted purpose and a high risk for potential abuse. Unfortunately current politicians deny you your right to sobriety.

      If we regulated alcohol in a manner consistent with the goal of human welfare, then I would agree with you that it is a comparable product to civilian firearms.

    2. Where do you get this nonsense, E.N.? Rights belong to individuals and are about the ability to make choices. There is no right to be controlled from outside. Individuals may agree to accept some limited measure of control to maintain a society, but the society only has powers, not rights. More than that, I have the right to decide if I wish to be sober or drunk. It would violate others' rights if I get drunk and drive, but in my own home, it's my right to choose.

      The same is true about heroin and marijuana, and it's a violation of rights to have those banned.

    3. In a similar manner in which the insecure seek to empower themselves with the false justification of personal armament (guns) in an pathetic and vein attempt to become more "alpha" by masquerading as a "gangster", "cowboy" wannabe, or "freedom fighter" (the latter two apply to you), those same primitives, seek to justify their antisocial behavior with (bullshit) notions such as "freedom" and "individual rights".

      Fortunately for the rest of humanity, most (sane) people recognize the inherent fallacy in such a simian mentality, and those who are afflicted with the deranged belief in "freedom" or gun-toting as a means to compensate for ones personal insecurity, are recognized as the social pariah that they are, and outcast and shunned by society they typically are excluded from further pollution of the gene pool, and confined to shout at passerby and wear bear the cardboard sign from the ignominious pulpit of the street-corner.

    4. E.N. I would like your opinion on other "individual" rights that citizens of the United States claim. In your opinion, does a woman have a right to privacy that would include aborting her unborn child? Does a citizen have an individual right to privacy/property that includes protectiion from improper searches by the government? Does an individual have a right to free speech? Does an individual have a right to vote?

    5. Individual freedom manifestly infringes on your right to be governed, and therefore true liberty cannot exist without the subjugation of the individual to the whim of the State, as necessary for the benefit of the collective. The common subject has no rights in a civilized society. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State.

      Individuals do not possess any individual rights which may be construed to limit the power of the collective State to fulfill it's many duties and obligations to subject persons. However, the State does bear obligations, for example to protect the lives of it's subjects, to provide a minimum level of existence (limited welfare, assurance that people do not starve and children have access to a suitable education), to maintain a prosperous economic climate which is beneficial to society, to guarantee property against infringement by other citizens or unlawful conduct by State actors, to create a healthy environment for business, among other duties which the State bears to it's subjects.

      Most of these collective rights are not guaranteed under the current U.S. constitution. Other nations often do better in this regard.

    6. E.N.: “Unfortunately current politicians deny you your right to sobriety.”

      Let me get this straight. I want to be sober, but politicians won’t let me because they are force funneling beer down my throat, or some scene out of Batman where they are poisoning the water with hallucinogens. That is what is going on?

      E.N.: “Individuals do not possess any individual rights which may be construed to limit the power of the collective State to fulfill it's many duties and obligations to subject persons.”

      Including the right to vote against them. I bet most (sane) people would disagree.

    7. I think E.N. be takin' the wrong meds.

    8. E.N., you have a perverse view of society. Fortunately, Americans don't agree with you.

  5. mikeb302000:

    How dare you make such claims, based on nothing but biased gummint reports and published studies in peer reviewed pointyheadscience journals! I'll bet the NRA's OWN studies are chock full of statistics that will blow your's outta the water! Oh,wait, they didn't DO any studies that are accepted by serious people. Nevermind, as you were.

    1. I guess you chose not to count:

      The 1994 CDC study showing 498,000 DGU per year. Seems that is a guberment study that you and Mike don't happen to agree with and so you chock it to the curb.

      Or how about the DOJ study from 1974-1985 showing that 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime. You are happy to pretend that we are all so safe why on earth would a gunloon feel the need to be prepared to protect themselves or their families?

      Or then there is the DOJ study in 1997 that found .7% of prison inmates who used a gun in the crime got the weapon from a gun show. So by all means, lets close that big, giant 'gun-show loophole' to stop the flood of guns into criminals hands.

      democommie, don't even try to pretend you give two nut hairs about looking at real data - whether it comes from the guberment or not. You will continue to look at the world through you socialist colored glasses and wonder why the rest of us don't see things the same way.

    2. I see democommie has no reply for me ...

    3. He's already filled his cussing quota for the day.

  6. There is a slight if noticeable difference between self defense and a crimimal killing somebody

    1. Yes, indeed, and one can easily be pawned off as the other.