Skip to main content

The National Rifle Association (NRA) website has an ongoing feature called the Armed Citizen. The feature reports stories of individuals successfully using guns either at home, on the street, or in their place of business to thwart intruders, robbers, burglars, and assailants (and, this month, an angry dog, too.). Gun-rights advocates call them “defensive gun uses” or “DGU’s.” I call them “good” uses of a gun.

During the month of March, the Armed Citizen reported five such DGU’s. The first one was dated March 18, 2014; the last one was dated March 31, 2014. You can find the feature here: http://www.nraila.org/....

However, not mentioned in the Armed Citizen was that during the 31 days of March, based on average numbers (source: http://www.bradycampaign.org), 2,604 Americans were killed by a gun (1,581 by suicide) and another 5,983 were wounded by one (310 by attempted suicide).

Those number represent “bad” uses of a gun. To put it another way, for each single “good” use of a gun as recorded in the Armed Citizen during March, there were 1,717 “bad” uses of a gun.

Granted, the NRA might not have reported or been aware of all the confirmed DGU’s that occurred during March. Indeed, gun-rights advocates often point to studies that show as many as 2-1/2 million DGU’s each year. That’s over 200,000 a month.

With such staggering numbers, though, it’s puzzling that the NRA could only list five DGU’s in the Armed Citizen in the entire month of March. How is that possible? Perhaps it’s because NRA and its 5 million members are too lazy or too busy to report all the DGU’s to the Armed Citizen.

Here’s another possibility: They can’t find them because the claimed 200,000 DGU’s per month is as bogus as Bigfoot.

Help reduce this suffering that goes on day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. Call, write, email, or FAX your representatives in Washington, D.C. and tell them to support common sense gun control. Do it today. And do it again next week. And do it again every week after that until they get the message.

You’ll find contact information here:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org

Gun Facts

Every year in the U.S.A., on average: *

-- Over 18,000 people kill themselves with a gun (51 each day)

-- Almost 12,000 people are murdered by a gun (32 each day)

-- Almost 600 people are accidentally shot and killed by a gun (1 each day)

-- Over 51,000 people are shot and wounded in an attack involving a gun (140 each day)

-- Over 16,000 people are accidentally shot and wounded by a gun (43 each day)

-- Almost 4,000 people are wounded attempting to kill themselves with a gun (10 each day).

Total killed by guns each year: Over 30,000 (84 each day)

Total wounded by guns each year: Over 70,000 (193 each day)

Total number of Americans either killed or wounded by guns each year: Over 100,000 (277 each day)

* Brady Campaign (gun deaths from police intervention not included here)

Originally posted to Tom Begnal on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:30 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But Tom, you obviously don't understand the (21+ / 0-)

    ... deterrent effect of concealed carry laws.

    I bet I wasn't the victim of an armed robbery a dozen times last month because Illinois finally instituted concealed carry.

    So how do you count those?

    (The local RKBA gun toter contingent can thank me in advance for proffering that question.)

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:47:47 PM PDT

  •  Also keep in mind... (13+ / 0-)

    That the NRA's definition of "DGU" may include such cases as Cliven Bundy & his gang of outlaws pointing guns at federal public servants, and George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin dead for committing the heinous crime of walking outside while black.

  •  Frightening stats, thanks Tom. n/t (8+ / 0-)

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 01:58:19 PM PDT

  •  The answer to this question . . . (6+ / 0-)
    With such staggering numbers, though, it’s puzzling that the NRA could only list five DGU’s in the Armed Citizen in the entire month of March. How is that possible?
    . . . certainly isn't lack of resources.  With all the money the NRA has, it could certainly do what I'll call a reverse David Waldman.  It could create a "Gun Success" series for its web site.  Surely, if there are hundreds of thousands of DGU's per year, they can surpass David's 30 to 40 gun fail incidents each month.

    Now, I wonder why they haven't seemed able to do that.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:02:04 PM PDT

  •  Good and Bad Uses (5+ / 0-)

    The pro-gun crowd is always trying point out and count cases where a gun doesn't have to be used but just scares off a bad guy.  If you count those you should count the cases where a bad guy uses a gun to intimidate someone but doesn't actually shoot them.

    Mandatory Gun Insurance would provide for victims, encourage safety and not be an excessive burden on gun owners. How to do it at Gun Insurance Blog. I also make posts at Huffington as Tom Harvey.

    by guninsuranceblog on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:04:18 PM PDT

  •  Enlightening - Thank You For Presenting This (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, ranger995

    Your headline says it all:

    "Good gun uses = 5; bad gun uses = 8500".
    Despite the advertising slogans of the gun industry, few private citizens can be definitively shown to protect themselves using a gun.

    These facts will never convince the gun enthusiast - who appear to fully prefer the fictions promoted by the gun industry to the clear and obvious facts as described in your diary.

    Keep up the good work.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:13:14 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely false. (0+ / 0-)
      Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals,
      --CDC

      But stick with '5' because 'NRA magazine'.
      Ignoring credible sources has been working out so well for you thus far.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 11:48:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you and Peace to you, Tom Begnal. n/t (3+ / 0-)
  •  David Waldman's GunFail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy

    I've always thought of David Waldman's GunFail series as the counterpart to Armed Citizen, and often wondered why it isn't presented (or better publicized) as such.

    This thread shows the difficulty of comparing statistics. OTOH, David is operating in the same vein as the NRA, and opposing anecdote with anecdote.

    Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?

    by UncleDavid on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 03:27:11 PM PDT

  •  Hell, my son shot a lot more than five (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    feral hogs in March. I don't see you counting those.

    Any time a gun is used to shoot a human, or at a human, or to intimidate a human, it is a bad use, in my opinion. But only a minute fraction of the bullets fired each month are directed at people. The vast majority are put to "good" use - in sport or practice shooting, putting food on the table, and invasive species eradication, to give a few examples.

    To put the 30,000 deaths a year from guns into perspective, 88,000 people a year die from alcohol use. You could save three times as many lives if you would focus on reinstating the eighteenth amendment instead of trying to repeal the second.

  •  Is Armed Citizen a comprehensive list... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, rduran

    of DGUs or do they just publish a few select stories?  I mean, my local paper has about 2 or 3 crime stories everyday but it would be naive to think that covers all the crime in my area.

