National CDC hid data on American use of guns in self defense

[RobErvin]

The CDC hid data it collected proving Americans use guns for self defense in large numbers. CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

Read More

 

[nmwabbit]

"The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency's funding. The CDC's self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms." Why the CDC still isn't researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

OP's cite:
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s.His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Kleck's Feb 2018 study, quote
Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU)...unquote

Kleck's study references numerous other author's studies in his work and
And to assure his previous results agree put in an unexplained 'adjustment' calculations to bring results into the range he believes is credible.

Further, Kleck's study states when one of the CDC's 5.484 respondents refused to answer the question about gun use, quote:

Refusals to even answer the question even more clearly seem to be responses by people who had in fact used a gun defensively. Unquote

This college professor has filled his employer's mandated requirement to publish, but reading their unpeer reviewed work, it shows it is significantly flawed with numerous unsubstantiated commentary like above with has skewed the author's conclusions as they attempt to recoverfrom his previously flawedand discredited article in 1995!

Much todo about nothing.

 

[MadDuner]

Of course they hid it....
Over 3/1 ratio of defensive vs offensive, yet the leftists continue with their gun-free agenda as clearly published as a Communist goal in the 50's.

 

[RobErvin]

OP's cite:
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s.His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Kleck's Feb 2018 study, quote
Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale national surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU)...unquote

Kleck's study references numerous other author's studies in his work and
And to assure his previous results agree put in an unexplained 'adjustment' calculations to bring results into the range he believes is credible.

Further, Kleck's study states when one of the CDC's 5.484 respondents refused to answer the question about gun use, quote:

Refusals to even answer the question even more clearly seem to be responses by people who had in fact used a gun defensively. Unquote

This college professor has filled his employer's mandated requirement to publish, but reading their unpeer reviewed work, it shows it is significantly flawed with numerous unsubstantiated commentary like above with has skewed the author's conclusions as they attempt to recoverfrom his previously flawedand discredited article in 1995!

Much todo about nothing.

If you had read further into the report you would have seen that Kleck did NOT use those refusals in his calculations.

In the combined 1996-1998 responses, 0.76% gave "don't know" or "refused" responses. If all those providing these responses actually had DGU experiences, the unadjusted DGU prevalence implied by the BRFSS results would rise to 1.83. Even if just half of them actually had a DGU experience, the unadjusted prevalence would rise to 1.45%. NEVERTHELESS, SINCE WE CANNOT BE CERTAIN WHAT THESE RESPONSES MEAN, WE DO NOT TREAT THEM AS DGUS.

The point to the post was that the CDC HID results that generally agreed with Kleck and Gertz, that defensive gun use in America is much higher than criminal activity, by far.

 

[joefoam]

And you are surprised that the media didn't report this?

 

[Bradleystuart]

I've been reciting the findings of this study on-line for a couple of years now and to no surprise, leftist still refuse to acknowledge any of it. In other words, if the study (any study) doesn't coincide verbatim with their preconceived lies and deliberate misinformation, it possibly can't be accurate.

It's like talking to a rock. An extremely ignorant rock!

 

[joefoam]

I've been reciting the findings of this study on-line for a couple of years now and to no surprise, leftist still refuse to acknowledge any of it. In other words, if the study (any study) doesn't coincide verbatim with their preconceived lies and deliberate misinformation, it possibly can't be accurate.

It's like talking to a rock. An extremely ignorant rock!

Get used to it, and consider yourself lucky you weren't labeled a fanatical gun nut and threatened to boot for spreading false rumors.

 

[Bradleystuart]

Get used to it, and consider yourself lucky you weren't labeled a fanatical gun nut and threatened to boot for spreading false rumors.

Oh, trust me I have been called much worse than "gun-nut" by the left-tards. I've also been summarily blocked by numerous left-tard leaning sites simply for stating facts. Wherein facts are obviously irrelevant to left-tards, less the reinforce their laundry-list of lies. etc..

The way I figure it, the more left-leaning sites that I get banned from, the better. It serves as an indication of how well I'm getting their panties all twisted up.

 

[nmwabbit]

I've been reciting the findings of this study on-line for a couple of years now and to no surprise, leftist still refuse to acknowledge any of it. In other words, if the study (any study) doesn't coincide verbatim with their preconceived lies and deliberate misinformation, it possibly can't be accurate.

It's like talking to a rock. An extremely ignorant rock!

