Was this CDC report covered in "Guns in the News"?

[DonP]

I've seen folks quoting CDC statistics here a number of times, citing the number of children killed with guns etc. So, I'm assuming that they find the CDC a valid source of data.

Full text at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../cdc_gun_laws_5

(Sorry, I don't know how to make that a hot link)

By KRISTEN WYATT, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws — including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons — found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review, released Thursday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).


The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study.


Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws.


Since then, the task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies were done by the federal government.


In every case, a CDC task force found "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."


"I would not want to speculate on how different groups may interpret this report," said Dr. Sue Binder, Director of CDC's Center for Injury Prevention and Control. "It's simply a review of the literature."


Most of the studies were not funded by the CDC. Gun-control advocates quickly called on the government to fund better research.


A spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said the laws work, but it is nearly impossible to prove it because people can buy guns in one state and carry them into one of the handful of states with strong antigun measures.


"It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them," said Peter Hamm. "Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq (news - web sites)."


The National Rifle Association said it needed more time to review the report before commenting on it.


Firearms injuries were the second leading cause of injury deaths, killing 28,663 people in 2000, the most recent year for which data was available. About 58 percent of the deaths were suicides. Gun accidents claimed about 775 lives that year.


About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population.


The task force complained that many of the studies were inconsistent, too narrow, or poorly done.


"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."


Among the problems:


_ Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

_ Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means."

_ Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.

_ Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.

_ Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence."

According to the VPC the answers are:
1. You can't prove gun control works, but ...

2. Let's do another study.

Not good times for Sarah and her friends.. All you anti folks better send in extra checks this month.

Don (Not an NRA or GOA member) P.

Don P.

[jody]

1. Link to the CDC report .

The actual report is "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Law"

QUOTE
Summary

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research. {emphasis added}
UNQUOTE

The qualifying "Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness" acknowledges that one can't prove a negative in studies like the ones examined.

[CO Liberal]

44. In Other Words, More Study is Needed

Right?

[jody]

45. I agree but we are in danger of falling into a statistical quagmire.

If we do ten studies and test the null hypothesis that gun laws do not affect the rate of violent crime and test at the 10% level for falsely rejecting the null, and there is no cause and effect relationship between gun laws and violent crime rates, then by chance one of those studies will falsely reject the null hypothesis.

The gun-grabbers will take that single chance occurrence and claim that gun laws do reduce violent crime when in fact, the nine studies accepting the null hypothesis are the only ones that matter.

The fact that the CDC team examined about eighty research studies and none of them was able to conclusively reject the null hypothesis is very complelling evidence that there is no cause and effect relationship between gun-laws and violent crime rates.

In addition, the CDC findings are that research methods were flawed in most studies. My understanding of their report, means that the researchers were generally amateurs in statistical research methods. That is very common because it's so easy for a layperson to collect available data, process it with SPSS or other powerful and complex statistical tool, and produce raw statistics. All that while being grossly ignorant of research methods.

The one thing omitted from all the studies examined by the CDC tream was whether gun-laws had been enforced. My guess is that in not one single case was existing gun-laws enforced. There can not be a cause and effect relationship between gun-laws and violent crime rates until laws are enforced.

[Spentastic]

48. Stretching the truth and getting things wrong

Jody "The fact that the CDC team examined about eighty research studies and none of them was able to conclusively reject the null hypothesis is very complelling evidence that there is no cause and effect relationship between gun-laws and violent crime rates."

the facts "The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review. "

Jody also infers that the the inability to reject the null hypothesis for each suggests that the null hypothesis has been proven. What the authors of the study state is that neither conclusion is valid.

What about the "shall issue" study. Shouldn't at least that one show how good that law is? Well it doesn't there's insufficient evidence to say anything about shall issue.

Personally I think the CDC study says far more about the methodology employed by researchers examining gun violence than it does about gun violence.

"insufficient evidence"

Means exactly that. There is nothing to prove or disprove (in the studies) that a gun law is having the desired effect. Does that mean that such laws are useless?

[MrBenchley]

49. And bear in mind

that the CDC is forbidden by law from reporting anything positive about gun control.

But then we're talking about claims by the RKBA crowd, who are trying to pretend Mary Rosh is a real scientist.

[DonP]

53. Just what law is that?

"that the CDC is forbidden by law from reporting anything positive about gun control."

I'm sure you can either cite the law or were you just using hyperbole to try and make a point?

Don P.

[MrBenchley]

54. Don, go play "let's pretend" to someone dumb enough to buy your hooey

"In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. "

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-cdc-gun-laws,0,3753224.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[jody]

50. You should study all I wrote. I did not suggest "that the null

hypothesis has been proven". To the contrary, I recognize the null hypothesis has not been proven and it will never be proven with statistical techniques. It is possible that repeated research, none of which rejected the null hypothesis would increase statistical confidence that the null is correct -- that is not absolute proof.

Your opinion about the methodology employed is just that, an opinion. If you are an expert in statistical research methods, then your opinion has considerable weight but is still an opinion.

You ask "Does that mean that such laws are useless?" I said elsewhere that the studies failed to consider whether gun laws being studied were enforced. I also observed that if gun laws are not enforced, then it would be impossible to measure a "cause and effect relationship".

