CDC on Gun Control

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-02 09:28pm

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty ... ID=3549572

Thoughts? Comments?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-02 09:30pm

Interesting. This will definitely be a thorn in the anti-gun lobby's side.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-02 09:37pm

There is a much more direct correlation between violent crime and poverty levels, but since the ideologically correct right-wing approach to the poor is "fuck 'em", I don't suppose anything will ever be done about that.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-02 09:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:There is a much more direct correlation between violent crime and poverty levels, but since the ideologically correct right-wing approach to the poor is "fuck 'em", I don't suppose anything will ever be done about that.

I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with a CDC report on gun control...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-02 09:43pm

Nathan F wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:There is a much more direct correlation between violent crime and poverty levels, but since the ideologically correct right-wing approach to the poor is "fuck 'em", I don't suppose anything will ever be done about that.
I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with a CDC report on gun control...

It has to with a CDC report on violent crime. An excessive proliferation of guns in cities is a symptom of crime rather than a cause.

Although it should be noted that gun control laws cannot possibly have short-term effects on violent crime anyway no matter which theory you subscribe to, since they do not take existing guns off the streets; they are intended to produce long-term effects.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-02 10:52pm

However, this report analyzed gun control laws that are many years old (it cited the 1994 Brady Bill, among others).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-02 10:56pm

Howedar wrote:However, this report analyzed gun control laws that are many years old (it cited the 1994 Brady Bill, among others).

So? The effects of gun control laws would not be felt, even in theory, for much longer than that. With the sheer number of guns already in circulation, what difference does it make if a few hurdles are added to the process of buying a new one?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-02 11:01pm

At least among legal sales, some 50% are new buys. Assuming the total number of guns in the US is not going up very quickly, this would suggest that the supply of guns out there drops by itself fairly rapidly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-02 11:06pm

Howedar wrote:At least among legal sales, some 50% are new buys. Assuming the total number of guns in the US is not going up very quickly, this would suggest that the supply of guns out there drops by itself fairly rapidly.

Why would the supply drop? Are the guns being stolen by the underpants gnomes?

Anyway, illegal sales are totally unaffected by gun control laws, and the only way to cut down on illegal sales is heavy law enforcement, possibly in conjunction with a greatly reduced overall traffic in guns, because it's easier to pinch without drawing attention from a rushing river than a trickling stream (the gun control laws in place do not really alter the volume of legal traffic; they just add a bit of red tape to the process).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-02 11:08pm

Darth Wong wrote: Why would the supply drop? Are the guns being stolen by the underpants gnomes?

I don't know why. All I know is, that from my admittedly limited knowledge on the field and that statistic, it appears to be dropping. Unless the supply of firearms in the US really is going up by five million a year, which seems high to me.

Anyway, illegal sales are totally unaffected by gun control laws, and the only way to cut down on illegal sales is heavy law enforcement, possibly in conjunction with a greatly reduced overall traffic in guns, because it's easier to pinch without drawing attention from a rushing river than a trickling stream (the gun control laws in place do not really alter the volume of legal traffic; they just add a bit of red tape to the process).

This goes without saying. Although I expect that a few of the current gun control laws do actually reduce the volume of legal traffic.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-10-04 12:10am

Darth Wong wrote:There is a much more direct correlation between violent crime and poverty levels, but since the ideologically correct right-wing approach to the poor is "fuck 'em", I don't suppose anything will ever be done about that.

Gawddamn I wish you could run for Pres here.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-10-04 12:29am

Y'know, I have to come clean on some gun control thoughts here-- I am a member of the NRA and yes, I believe the average citizen has th eright to arm him or her self is the citizen sees fit. Personal protection, target shooting, hunting, collecting, whatever--

But lets face it, even the most ardent and militant supporter of the NRA realizes that there are some fuckers out there that cannot be trusted with a pointy stick, much less anything else. Sometime we meet them-- at gun shows, on the firing range, out hunting-- the jerkoffs who get drunk as hell and drive down country roads, blasting their shotguns at road signs and the like.... and others like them.

I meet these people and I just want to punch them. They make it impossible to be a gun owner in this country without becoming an object of attack by angry or fearful people who think we're all trigger happy quacks.