    •  Maybe the NRA should conduct a study. (8+ / 0-)

      They could reveal the true utility of firearms for self defense.  One might wonder why they haven't used their vast resources for this purpose rather than lobbying politicians.

      “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

      by TheFern on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 06:59:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One might also wonder why... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rduran

        you didn't answer the question.

      •  Why should they duplicate what the CDC has done? (4+ / 4-)

        After all, the CDC already included that in their study last year, which said that uses of a firearm for self-defense outnumbered criminal gun uses.

        Is it that you have not seen that report, or is the CDC just too pro-gun for you to trust them?

        •  Frank? (7+ / 0-)

          The CDC suggests no such thing.  You know this.

          “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

          by TheFern on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 07:54:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You have mis-stated the CDC's work (11+ / 0-)

          The CDC has not studied (formally) gun uses or defensive gun uses.  (Indeed, federal law prohibits the government from funding that kind of research and the CDC is funded by the government.)

          The CDC did release a review of literature which included the results of the 1995 study of Kleck and Gertz, which claims 2.5 million DGUs per year.

          It is this claim that inspired Mr. Begnal to count monthly tallies of "good" and "bad" gun usage.  Interestingly, Mr. Begnal's research does not support the claim that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:11:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And what does the review of the literature state? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru, FrankRose, rduran

            If "almost all national survey estimates" say the same thing and the CDC considers those estimates credible enough to include them, exactly what qualifications does Bengal have to dispute the CDC panel's combined expertise on the matter?

            The CDC statement may not be original research on the subject, but their stating it the way they did certainly suggests something, despite TheFern's comment to the contrary.

            •  Maybe the NRA could conduct a study (7+ / 0-)

              They could reveal the true utility of firearms  for self defense.  Perhaps this would be a better use of their vast resources.

              “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

              by TheFern on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:35:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The CDC review of literature (8+ / 0-)

              Following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which a semi-automatic weapon was used by one person to quickly kill 20 6 and 7 years olds (brave gunman) and 6 school staff, Pres. Obama asked the CDC to write down the current state of knowledge of guns and gun injures in this country.

              The work was wide-ranging covering everything from who gets shot to what kinds of weapons are used to do the shootings to what factors might play a causative role in the shootings.  Among the review was a statement saying that current estimates of DGUs in the country range from a low of less than 100k/year, to Kleck's estimate of 2.5 million DGUs/ year.

              Most researchers feel the Kleck study over-counts DGUs.  One piece of evidence for this is that actual counts of DGUs - such as the one Mr. Begnal presents here at dkos every month - show only very limited numbers of DGUs.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:52:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know about "most" researchers (0+ / 0-)

                There are 296 papers citing Armed Resistance (and not written by the man himself).  291 if we exclude Lott. I imagine at least the plurality of citations of NSDS and Arming Resistance are critical, but I don't know about a majority.  I think most are ambivalent.

          •  Re-posting an old comment that seems relevant (7+ / 0-)

            One of the main points that Harvard researcher David Hemenway and others make is that, when you combine the very small number of positive responses in a sample, such as that Kleck took, that it would require to vastly overestimate the actual rate in the larger population as a whole, combined with the fact that there is an undeniable social positive response bias for gun owners among their community to have reported a defensive gun use (DGU), the chances of developing an overestimate as Kleck has done are very, very large.

            Kleck dismisses this by claiming that his surveyors would have noted discrepancies in stories, a response I find unconvincing.

            But I have not as yet seen anyone ask questions about the timing of Kleck's survey. Was there anything going on in society prior to, or at the time, of Kleck's survey that may have caused survey respondents to want to justify gun ownership by fabricating DGU incidents; thereby biasing Kleck's estimates high?

            Let's take a look at Kleck's survey. He states in his Method section:

               

            Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993.
            Hmmm...let's think back at highly-publicized events of that era that might cause gun owners to worry about the government taking their guns, and might spur them to exaggerate or fabricate incidents to justify gun ownership (such as DGU).

            There was Ruby Ridge, of course, in August 1992, in which Federal agents shot and killed Randy Weaver's wife and child over Weaver's pending illegal weapons charge.  

            That was certainly highly publicized.  And it happened only six months before Kleck's survey.

            And then there the introduction in February 1993 of the reviled (by anti-gun control folks) Brady Bill by Sen. Schumer, shortly after Bill Clinton (who had campaigned in part on gun control) was inaugurated as President. That happened during Kleck's survey.

            Anything else going on at that time, one wonders? Well, there was, of course, Super Bowl XXVII, but I doubt a snoozer blowout would have gotten anyone excited.

            Hey!  What about the Waco siege?  Didn't that happen around that time? Wasn't that highly publicized? And that certainly didn't turn out well for those who might feel the need to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, eh?

            Let's check: Waco siege: February 28, 1993 to April 19, 1993.  

            Huh. February to April 1993.  Where have I heard those dates before?

               

            Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993.
            Why thank you, professor Kleck.  That's right.  

            Now that you mention it, I wonder why you didn't bother to address that little factor in your paper?  

            In a way, Kleck's survey could be viewed as similar to a survey taken during a flood of whether people think flood insurance is a good idea.

            In short, I don't think any reasonable, objective person should view Kleck's 1993 survey as accurate.  Even ignoring its glaring statistical flaws and propensity for overestimating rates of DGU that have been clearly and repeatedly described by other researchers, it was taken during a veritable maelstrom of heightened sensitivity about guns, gun ownership, and government aggression against individuals. And I'm not exaggerating: that maelstrom led directly to the rise of the militia movement and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

            Kleck's survey, in my opinion, is deeply flawed. Don't trust anyone who cites it as an authoritative estimate.

            •  Just so you know (3+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru, FrankRose, rduran
              Hidden by:
              Glen The Plumber

              The powers that be consider Gary Kleck and his work to be reputable enough that he was one of the people picked to write "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence". Now, I'm going to guess that they were well aware of his publication record before picking him.

