|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 22, 2016, 07:54 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 21, 2002
Posts: 12
|
Forbes: "Why I Don't Trust Government-Backed 'Gun Violence' Research"
I am a physician and a gun owner (Glock 30). Which is I wrote this piece in today's Forbes: "Why I Don't Trust Government-Backed 'Gun Violence' Research".
Bottom line: The federal government's CDC (Centers For Disease Control) has been too biased against guns to objectively study "gun violence". |
June 22, 2016, 08:11 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Well done. I hope this helps more people who only read "mainstream" media to understand this situation.
P.S.- I don't classify Forbes magazine as "mainstream" media in any pejorative way. Just saying it's an outlet that covers a broad spectrum of issues and is read by a broad spectrum of the public.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
June 22, 2016, 08:33 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
Thanks for speaking out.
Coming from a member of the medical profession, it should have more impact.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
June 22, 2016, 08:35 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Yes, I too appreciate the article and would love to see it carried in more places. I often read good articles in places like the WSJ and can’t help think they are just sort of “preaching to the choir”. I would love to see this article on the Huffington Post or maybe Mother Jones.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
June 22, 2016, 08:49 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Thank you and well done. An excellent read.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
June 22, 2016, 08:58 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Good article. Here in CA, we have a similar bill about to become law - they'll be giving money to the university of California system to study "gun violence".
When you label it "gun violence" you've already shown what you're going to force the conclusion to be. Any pretense of objectivity in the research was stillborn. |
June 22, 2016, 09:04 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,552
|
Thank you for taking the time to write this article. I wish more people would speak up against the biased reporting and constant drumbeat of "gun violence" in the media. It is a concerted effort to persuade the populace that giving up their rights is best for all, and it won't stop at the 2nd amendment.
|
June 22, 2016, 09:35 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Very nice.
I wonder if more money is supplied to gun violence, would they fund a study on how to trained concealed carry civilians to deal effectively with rampage shooters? Pro-gun research is very hard to publish. Kleck pulled it off, I wonder if he could today.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 22, 2016, 11:04 AM | #9 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Well, technically CDC is just prohibited from advocating for gun control (one of well over a dozen funding restrictions concerning ethics that affect CDC). CDC can still promote gun rights all it likes. Maybe it should. If for no other reason then it might give pause to gun control groups wanting to fill their coffers with taxpayer money.
Frankly, one of my biggest peeves with the Feds is their success in reaching into the taxpayer's pocket to fund propaganda that taxpayers oppose in vast majorities and strongarm those same taxpayers with their own money. |
June 22, 2016, 04:47 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
BRAVO. Very Good piece.
Besides. Gun Ownership is not a DISEASE or ILLNESS. Since it is not a disease or illness, it would not fall under the auspices of CDC and they should butt out. |
June 22, 2016, 07:56 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
I don't know what "studies" may show, but I do know it is an observed fact that, generally speaking, when you throw money at something, you get MORE of it.
Quote:
Pay me a few million dollars, and despite my personal beliefs and ethics, I would write an article saying the same thing! Then, after cashing their checks, (and getting a lawyer) I would write one on my own, admitting I only did it for the money. The CDC SHOULD be an impartial organization, doing its work with ACTUAL diseases. Political and social advocacy of ANY kind SHOULD be outside their scope, and abilities. That, sadly, was not, and I believe still is not the case. The media has rediscovered that ONE of the legal funding restrictions on the CDC is they cannot use govt money to advocate gun control. Of course, the media is reporting this as "cannot study gun violence". Which is, simply, a lie. The fact that the CDC might choose not to study gun violence (because they are not permitted to ADVOCATE gun control) is NOT the same thing. Remember that gun control isn't the ONLY thing these people lie about...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 22, 2016, 11:03 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Excellent article sir. I especially like the comparison with abortion. Sometimes an anecdotal "what if" example of the same situation, yet where the sides are flipped, is a powerful argument.
The CDC has as much business getting involved in the politics of gun ownership as the department of agriculture has getting involved in alcohol regulations(for example). |
June 23, 2016, 05:11 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Posts: 140
|
I saved this link and it shows clearly why the CDC can't be trusted for statistical analysis. Check out the final sentence:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-top-...84.html?ref=gs |
June 23, 2016, 10:13 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
well-said
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
June 23, 2016, 04:15 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 741
|
Good article. Thanks for putting this out there.
__________________
NRA Patron Member SAF Life Member GOAL Member |
June 23, 2016, 06:43 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
Well done article. Very difficult to 'trust' almost anything the government says these days. The VA fiasco shows that. Any gun violence study would be suspect at best/
|
June 23, 2016, 09:47 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
|
Great article I quit trusting the CDC reports when they post research on youth firearm deaths, it seems that 25 year olds are youth, and they did not separate those killed while engaged in criminal acts. Second reason for me discounting their research was I got a piece of metal in my eye from a drill and because I was a smoker it was classed a smoking related illness, and the doctor was told to report it that way.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty. |
June 25, 2016, 01:44 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,313
|
But WAIT!!!
Isn't anybody else SUSPICIOUS of this author and his article in Forbes magazine??? I listen to public radio and it seems impossible that there could be a pro-gun person that went to college. It's very unlikely that a pro-gun person could SPELL college. Gun owners, as I understand it from over 200 'US News and World Report' political cartons: http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-c...08&int=taboola always weigh in at about 300 pounds and wear dirty T-shirts. The author of the article in Forbes has an actual TIE on and it doesn't even look like a clip-on. How can this be??? |
June 25, 2016, 02:22 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2012
Posts: 191
|
I didn't read the article, as it required that I first turn off my ad blocker.
I seem to remember something about a "Free Press". |
June 28, 2016, 10:21 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 1,091
|
Thank you, Dr. I saw you had 12 posts and was going to welcome you to TFL, but see you joined in 2002. Don't be a stranger, hear?
|
June 29, 2016, 08:47 AM | #21 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 29, 2016, 10:28 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
It won't let me view the story with my adblocker turned on either. Apparently they allow adblockers if you are a member.
"We noticed you still have your ad blocker on, please log in to continue to the site" is the message I get. |
January 22, 2017, 05:55 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Posts: 140
|
I realize this is an older thread but posted to it for continuity about inflated CDC statistics:
http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/20...al-gun-deaths/ The original article I saw (Sorry, I didn't save the link for some reason.) said the CDC claimed a "coding error" was responsible. Appears even The Safe Tennessee Project couldn't believe this one. Edit to add these links I found but neither of these the one I saw originally: http://www.guns.com/2016/10/19/cdc-i...-dr-john-lott/ https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/a...false-numbers/ Last edited by mag1911; January 22, 2017 at 07:02 AM. |
January 22, 2017, 09:57 AM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
If they changed 5 into 105 , no matter the cause, then I believe this to be completely true, though, not, I think in the same way the speaker meant it..
Quote:
intentional or accidental, doesn't change the fact that they published grossly inaccurate information, and then made public policy recommendations based on that, UNTIL someone challenged their figures. Makes one wonder how many other instances, and in how many areas they have done this kind of thing in, before???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 24, 2017, 04:27 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Posts: 140
|
Not a comment on the validity, or not, of this study but another example case that turned up on google where it seems the CDC fudged the numbers toward some end they desired:
http://www.stats.org/the-cdc-conspiracy/ |
|
|