Oh, trust me I have been called much worse than "gun-nut" by the left-tards. I've also been summarily blocked by numerous left-tard leaning sites simply for stating facts. Wherein facts are obviously irrelevant to left-tards, less the reinforce their laundry-list of lies. etc..

The way I figure it, the more left-leaning sites that I get banned from, the better. It serves as an indication of how well I'm getting their panties all twisted up.

So Bradleystuart, which study are you referring to, Kleck's original non-peer reviewed mid 90s study which was debuked, er, uh, not validated, nor repeated; or his latest non-peer reviewed study dated Feb 18 based on 'newly found' 20 year old data that the CDC was prohibited by congressional edits from publishing.

 

[Bradleystuart]

The CDC study, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - which was never in any way "prohibited by Congressional edit," despite what Ma-Jones may have told you. It was immediately summarily ignored (primarily by Democrats) due to its findings not coinciding verbatim with Obama's (the originator of the study) preconceived lies and misinformation. Therefore, it was swiftly swept under the political rug, ignored, disregarded, etc. Like most unquestionably legitimate studies, reports, etc., that concretely disprove the persistent, indisputable failures of leftist policies.

The point, which you further verified, is that regardless of what has been studied, and / or by whom, if it doesn't agree with the documented lies, misinformation, failures of the left, it's simply can't be true.

You can always make up excuses to attempt to discredit well known, well proven facts, but you're never going to convince anyone (other than other leftist) there's any validity to your unsupported claims based upon a never-ending, continuously-failing philosophy.

Like I previously mentioned, it's like talking to a rock.

 

[nmwabbit]

Yes it is..

I find it interesting, the lack of response to my post regarding which non-peer reviewed non-repeatable studies you are waving in the wind.

Kleck as an academician SHOULD know and follow appropriate guideline(s) in publishing academic publications wasn't done and when challenged feigned shock, horror, and such as his work was summarily dismissed, now almost 20 years later...

No not buying the sales pitch!

Keep trying to skip your pet rock across the pavement.

 

[Bradleystuart]

I'm absolutely certain that not a single individual on this website (nor any other) could now, or ever care the slightest about what interests someone such as you. You're welcome to your "beliefs." Yet the sole reason you are still able to express such ignorant beliefs is that brave men, much unlike yourself, forcibly instilled and to this day protect such peoples rights to express such beliefs. Consequently, you are still free to flap your jaws with your never-ending ignorance.

And, at what point did anyone (other than you) make any reference Keck's pictographs / fairy tale, etc.?

I specifically referenced the recent CDC study, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - which, as I previously mentioned, was never remotely (using your make-up term) "prohibited by Congressional edit," despite what you ignorantly cited. The findings of the study are solely based on factual, unbiased and current information. Yet it's solely leftist who, as my original point clearly demonstrates, refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't abide to their endless book of fairy tales and easily disproven lies pertaining to firearms.

More so, I'm not trying to sell anything. I frequent this site primarily because I'm a gun owner and a supporter of the Constitution of the United States. The entire Constitution of the United States, not just the portions that happen to precisely coincide with my highly-biased, self-important ignorance.

Regardless of whatever lies, misinformation, leftist ignorance you recite, you are never going to even start to convince a single person on this site that you have even the slightest clue of what you are attempting to talk about. Because you so clearly don't.

Do yourself, and everyone else on this site a big favor and go back to Ma Jone's, Snopes, CSN or whatever braindead, brainwashed leftist garbage site that agrees with your ignorance.

You'll be right back where you belong, amongst the sheep waiting to be sheared.

 

[nmwabbit]

Bradley, et al., could you please give me a specific and legitimately cited objective evidence to substantiate your bravado in your first paragraph "forcibly instill and protect...people's rights? (Especially the forcibly part)

Bradley, et al., the second paragraph's commentary about CDC's study did not come from the CDC as they are still prohibited by Congressional mandates from collecting or releasing such data points.

Further, if you would open the inital Poster's citie explicitly discusses the data's currency, you will note with interest the CDC's was allegedly unearthed and collected by Kleck is from the late 90s, and publically rehashed recently by him, not the CDC.

Finally, i do hope your elementary playground insults are bolstering and doing your ego well as the attempted bullying behavior being exhibited destroys whatever credibility you might believe you possess or bravado you wish to present out here.

 

[nmwabbit]

Oh bradley, a clarification:

First you stated in your post on Tuesday of last week, quote:

I've been reciting the findings of this study on-line for a couple of years now...
Unquote

Yet today, you state, quote:

I specifically referenced the recent CDC study, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence ...
Unquote

So you have been citing a recent study for a couple of years?