              Which places you in the interesting position of showing us why the CDC and the National Academy of Sciences (the two main groups supporting the paper) would deliberately pick him, if his work is so "deeply flawed" and all the serious people know this. Why didn't they pick Hemenway, for instance? His unwillingness to share the data he used to draw his conclusions certainly wouldn't be held against him.

              It seems very popular for armchair critics to trash Kleck's work because it says things certain people don't want to hear, but it rings a little hollow when the most reputable scientific groups in the country hand-pick him after the Obama administration commissions a study on the issue. And since he was one of many involved, any contribution he made to the report would have been reviewed by everyone else for accuracy, and then it would have had to make it past the editors.

              But hey, a couple Kossacks say he's wrong! I'm confused, who am I to trust? The CDC and the National Academy of Sciences...or you? Who should I trust regarding Kleck's qualifications? The judgment of a prestigious multi-disciplinary body devoted to using science to advance the public good and a government body whose entire purpose in life is to collect and analyze data, or Ernest T Bass's opinion? That's a tough one, but then I remembered that I'm brighter than a doorknob and went with the NAS and CDC. Sorry, Ernest.

              it was taken during a veritable maelstrom of heightened sensitivity about guns, gun ownership, and government aggression against individuals.
              I presume this means we should also discount surveys taken in the aftermath of things like Newtown, since they would also meet the above criteria?

              The point remains that almost all of the research the CDC found on the subject supports the statement that defensive gun use outnumbers criminal gun use. If we tossed out the highest and lowest outliers of the studies considered, this would remain true. I suspect if you tossed out Kleck and kept the lowest estimate it would still be true.

              The CDC's statement is in direct conflict with this entire diary, which is probably why mentioning the report gets such a hostile response. It's like bringing a globe to a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.

              A more appropriate study for this diary's tipsters would be "Preventing gun violence through effective messaging", which tells us:

              “The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time.
              Ah, "advance our core message independent of facts". That's a much more diary-friendly way of looking at the world.
              •  well...linking to John Lott discussing (10+ / 0-)

                missing data is pretty funny...maybe his sock puppet Mary Rosh ate it.

                but your out of context quote gets you an HR...lying by omission...

                Experience tells us that the specific facts of a high-profile gun incident are revealed over time. If we jump
                to conclusions about those details, we could find ourselves at odds with reality as events unfold.

                So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldn’t assume the facts.

                But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.

                The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)

                Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.

                We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

                by Glen The Plumber on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:15:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep. The only 'powers that be' who trust Kleck's (0+ / 0-)

                  survey results are the NRA and ilk -- the ones who insisted that Kleck be included or else they'd continue to block funding the CDC's gun-violence research.

                  Good catch, on the full context of the quote. I should have known better than to take it at face-value. The following sentence you highlight sure changes the context:

                  Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.
                  Also good memory, about Lott and his sockpuppet persona, Mary Rosh. I wonder how much he led others, by example.
                  •  Grrr, that was not from me. (0+ / 0-)

                    That was from my soon-to-be-ex roommate, who doesn't seem to have a rational bone in her body when it comes to gun issues. I foolishly left my computer on and open to this page, and she typed it when I wasn't here. Not cool.

                    Sorry about that. I've set my screen-saver to more quickly require a password now, won't happen again.

              •  Are you under the impression (8+ / 0-)

                That I was saying Dr. Kleck's crappy 1995 paper is the sum total of his research and work?  Are you suggesting I wrote he has done nothing else that might make him a reasonable candidate for such an endeavor?

                I'm curious, because that's what you seem to be implying.

            •  Great research, Ernest, wish I'd seen this before! (4+ / 0-)

              Somehow I missed it. Glad you reposted -- thanks. It's one more flaw in Kleck's infamous survey study.

            •  It's a shame NSDS and NSPOF weren't (0+ / 0-)

              replicated and improved in the twenty years since 1993-4.  As best as I can tell, the cost for NSPOF was covered entirely by the Police Foundation through a grant provided by the National Institute of Justice (which, in 1995, apparently only had a budget of $33 million).  

          •  False. The CDC is not prohibited from (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rduran, Kasoru, FrankRose

            pursuing that research. The claim that they are is another Brady lie.

            The CDC's gun injury research budget was slashed in response to Arthur Kellerman's 1993 junk science paper on the supposed risks of keeping a gun in the home, which he used when he went on tour engaging in political advocacy on the federal dime.

            In response to the punitive measures, the CDC adopted new policies:

            The CDC’s online guide for grants funded by the agency’s Injury Control Research Centers currently includes a section titled Prohibition of Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities, which states that “In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.”
            (Source: The APA)

            Only advocacy for gun control legislation is prohibited. Neutral research that does not advocate legislation is not.

            Drop the zombie lie that the Federal Government is prohibited from conducting research.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:21:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Funding is Prohibited (9+ / 0-)

              The research itself is allowed.  However, it is the funding that is prohibited.

              Naturally, the CDC is funded by the government, and the government is prohibited from funding studies that are construed as advocating for gun control.

              So the CDC no longer does that kind of research.  The CDC itself has done no original research into "defensive" gun uses since 1996.

              Back to my original point: Shamash has mis-stated the findings of the CDC.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:43:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Funding is prohibited" is beyond awkward (0+ / 0-)

                We'd be better off just saying plainly that Congress refuses to fund injury prevention research to the degree it did in the early 1990s.  And that obstinance is ongoing:

                House Still Has No Intention Of Funding CDC's Gun Violence Research

                “The President’s request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives though [sic] the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill,” Kingston said. Kingston’s latest comment marks a retreat from the common ground he initially sought following school shooting, which left 20 children and six staff members at the Connecticut school dead almost two years ago.
              •  from the foreword of the study in question (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru, FrankRose, rduran
                This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation
                So, I guess it is awful (for you, anyway) that the government is prohibited from funding research to generate results solely to buttress a pre-determined advocacy position. But I guess your statement is technically accurate.

                I however, am quite fine with my tax dollars funding objective studies on the matter. Which it is doing.

