While we're waiting for the actual text of this (and other) EO(s), it appears that some think the CDC is relatively unbiased in all their approaches. They are not. In the case of firearms and so-called gun violence, they heavily influenced by the AMA, the AP(ediatric)A, and the AP(sychiatric)A.
Originally Posted by JimDandy
I have no problem with the CDC maintaining gun violence databases and studies.
You should not only have a problem with them maintaining a database, but also any studies by them or supported by them that contribute to the data. Such as the following "Study:"
Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.
That was the leading paragraph, Feb. 4, 2010, from Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence
One of the oft qouted themes from this study is, "A gun in the home is twelve times (reduced from 43 times in the original Kellerman study) more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."
This is the "new" but only slightly modified study by Kellerman that was published back in 1986 (Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home.
New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60). Kellerman's study was thoroughly debunked by Gary Kleck in 1997 (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control,
pp. 177-179, 1997)
Anyone who relies upon the CDC for an impartial study on firearms and public harm, would do well to research who their study came from and who funded the initial study. You might just be amazed at how biased their research really is. The most researched and publicized study, to date, funded by the CDC was the rather ineffective Task Force on Community Preventive Services (emphasis, mine):
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
In the area that I bolded, is the actual finding of this non-Federal Task Force. Remembering that this came out towards the end of the previous Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it is instructive. What is also instructive, is the "Note" (the part I underlined) these researchers included.
That note basically says that in all the reports and studies they used, they didn't find a thing... But with more time, they surely could! Really?
What ever has changed that would make one think that now, ten years after this study, that they would "find" a different correlation than they found before? The AWB no longer exists. Yet Crime with guns, overall, has still gone down.
Where is the fiscal justification to spend upwards of $500 million
dollars on a "new" study? The justification is not fiscal, of course. It is purely an emotionally driven response.
I would now direct your attention to the actual conclusion of this study:
In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.
The answer to "whatever has changed," is nothing. Each and every study since, that has been put forth as determining that (so-called) gun violence can be remedied by more bans and/or restrictions, have been shown to have the same "imperfect methods to imperfect data," as the 52 studies used in the CDC meta-study of 2002.
I won't quibble with anyone on the data of the CDC in any other area. But when it comes to guns and violence, the CDC is heavily weighted on the anti side of the equation.
Still don't think so? It should be just as instructive to you that this meta-study included the work of Kellerman but not that of Kleck, which debunked the Kellerman study. Fact is, you won't find any supposed pro-gun studies among those researched.