 

[billdeserthill]

Oh bradley, a clarification:

First you stated in your post on Tuesday of last week, quote:

I've been reciting the findings of this study on-line for a couple of years now...
Unquote

Yet today, you state, quote:

I specifically referenced the recent CDC study, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence ...
Unquote

So you have been citing a recent study for a couple of years?

I don't know why you get so wound up, the important thing to take away from this is that defensive guns have now officially become recognized as defending against about 2.5 million acts of crime a year--

 

[nmwabbit]

Those who whine and complain how to respond to the anti's unsubstantiated rhetoric regarding firearms to bolster our agenda yet, we ourselves, spew the same unsubstantiated emotional & inexcusable hearsay back at them.

The study in question has not been peer reviewed, the data from the CDC is over 20 years and not validated nor replicated.

The promoter of the study was debunked twenty years ago and now all of a sudden he found this CDC data, yet nobody questions it?

There is absolutely nothing to take away from this study whatsoever.

 

[billdeserthill]

Those who whine and complain how to respond to the anti's unsubstantiated rhetoric regarding firearms to bolster our agenda yet, we ourselves, spew the same unsubstantiated emotional & inexcusable hearsay back at them.

The study in question has not been peer reviewed, the data from the CDC is over 20 years and not validated nor replicated.

The promoter of the study was debunked twenty years ago and now all of a sudden he found this CDC data, yet nobody questions it?

There is absolutely nothing to take away from this study whatsoever.

I think John Lott might challenge you on the 'unsubstantiated' part

 

[nmwabbit]

I think John Lott might challenge you on the 'unsubstantiated' part

Sorry, Mr Lott's data, fortunately, is current, validated, and his stud[ies] are substantiated through established statistical methodologies.

As for my contention about Kleck 'finding', after 20 years, the CDC's data to reinvent his '96 study all without validating the data, peer review, etc.

Seems in 2016, Lott discerned there was an overstatement 'error' in the CDC's data on gun deaths - quote,

Lott alerted the CDC to the error "at the beginning of 2016" and "it took months" for the government agency to correct the error.

To make matters worse, gun control groups like the Safe Tennessee Project (STP) grabbed the inaccurate numbers and implemented them in their campaign for gun storage laws. STP took the numbers down once the CDC error was uncovered, but those who saw them in the gun control campaign cannot unsee them. Unquote. John Lott: CDC 'Coding Error' Hid Record Low for Accidental Gun Deaths | Breitbart

This billdeserthill, et al., is why at least one side of this discussion gripping our nation has to assure critical thinking skills, along with a health cynicism, are applied to our facts instead of throwing out emotionalized fake news like it is Gospel which the other side does!

 

[joefoam]

Sorry, Mr Lott's data, fortunately, is current, validated, and his stud[ies] are substantiated through established statistical methodologies.

As for my contention about Kleck 'finding', after 20 years, the CDC's data to reinvent his '96 study all without validating the data, peer review, etc.

Seems in 2016, Lott discerned there was an overstatement 'error' in the CDC's data on gun deaths - quote,

Lott alerted the CDC to the error "at the beginning of 2016" and "it took months" for the government agency to correct the error.

To make matters worse, gun control groups like the Safe Tennessee Project (STP) grabbed the inaccurate numbers and implemented them in their campaign for gun storage laws. STP took the numbers down once the CDC error was uncovered, but those who saw them in the gun control campaign cannot unsee them. Unquote. John Lott: CDC 'Coding Error' Hid Record Low for Accidental Gun Deaths | Breitbart

This billdeserthill, et al., is why at least one side of this discussion gripping our nation has to assure critical thinking skills, along with a health cynicism, are applied to our facts instead of throwing out emotionalized fake news like it is Gospel which the other side does!

The key to your response is that the data that was taken down cannot be unseen. Like any other 'headline' it's all that people remember and most likely the retraction and correction is obscured form view and quickly forgotten. Ever notice how small the corrections and retractions are in the newspaper?

 

[Alexx1401]

The CDC hid data it collected proving Americans use guns for self defense in large numbers. CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns

The only part of stuff like this that bothers me is that it's "news" to gun owners. It shows why we are in the mess we are. Way too many gun owners go through election after election with those rose colored glasses on. Always ready to "compromise" with the left. Of course the compromise always only goes one way, more laws criminals ignore.