                Speaking of which, the CDC has managed to do plenty of research since 1996 simply by setting up non-federal task forces composed entirely of federal researchers acting under the nominal leadership of a non-government researcher. Like the one below, done by M.D.'s and Ph.D's from the CDC, National Institute of Justice and National Institute of Mental Health, plus an M.D. from the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

                Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws(2003)
                Bans on specified firearms or ammunition: "yielded inconsistent results"
                Restrictions on firearm acquisition: "produced inconsistent findings"
                Waiting periods for firearm acquisition: "yielded inconsistent results"
                Firearm registration and licensing of owners: "findings were inconsistent"
                Combinations of firearms laws: "findings were inconsistent"

                And the last line of the "results" section?

                "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence"
                What a ringing endorsement of your position!
                •  President Obama may not agree with you (5+ / 0-)


                  Obama enlists doctors for gun violence prevention

                  ■ The president reassures physicians that they can ask patients about guns in the home and inform authorities if they believe someone might harm others.

                  President Obama's multifaceted plan to reduce gun violence calls on physicians to play an important role in decreasing shooting deaths and injuries in communities nationwide.

                  The initiative, which was unveiled Jan. 16, one month after 20 first-graders and six adults were massacred at a Connecticut school, encourages doctors to talk to patients about gun safety and warn law enforcement about threats of violence.

                  Obama clarified that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from discussing gun safety. He assured physicians that they can report credible threats of violence without fear of penalties from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule. He also authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence, work that was suspended in 1996 after a National Rifle Assn.-backed push to block the study's funding.
                  http://www.amednews.com/...

                  and 50 medical professional organizations including
                  American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
                  American Academy of Family Physicians,
                  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
                  American Academy of Pediatrics,
                  American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
                  American College of Preventive Medicine,
                  American College of Surgeons,
                  American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology and American Psychiatric Association.

                  "To protect physician free speech, the Obama administration intends to issue a clarification of heretofore obscure provisions of the ACA about firearms. The Title X section of the law titled "Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans" states that wellness and prevention programs implemented under the law may not require "the disclosure or collection of any information relating to the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or ammunition" in someone's home or "the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition."

                  This prohibition extends to any data collection activity authorized under the law. ...

                  In its press release today, the White House said that "some have incorrectly claimed that the language in the [ACA] prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and guns safety." http://www.medscape.com/...

              •  The ACA (Obamacare) prohibits data collection (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, rduran, Sharon Wraight, Shotput8

                As added by Section 10101, protects Second Amendment gun rights by precluding the collection and disclosure of information related to gun ownership or use for purposes of determining premium rates. http://www.dpc.senate.gov/...

                LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None
                10 of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the
                11 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
                12 amendment made by that Act shall be construed to
                13 authorize or may be used for the collection of any in-
                14 formation relating to—
                15 ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of
                16 a firearm or ammunition;
                17 ‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammu-
                18 nition; or
                19 ‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or am-
                20 munition.
                21 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA
                22 BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Sec-
                23 retary under the Patient Protection and Affordable
                24 Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall
                25 be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain 2039
                HR 3590 EAS/PP
                1 records of individual ownership or possession of a
                2 firearm or ammunition.
                etc
                http://www.hhs.gov/...

                Of course if we overturn Obamacare then we can get the data, again... oh never mind

                •  To be precise (0+ / 0-)

                  it prohibits the use of new "authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act" in order to pursue data collection.  As I understand it, 42 USC  300gg–17(c) is PPACA's "anti-registration" section.

                  •  You may want to contact the Democratic Policy (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, rduran, poco

                    and Communications Center then (Sen. Charles Schumer, Chair), it is their language

                    You can find them via the link provided

                    •  DPC statement is clear (0+ / 0-)
                      As added by Section 10101, protects Second Amendment gun rights by precluding the collection and disclosure of information related to gun ownership or use for purposes of determining premium rates.
                      Schumer's been pretty clear where it concerns paranoia about "backdoor registration".  However, PPACA doesn't prevent any agency from conducting research on firearms violence and injury.  Republican intransigence over funding, on the other hand, severely curtails the opportunities for agencies like CDC to do so.  The fight here is to restore the independence injury prevention centers to pursue topics of interest without fear of loss of budget cuts, as well as to secure funding specifically to study the problem.  Anonymous data collection does not run afoul of any federal law on the books today.
        •  HR'd (8+ / 0-)

          For spreading lies.

          “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

          by TheFern on Tue Apr 22, 2014 at 08:20:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uprated, as this is not a lie (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru, cville townie

          But it is spin, as we discussed recently.

          CDC largely restates the NRC's findings from ten years ago, with the bottom line that more research is required to confidently quantify incidence of DGU.  The text certainly doesn't say "the most effective strategy of self-defeense [is use of a firearm;" again, the document aims to set priorities for future research, not draw conclusions.

          That said, I wouldn't be surprised if defensive gun use exceeded criminal firearms offenses.  On the other hand, even if that's the case, it doesn't follow that the most effective public policy is sustain or increase civilian access to firearms.  It simply acknowledges that given our current state of affairs, you're more likely to use a gun in self-defense than to commit a crime.

          As for why it's not a lie, my response to you from that same thread.
          You do have a point.  A fair--if narrow--reading of that paragraph does support your position that the CDC at least acknowledges that the present body of research supports at least a correlation between lower injury rates and defensive gun use.  I maintain that the CDC does not draw that conclusion itself, and recommends further research, and I point out that the body of research involved is largely over the NSDS data, but you still have a point.
          •  "spin"..??..RW spin is HR'able on DK. (6+ / 0-)

            read the rules.

            We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

            by Glen The Plumber on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:17:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  RKBA != RW (2+ / 2-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, cville townie
              Hidden by:
              Sharon Wraight, ThatSinger

              The HRs were not only abusive, but they indicate an unwillingness to express disagreement forthrightly and in good faith.  Take my comment to be lesson in how you should proceed in the future.

              •  sorry...but this is not your site... (10+ / 0-)

                I will follow the rules set forth by kos.

                someday your consistent uprating of RW talking points out of the hiddens is going to bite you in the ass...and I'll be there to point and laugh.

                We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

                by Glen The Plumber on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:35:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lucky me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  I've never uprated a RW talking point.

                  •  You just did, rduran (9+ / 0-)

                    And it's not the first time.

                    I get the sense that you're trying hard to give some of these raging RKBAers the "benefit of the doubt"; trying to straddle the fence, as it were.