I have learned how to handle my weapons with sobriety and responsibility. I treat them with respect. I put them away if I am going to have a drink. I never do crazy stunts with them. And when I meet those idiot shits that twirl their weapons in public or do other stupid things, sometimes I think that a liscencing scheme is not such a bad idea.

It does nothng to stop determined criminals or thefts, of course, but a liscence that comes afer a competency test might weed out the fucktards and yay-hoos before they become a problem, and make me and other responsible gun owners look like a bunch of kooks.

Tempting, sometimes, it surely is.....

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-10-04 02:39pm

The CDC? Wierd.

Anyway, what has gone before makes good sense, I'm just tempted to add that our current gun control laws are ineffective anyway.

/paste assault weapon ban debate.

/paste driveby bayoneting joke.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 02:51pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:The CDC? Wierd.

Anyway, what has gone before makes good sense, I'm just tempted to add that our current gun control laws are ineffective anyway.

/paste assault weapon ban debate.

/paste driveby bayoneting joke.

The CDC do many things you'd not expect them to do. A disease is anything that detracts from normal health, so a bullet wound could be classed as a disease.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-10-04 05:01pm

since the ideologically correct right-wing approach to the poor is "fuck 'em"

Y'know, someone that complains so much about being mischaracterized shouldn't mischaracterize. The notion of "personal responsibility" could hardly be called a "fuck 'em" philosophy, no more so than a parent kicking out their 30-year-old son so he could live on his own.

And as for the CDC report: This simply proves what major portions of the pro-Rights side has been saying all along... that laws should not be passed unless there's evidence that they will do any good. The burden of proof is on the government to justify the taking away of guns, NOT the gun-owner's job to justify having them.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-10-05 04:04pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:The CDC do many things you'd not expect them to do. A disease is anything that detracts from normal health, so a bullet wound could be classed as a disease.

Only if you are willing to declare auto accidents, blunt traumas, burns, drownings, falls from great heights, animal maulings, electrocutions, poisonings, asphyxiations, stab wounds, lacerations, strangulations, etc. etc. as diseases.

Hey, this is fun. A disease can be anything!

(You can see just how monumentally absurd this logic really is.)

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-05 04:11pm

Perinquus wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:The CDC do many things you'd not expect them to do. A disease is anything that detracts from normal health, so a bullet wound could be classed as a disease.
Only if you are willing to declare auto accidents, blunt traumas, burns, drownings, falls from great heights, animal maulings, electrocutions, poisonings, asphyxiations, stab wounds, lacerations, strangulations, etc. etc. as diseases.

Hey, this is fun. A disease can be anything!

(You can see just how monumentally absurd this logic really is.)

And yet it still remains since the general principle of a disease is that it makes one unwell. Are you saying being stabbed is not prejudicial to one's health? I don't write the language, but the word can and will be used in this context.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-10-05 04:43pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Perinquus wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:The CDC do many things you'd not expect them to do. A disease is anything that detracts from normal health, so a bullet wound could be classed as a disease.
Only if you are willing to declare auto accidents, blunt traumas, burns, drownings, falls from great heights, animal maulings, electrocutions, poisonings, asphyxiations, stab wounds, lacerations, strangulations, etc. etc. as diseases.

Hey, this is fun. A disease can be anything!

(You can see just how monumentally absurd this logic really is.)
And yet it still remains since the general principle of a disease is that it makes one unwell. Are you saying being stabbed is not prejudicial to one's health? I don't write the language, but the word can and will be used in this context.

A disease is not ANYTHING that makes you unwell. What you are doing is absolutely no different than saying all cats are animals therefore all animals are cats. It's circular reasoning. It's a fallacy.

Not every cause of ill health is a disease. Diseases are particular destructive processes in the body, with certain specific causes and characteristics. Bullets are not a disease.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-05 04:51pm

I'm not arguing that. Disease is to not be at ease as to be unwell as to not be physically fit, ergo, a bullet wound can be construed as a variation of disease as it detracts from your wellbeing. Yes, it may be vague and not what people see as being a disease as it is not a genetic defect nor caused by a microbe, but it's what the definition is. Stress is see aa a disease, would you discount that since it's not caused by bacteria or has any real physical vector?