                    Some RKBAers are here for discussion and collaboration, some are not.

                    Repeating RW, NRA talking points about the "CDC study" has been HR more and more these days.  It has been called into question as way more than "spin".  It is the NRAs attempt to deceive and mislead.

                    You should remove your uprate.  If the RKBAers want to engage in debate, let them do it honestly.  Lets not uprate NRA bullshit here on DKos.

                    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                    by coquiero on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 07:59:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Shamash and I (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      recently discussed this very point, which is why I determined he was not lying or spreading RW talking points. While Shamash could have been more circumspect (as he has told me), it is a fact that the CDC concluded that the majority of studies (flawed as they may be) show higher rates of DGU than criminal use of firearms.  CDC reaches an even stronger conclusion regarding injury rates sustained by victims who use guns defensively and victims who don't.  That conclusion is based entirely on a 2004 paper by Kleck, but it is not drawn from analysis the NSDS dataset and hasn't attracted the criticism Armed Resistance has.

                      More to the point, despite Kleck's presence on the panel that commissioned it, the CDC report represents the consensus view of the state of research at this time.  They was not--given my own read of the underlying research--the conclusions I expected.  At some point I have to at least be open to changing my mind, though simply demonstrating that DGU exceeds criminal firearms use does not:

                      1) demonstrate that other, less lethal approaches to reducing firearms victimization aren't more effective, or
                      2) demonstrate DGU balances or exceeds the safety risks presented by accidental or negligent discharge.

                      Finally, I don't have to straddle the fence; my position on civilian disarmament is quite clear.  I also believe that DK RKBA can do more than just about anyone else in the blogosphere in undoing the Gordian knot of gun regulation.  Until there's clear evidence to the contrary, I will continue to uprate comments hidden over mere disagreement.

                    •  No its not the first time (8+ / 0-)

                      He started showing himself here in this thread, starting with his uprate of this hideous comment, and then his own comments in this thread:

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                      by fcvaguy on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:03:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh you're one to talk about ratings abuse, (2+ / 3-)

                      coquiero.

                      You uprated a disgusting, outrageous comment which insinuated using couched language that another user here was a pedophile, purely because of their opinion on the likely guilt in another ongoing case.

                      That kind of accusation is libelous per se, even in the USA, and under some circumstances the poster could be sued in court for damages.

                      The site ownership has a strong interest in keeping such comments off their board. My mistake was in not bringing it to their attention immediately. If I ever see you or anyone else uprate such a comment again, I will make some hell at the helpdesk with no further warning.

                      I don't care a whole lot about what is going on in this thread, but your hypocrisy on the ratings abuse was noteworthy and reminded me to let you know about this.

                      •  Um...ok (6+ / 0-)

                        Do what you need to do.

                        FWIW, if someone I knew defended Woody Allen like that, I would not leave my kid alone with them.

                        If I said that aloud to my friend, it would not be libeling him.  It would be calling into question my friend's judgement of what is and isn't acceptable activities with children.

                        You might want to let that bee out of your bonnet.

                        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                        by coquiero on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:32:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's getting a little freaky itself. (6+ / 0-)

                          I'm pretty sure that this self appointed keeper of all that's "good" knows his reputation proceeds him. The spinning vase gives him away.

                        •  I've never heard of cville townie b4 but s/he is (8+ / 0-)

                          violating site rules by bringing in a completely unrelated issue with you from a diary about Woody Allen, into this diary about gun violence. S/he is violating site rules by hijacking Tom Begnal's diary. S/he falsely accuses you of "ratings abuse." S/he launches into wildly exaggerated accusations that you were "libelous" and could be sued for this (rest assured, you can't), and that kos somehow has a "strong interest" (?) in silencing you. S/he then announces a threat: "If I ever see you or anyone else uprate such a comment again, I will make some hell at the helpdesk with no further warning."

                          I've save cville townie the time and report this thread and his/her hijacking of Tom Begnal's diary to Admin, myself.

                          kos' analogy was that commenting in a diary is like being invited into someone's home.

                          To come into someone's virtual 'home' and then threaten another guest that you'll "make some hell" for them is behavior that I have come to associate as typical of pro-gun vigilantes on DailyKos.

                          •  Too bad coquiero never justified (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rduran

                            their uprate in that diary, so I didn't have a place to complain to them about it. No matter where I posted, it would be somewhere unrelated. But coquiero is a persistent ratings abuser and I'm calling them on it here, where they are complaining about ratings abuse by others. What's good for the goose...

                            I never accused coquiero of libel, but of uprating a libelous comment. "Rest assured, you can't"? Sure, a pseudonymous comment to a pseudonymous user in the dark corners of the Internet isn't likely to be actionable in court. But as far as the content of the comment, I asked an attorney about it at the time. It may depend on jurisdiction, but for example in Iowa there is such a thing as defamation by implication. A statement need not be directly false if it is strongly implying something that is libelous.

                            Also, I'm not a pro-gun vigilante, but I do agree with many of the RKBA crowd that gun issues are a place where Dems should tread carefully for political reasons. And I' m sick and tired of ratings being used to argue points in gun diaries, both sides do it, and there are many ratings abusers to go around. Only a handful of the gun-related comments on which HRed are dropped are hidable under the rules.

                          •  Thank you, Sharon (3+ / 0-)

                            cville townie seems to have some unresolved issues that I think have nothing to do with me.

                            I was all over that diary that s/he is so very upset about, so the claim that s/he had no way to address the Grave Concerns and Accusations of Libel seems a little disingenuous.

                            I'm not too worried about cville townie.  If he or she would like to take the histrionic accusations to admin, he or she is perfectly welcome to do so.

                            Good day, sir.  I SAID GOOD DAY!  :)

                            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                            by coquiero on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:26:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My unresolved issue (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rduran

                            is that you are a ratings abuser. You rate comments based on your opinion. You HR comments for disagreement, and uprate comments for agreement that should be left hidden. Sometimes we all do this, but your examples are really glaring to me.

                            And if I were a "pro-gun vigilante" believe me, you and Sharon would have heard of me by now, in these diaries.

                          •  Listen, this has obviously been on your mind for (4+ / 0-)

                            a long time.

                            Perhaps you should have let your Very Strong Feelings out sooner.  When you bottle them up like that it tends to get ugly when you finally let them out.

                            I see you uprate comments ALL THE TIME without any explanation whatsoever.  So forgive me if I don't take your Grave Concerns With my Behavior too much to heart.

                            How about, I do things that I think are best, and if you think they are Very Terrible, you either speak up (maybe to the three other people who HRd the comment besides me) or report me to admin, or punch a pillow, or whatever you feel you need to do.

                            K?

                            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                            by coquiero on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 03:38:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've heard of you... (6+ / 0-)

                            and I've seen you uprate some pretty despicable comments yourself...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:42:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, if you insist... nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose
                          •  Oh, there u go again, debunking with facts. (5+ / 0-)

                            I wrote:

                            bringing in a completely unrelated issue with you from a[nother] diary
                            cville townie replied:
                            in that diary, so I didn't have a place to complain to them about it. No matter where I posted, it would be somewhere unrelated.
                            coquiero replies:
                            I was all over that diary that s/he is so very upset about, so the claim that s/he had no way to address the Grave Concerns and Accusations of Libel seems a little disingenuous.
                            Let's see, this seems like an easily resolvable pair of assertions. In the diary that cville townie links to, did coquiero make any comments? Why yes, as it turns out.

                            Feb 04, 2014 at 11:06:28 AM EST
                            Only 1?
                            No, more.

                            Feb 04, 2014 at 11:27:56 AM EST
                            2?
                            No, more.

                            Feb 04, 2014 at 11:37:47 AM EST
                            3?
                            No, more.

                            Feb 04, 2014 at 02:29:20 PM EST
                            4?
                            No, more.

                            Feb 04, 2014 at 02:53:14 PM EST
                            5?
                            No, more.

                            Feb 04, 2014 at 02:58:44 PM
                            6?
                            Yep.

                            Why do people waste everyone's time, by writing things like that?

                            (Also, s/he talked to a lawyer, about someone they don't know who recommended an online comment on a blog, made by another person they don't know, about a third person they don't know, to see if this was libelous? Yeah, I agree, that does sound like some unresolved issues.)

                        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rduran
                          If I said that aloud to my friend, it would not be libeling him.  It would be calling into question my friend's judgement of what is and isn't acceptable activities with children.
                          You seriously do not understand the difference between arguing the point ("credible evidence [listed here] makes me think Woody Allen is more likely than you are implying to have done this")

                          and

                          arguing ad hominem to a person that their opinion makes them personally untrustworthy? Especially when that opinion, at least as far as I can tell from all of 4kedtongue's comments in that diary (not familiar with their other comments on the issue, if any, sorry) ­— is simply that Allen should not be presumed guilty based on the limited evidence out there?

                          If you are so certain that kind of statement can never be libel, you might want to consider that in some states imputed statements can be cause for action even in the absence of an absolute falsehood. That is not my research; I casually asked an attorney about it. Are you going to get sued over comments directed at a pseudonym on a message board? Most likely no. But if you go around saying things like that in other contexts, you might want to get legal advice first.

                          I do apologize for digging up this months old issue. I should have addressed it with you at the time. But this is ratings abuse, and so is hiding comments in gun diaries because you disagree with them. You HR comments for disagreement, when you also uprate comments you agree with that are clearly against site rules against personal attacks and also potentially libelous. Pot, kettle. Get to know each other.

                      •  HR for dragging old argument into new thread... (5+ / 0-)

                        Yes, by all means, take this to the Help Desk...

                        Baby, where I come from...

                        by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:41:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  There's no "fence straddling... (4+ / 0-)

                      rduran is firmly on the RKBA side of the fence... to me there's never been any doubt...

                      rduran has taken both siderism and applied it to the gun debate...

                      Baby, where I come from...

                      by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:48:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  You are wrong, rduran. And offensively so. (9+ / 0-)

                Sorry, rduran, I know you like to think of yourself as being open to all sides, objective, rational, reasoned, etc.

                But on this issue you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you assert your false opinion in an offensive manner.

                There have been many factual diaries on the aforementioned CDC report (including some by Hugh) and the misuse of it here by RKBA members. There have been hundreds of comments which go into great detail about this. You can easily find these using the Search function.

                This has been so widely debunked here that it is now almost a joke. Repeating a debunked talking-point deserves to be Hidden. Repeating right-wing talking-points deserves to be Hidden.

                To treat it as a serious topic worthy of discussion is misleading at best.

                To then Uprate the comment, declare HR's as "abusive," and accuse those who HR'd it as "unwilling to express disagreement forthrightly and in good faith" is false and offensive.

                To go even further and assert that you, who joined DailyKos on Sep 11, 2013 (seven months ago), are in any position to offer a "lesson in how you should proceed in the future," is even more offensive. You have crossed the line.

                Your comment should be hidden.

                •  That's unfortunate (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru, cville townie

                  It's also particularly unfortunate that you apparently believe that any time Firearms Law and Policy releases a position on a particular topic, that dissent becomes HRable.  

                  No, I haven't crossed a line.  Somewhere, in RASAs debate with RKBA a line was crossed that involves HRing particularly vocal members of the other side.  I understand this is largely in retaliation of similar meta from the other side, but since I've joined I've seen very little evidence of RKBA engaging in similar behavior.

                  It's sad.  This comment has crystalized the current debate here on DK for me.  It is not good enough for you to assert that your position is so damned sacrosanct you don't have to provide links to do so.  That indicates bad faith, and I'll have nothing to do with it.

                  •  Ur digging yourself deeper; take some time off. (5+ / 0-)

                    I do not believe (even 'apparently'), as you allege, "that any time Firearms Law and Policy releases a position on a particular topic, that dissent becomes HRable." That is a demonstrably false statement and sweeping genralization, with zero supporting evidence. (In fact, if you had read DailyKos objectively, as you claim, you would know that I disagree vehemently with the fundamental premise of FLAP.)

                    Yes, you crossed a line.