Fact is, it is not discounting that definition and is thus not wrong. The CDC doing this research highlights the fact it can have various connotations.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-10-05 07:52pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'm not arguing that. Disease is to not be at ease as to be unwell as to not be physically fit, ergo, a bullet wound can be construed as a variation of disease as it detracts from your wellbeing. Yes, it may be vague and not what people see as being a disease as it is not a genetic defect nor caused by a microbe, but it's what the definition is. Stress is see aa a disease, would you discount that since it's not caused by bacteria or has any real physical vector?

Fact is, it is not discounting that definition and is thus not wrong. The CDC doing this research highlights the fact it can have various connotations.

It is amazing the lengths to which some will go to defend a logically indefensible position.

Stress is not a disease in the medically accepted definition of the term. You may find some in the profession who are willing to call it that. You will find many, if not most others do not, as they feel that it is not an appropriate term. Many diseases are stress-related, and many others are worsened by stress, but stress itself is not a disease.

The only way you can accept the definition of gunshot wounds as disease is basically to throw the word disease open to include anything that impairs ones good health. This is spin doctoring. Redefining words to mean what you want them to mean, rather than what they actually do mean. The CDC is choosing to define gunshot wounds as disease because there are people in that organization who are on an ideological crusade, not because the definition fits.

By your reasoning, if I club you to death with a baseball bat, you have just died of a disease.

Come one man. Accept it. This is nonsense!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-10-05 08:00pm

Perinquus wrote:<snip>

websters wrote: An alteration in the state of the body or of some of its organs, interrupting or disturbing the performance of the vital functions, and causing or threatening pain and weakness.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-05 08:01pm

Actually, Perinquus, he's technically right. A disease is defined as a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning. For practical purposes, I wouldn't cause every hurt a disease, after all, banging my big toe on a door that made me limp back to the computer could be considered a disease.

Traceroute · Post by **Traceroute** » 2003-10-05 08:09pm

It's worth noting that the CDC's web site indicates the Center's mission is somewhat broader than the name would imply. (This is the specific page I'm quoting from.)

CDC's Mission
To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.

CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout the nation and world to monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training.

CDC has developed and sustained many vital partnerships with public and private entities that improve service to the American people. In FY 2000, the workforce of CDC comprised approximately 8,500 FTE in 170 disciplines with a public health focus. Although CDC's national headquarters is in Atlanta, Georgia, more than 2,000 CDC employees work at other locations, including 47 state health departments. Approximately 120 are assigned overseas in 45 countries. CDC includes 12 Centers, Institutes, and Offices

It does not seem that they are stretching the term disease at all, merely that they're title is not all-inclusive.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-10-05 08:15pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually, Perinquus, he's technically right. A disease is defined as a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning. For practical purposes, I wouldn't cause every hurt a disease, after all, banging my big toe on a door that made me limp back to the computer could be considered a disease.

So what makes gunshot wounds a special exception? You yourself just admitted that not every hurt is worthy of being called a disease. So why are bullets, when say, auto accidents are not?

Admit it, you're using a purely subjective criteria to justify a position that is untenable if you are concerning yourself with diseases.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-10-05 08:18pm

Traceroute wrote:It's worth noting that the CDC's web site indicates the Center's mission is somewhat broader than the name would imply. (This is the specific page I'm quoting from.)

CDC's Mission
To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.

CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout the nation and world to monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training.

CDC has developed and sustained many vital partnerships with public and private entities that improve service to the American people. In FY 2000, the workforce of CDC comprised approximately 8,500 FTE in 170 disciplines with a public health focus. Although CDC's national headquarters is in Atlanta, Georgia, more than 2,000 CDC employees work at other locations, including 47 state health departments. Approximately 120 are assigned overseas in 45 countries. CDC includes 12 Centers, Institutes, and Offices
It does not seem that they are stretching the term disease at all, merely that they're title is not all-inclusive.

If they are trying to relate gunshot wounds to disease, then they are stretching the term. If they are using some other justification to take a position on the matter then the point is moot. However, I feel constrained to point out that they seem strangely less concerned with automobile fatalities, for example, which far outnumber shooting deaths. This leads me to suspect an ideological bias.