                    RKBA members cannot legitimately HR most RASA members' comments because we generally obey site rules, unlike RKBA members such as Shamash, for example (who you link to), who accused me of "Blinkered Philistine pig ignorance," "Calling you ignorant is no more an insult than is calling Chris Christie obese," "clutter up the blogosphere with information-free replies," "keep your mouth shut," "give [you] a savage verbal thrashing," etc. -- comments Uprated by FrankRose and kasoru. Most RASA members don't write childish diatribes like these. You made a false equivalence.

                    I do not assert that my position is sacrosanct. On issues that have not been gone over and over and over, for more than a year, I often provide links. RKBA's misuse of Kleck's flawed studies, cited (but not corroborated) in that NRA-influenced CDC research agenda, fails to meet this low bar. (This is something like still claiming that WMD was found in Iraq. Or that Obama is a Kenyan and/or Muslim. Or that Hillary murdered Vince Foster. And then demanding that others here provide links.) Use Search. You can find much more than the one diary you linked to, and many, many more comments.

                    Your reply to Glen the Plumber, one of the most widely-respected members of DailyKos, is offensive. You owe him an apology.

                    Let's compare:
                    Mojo bars: Glen 5, rduran 3.
                    Followers: Glen 155, rduran 2.
                    Diaries published: Glen 57, rduran 0.
                    Diaries with 50 or more Recs: Glen 36, rduran 0.
                    Comments: Glen 15,363, rduran 2,133.
                    Total recommends: Glen 3667, rduran 0.
                    Group memberships: Glen 29, rduran 0.
                    Subscriber: Glen yes, rduran no.
                    Last 100 Comments, total Recs: Glen 1,171, rduran 101.
                    Last 100 Comments, avg Recs: Glen 11.7, rduran 1.0 .

                    You still think you're in a position to offer Glen a "lesson in how you should proceed in the future," on DailyKos? Think again.

                    •  I apologize for speculating on your motives (0+ / 0-)

                      and I also apologize for a comment that, in retrospect, was condescending towards Glen.

                      But my uprate stands.  Shamash did not repeat a RW talking point, or even a debunked point of view.  His remarks are entirely consistent with a fair reading of the CDC report.  500,000 to 3 million is a larger number than 300,000, and body of research (flawed as it may be) covering that range outnumbers the body of research derived from NCVS data.

                      This is nothing like WMD in Iraq, Obama as Kenyan/Muslim, or Vince Foster.  While we can certainly couch our confidence in NSDS and NSPOF results, but we cannot simply dismiss them.  There were no fundamental errors in the statistical analysis, no serious leaps in the conclusions, and the issue remains unresolved.  Honesty demands we admit we have a series of objections and counter-objections that amount to a wash.

                      •  Your apologies are welcomed and appreciated. (4+ / 0-)

                        Your false equivalence and flawed analysis is not. 'Fair and balanced,' he-said/she-said, false balance, etc. belongs on Fox News, not here.

                        •  False equivalence is not relevant here (0+ / 0-)

                          At issue is whether or not Shamash is repeating a debunked RW talking point.  He says that DGU outnumbers criminal use of firearms.  Others argue that it's the other way around.  The CDC says "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun use by victims is at least as common as offensive uses by criminals."  I think most of us say (and the CDC agrees) "[t]he variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," and that further research is necessary.

                          That's the state of the debate, whether we like it or not.

              •  You have no business giving "lessons"... (4+ / 0-)

                you are an enabler... nothing more, nothing less...

                The more you post (and uprate) the more it shows...

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:46:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Support for gun rights is bipartisan, Glen. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rduran

              And the CDC isn't 'RW'.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 12:11:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Just a few select stories in their magazine. (0+ / 0-)

      It is a one-page recurring feature, very similar to your local paper's crime stories.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 11:51:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  DGU's and the NRA (8+ / 0-)

        The Armed Citizen I reference here is the one the NRA has on their website, not the one they feature in their monthly magazine, The American Rifleman. Granted, a magazine has limited space, so I can understand why they can only list a half-dozen or so DGU’s in each monthly magazine issue.

        But their website has pretty-much unlimited space. So they can list all the DGU’s they want. Now, I don’t expect the NRA to report all 200,000 DGU’s each month on their website, but it seems to me they could report more than a handful.

        That is unless a handful is all that actually occur each month.

        •  Oh? So you are now trying to argue that the NRA (4+ / 5-)

          list is comprehensive?

          Well....if you don't give a shit about being accurate you had may as well go all in, I guess.

          From the CDC:

          “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year"

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 02:06:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're spreading disinformation. Again. (6+ / 0-)

            And defaming a valued Kossack in the bargain.

            Like the NRA, you just keep hitting new lows.  

            "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

            by Calvino Partigiani on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:35:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I see no reason why that should be hidden (6+ / 0-)

            It should, however, be refuted.

            As David Hemenway explains in his article, "The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Guns Uses...", that statistic (especially the upper bound) is almost certainly bogus.  He notes that the study that claimed 2.5 milliion self defensive uses of guns also implied that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time" and that survey respondents who claimed to have used a gun to defend against a rape or robbery were more likely to use a gun than the perpetrators of the crimes "even though the criminal chooses the time and place for the attack, most citizens do not carry guns, and very few carry guns."

            Also see http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/... ,
            which notes (with citations) that

            Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal.
            and
            Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 05:51:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wouldn't rate Kleck's bottom line as bogus (0+ / 0-)

              based on Hemenway's objections (also revisited by Ludwig and Cook who replicated Kleck's results a year later).  For one, no one argues that NCVS represents a ceiling for victimization; in particular, "[s]holars claimed, however, that these data sources substantially underestimated the true incidence of rape."  

              Ludwig and Cook have a considerably stronger case for false positives: "NSPOF data suggested 315,000 unintentional gunshot woundings per year, much higher than the 17,000 unintentional gunshot wounds treated in hospital emergency rooms eachyear (Sinauer et al., 1996)."  This may indicate that:

              1. the bottom line number is high, or
              2. may more narrowly that the respondents are prone to misreport outcomes of the engagement.  

              However, the whole exercise shows that these results should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

              Ultimately, an argument of which number is bigger shouldn't drive the DGU debate, let alone the debate over the impact guns have on public health.  In my view, if Kleck's numbers held up, that's even more of an argument for drastically reducing the supply of firearms in this country.  To me, 3 million DGUs and 30,000 firearms homicides in the early 1990s  paints a picture of a woefully violent society.

              •  Ludwig & Cook, after replicating Kleck's (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                results, engaged in overt academic fraud to explain them away.

                For example, they cite a small number of instances that their interviewer believed the respondent was making up a DGU as "evidence" of a positive bias, and concealed the fact that several times as often the interviewer felt that the respondent was trying to conceal or downplay a DGU - indicating, by their own assumptions, a strong downward bias on their numbers. The choice of accepting indications of a weak upward bias in their data, and ignoring a strong downward bias, renders their repudiation of their own results is nothing more than confirmation bias of their anti-DGU beliefs.

                Aside from Ludwig & Cook's abuse of small-number statistics to deal with the subset of persons believed injured by the defender (the error bars on fractionally small subsets of the study are enormous), there are fundamental problem with their consideration of injury stats as a "sanity check" on DGU rates.

                Firstly, Kleck cites a survey among police officers who had investigated specific reports of shootings of intruders, and in only half the instances where the defender believed he had shot the intruder, could any evidence of this (like blood) be found. So frequency the DGU respondents' belief that they had shot the intruder is almost certainly a wild overestimate to start with.

                Furthermore, a study comparing Galveston hospitals', ERs', and police records of gunshot injuries found that hospitals, whose reports are extrapolated by the CDC to produce injury estimates, undercounted (in the time period these DGU studies were conducted) compared to police reports, gunshot injuries by a factor of two.

                In addition, the NCVS results show that only half of the persons who admitted received gunshot injuries to interviewers received any treatment at a hospital at all.

                Between the two, the CDC gunshot injury stat is almost certainly undercounting by at least a factor of four, the DGU estimate of persons injured high by a factor of at least two (and with error bars several times the size of the stat itself) and Ludwig & Cook's objection is irrelevant.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath; μολὼν λαβέ - att. Leonidas I

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 02:52:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  2 reasons to Hide (or at least not uprate) (2+ / 0-)

              I appreciate the rest of your comment, btw! Rec'd!

              To answer your (inferred) question:

              1) This is an insult (especially when directed at the highly-regarded author of the diary):

              you don't give a shit about being accurate
              Insults are hide rateable per site rules. (If you don't think that's an insult, then I'm not sure what to write. Imagine saying it to your grandparents or parents, your children, to someone else's family, to your boss or secretary...)

              2) taking out-of-context that CDC research agenda reference to Kleck's flawed study is misleading, especially to anyone who is coming across it for the first time. That's why this has been gone over and over and over and over and over, here. To keep on repeating the same thing without reflecting any progress from the discussion here is (a) being a dick, and (b) it acts as a troll who repeats RW talking-points (such as the NRA's talking point about this CDC study) and (c) it repeats widely-debunked talking-points.  This, too, is hide rateable per site rules.

              You may not choose to HR the comment yourself, that's your choice, but I see no reason for you to Uprate it. That misquote from the CDC research agenda has been posted hundreds of times by FrankRose, it is nothing new. It has been wisely critiqued, for a variety of reasons. RKBA tries to "play to the refs" by sobbing about "HR abuse for disagreement," but this is false. We HR when they break site rules: insults, being a dick, repeating RW talking points, repeating debunked talking points.

              It is against site rules to Uprate an insult, or a DBAD comment, etc.

              I request that you and rduran remove your Uprates, for these reasons.

              •  The bar you set for what constitutes an "insult" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IndieGuy, FrankRose, rduran

                is set much too low.

                For example, I am insulted that you question my judgment as to whether the post should be hidden or not.

                "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                by Old Left Good Left on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 06:32:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, my 'insult bar' is not set 'much too low'. (2+ / 0-)

                  For example, I uprated a comment in another diary that I thought was unfairly HR'd. The comment got 5 HRs, I was the only Rec. That comment, in its entirety, is:

                  Top NR (1+ / 5-)
                  by aoeu on Mon Apr 21, 2014 at 05:36:16 PM EDT
                  When I discussed it with another Kossack, they agreed that "Top NR" is "mild compared to what you encounter from the gun-lovers. There's a reason I don't hang out there."

                  My proposed thought-experiment of saying it to grandparents, parents, kids, friends, boss/secretary isn't a bad one; the words one chooses matter.

                  Do you honestly not see the difference between my comment, which lays out reasons for the HR, and FrankRose telling the diarist: "you don't give a shit about being accurate"?

                  •  Your subjective experience (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose, rduran

                    doesn't mean shit to me.

                    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                    by Old Left Good Left on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:14:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You don't need to be a dick about it (2+ / 0-)

                      Sharon was being perfectly civil in her replies to you.

                      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                      by coquiero on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:03:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not subjective, it's history (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      SWraight provided some of it above, though only a drop compared to the total. Months of effort have been expended on this topic, to little avail in getting substantiated conclusions published, rather than inadequate ill-formed 'talking points' reappearing time and again.

                      There's no reason for you to know that of course, other than to trust SWraight in her reply, perhaps because it wasn't cursing you, it could be seen to be more trustworthy, but who knows your criteria.

                      Personally, I would read point 2 in the comment and expect that not only was there history but this person was trying very hard to up the game, by presenting well-formed, logical, documented, arguments compared to "I don't give a shit". Kos does that, and after yesterday I think it may be conjectured Frank wants to be Kos. Not gonna happen.

                      I've been 'working' with Frank for what feels like 6 months, I think it's closed to 4. SWraight has been 'working' with him for far longer. No progress, none, nada. I do it however to keep other readers from believing his profuse (NRA) agenda.

                      Thanks for your comment above, I noticed Frank didn't respond with this usual. Progress!

        •  Thanks, Tom, for all your hard work. (7+ / 0-)

          Just ignore FrankRose, he's long since worn out his welcome here.

          (I'm sorry that you have endure his insults and repetition of debunked RW talking-points.)

          if you don't give a shit about being accurate you had may as well go all in
          CDC
  •  The best response to FrankRose is no response... (2+ / 0-)

    nothing... suffocate him and deny him the attention (and mojo) that a direct response garners him...

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 23, 2014 at 06:53:47 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site