An analogy is an MD prescribing a pain medication for patients and the patients never taking the medication. One could then sample "patients that did not take the medicine" to determine whether by issuing a prescription, pain was reduced. That is exactly what happens when research is conducted to see if a law prohibiting criminals from possessing firearms reduces violent crime, when the law has been weakely enforced or not enforced.

ON EDIT ADD.
You are correct that the CDC report studied 51 research reports and not the "about eighty" I typed. The difference in numbers does not alter a single thing I wrote. :-)

[Spentastic]

51. No it in this case it isn't

"It is possible that repeated research, none of which rejected the null hypothesis would increase statistical confidence that the null is correct -- that is not absolute proof."

If the studies are flawed or in this case don't present convincing cases the null hypothesis can be considered void. The null hypothesis could be

"Gun Laws do not affect Fairies living under mushrooms"

Someone could attempt to test the null hypothesis. A million bad studies could be done to test the null hypothesis. If "insufficient evidence" was supplied or poor methods employed the null has not been tested. Therefore, there is little if any statistical correlation to anything else.

For once I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

[jody]

52. I agree, I should have written "valid research" because that's the subject

of the CDC report to determine whether the cited studies are "valid".

[MrBenchley]

2. Too frigging funny...

CDC is prohibited by the corrupt GOP from collecting any positive news about gun control...

"In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. "

And the best the pro-gun GOP can come up with is that they can't prove gun control doesn't work.

"Not good times for Sarah and her friends."
Yeah, we can tell from the stench on the RKBA side.

[Spoonman]

3. 1996??

Didn't we control the House, Senate and the Oval Office in 1996?

So much for the "real" Democrates for gun control movement!

[MrBenchley]

4. Not even close to true, spoon....

but then who expects anyone in the RKBA crowd to actually KNOW anything?

[RoeBear]

5. no we didn't

nm

[demsrule4life]

6. You are off by two years

But who is counting the 40 years the Dems had control.

[MrBenchley]

7. Gee Dems...

Would those be the 40 years when CDC was not restricted by the corrupt gun industry?

[demsrule4life]

8. Really other then the GCA of 68

how much gun control did the dems do with all those years in power. ?

[MrBenchley]

9. That's not the issue, dems...

But since you asked so nicely, I thought I'd bring up at least two examples from right at hand...

"Cheney defended two of his most controversial votes on the gun issue -- opposition to provisions banning armor-piercing "cop-killer" bullets and easy-to-smuggle plastic weapons -- mainly on legislative procedural grounds. "

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/30/talk.wrap/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13268

[a2birdcage]

10. Just what is a cop-killer?

This is a serious question. There is not one armor-piercing bullet being manufactured on the market today. It is against the law to manufacture armor piercing rounds for civilian sale. If you don't believe me go ask the BATF. It is true that most rifle bullets will defeat a Kevlar vest but this does not make them armor piercing since a Kevlar vest was not designed to stop a rifle round. Also, there is not one plastic weapon available to civilians either. Some pistols such as the Glock use a substance called polymer in the frame but the slide & barrel, which is half of the gun, is still made of steel. This type of weapon would have just as much of a chance of making it thru a metal detector as an all metal one would. This is more of the misinformed media bullshit that is absorbed by people like yourself Bench. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

[Withergyld]

11. Any one remember

in the end of "Lethal Weapon 3" when Mel Gibson shot through the blade of the Bulldozer with the "cop killer" bullets? Maybe these are the "cop killer" bullets he was talking about?

[demsrule4life]

19. You sure it wasent that cop killer

hollowpoint that rapper in NJ was busted for? The most ignorant peice of news reporting I've seen. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that it is eaiser for a vest to stop a hollowpoint then a full metal jacket bullet. But of course NJ in all thier infinite wisdom made hollowpoints illeagal.

[RoeBear]

46. Lot's of dumb crap comes out of New Jersey...

...right Mr B?

[MrBenchley]

47. You might as well go to personal attacks, roe

The RKBA crowd has got its collective ass kicked again on the issue at hand.

[a2birdcage]

12. No, no wait a minute.............I got this one

What a bunch of hooey. Gee A2 could you spin some more. Go try and sell that to someone dumb enough to buy it. Hahahahahahahah! What a pantload.

[Withergyld]

13. A2, you forgot

"cry me a river"
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[MrBenchley]

14. Ask Deadheart Dick Cheney

He was the loony who voted FOR them.

"It is against the law to manufacture armor piercing rounds for civilian sale."
Wow...wonder if that had something to do with that vote....

[a2birdcage]

15. I'm asking you.

You're the one posting this shit.

[MrBenchley]

16. Ask Deadheart Dick Cheney

[a2birdcage]

17. Good answer Bench.

I see you’re up to more of your grown-up shit. You posted so you answer. Step up to the plate for once in your life. I'll take anything but a reasonable answer as you being incapable of not answering because you post things without first being informed of your subject matter.

[DonP]

20. Plastic Guns, Ha!

I haven't heard that old line of crapola in years.

Bugs Bunny Voice On:

"What a bunch of Maroons"

Bugs Bunny Voice off:

Anyone that has spent more than five minutes reading anything except the VPC website news updates, knows there never were the mythical "plastic guns" they talked about.

It was a phony red herring to get the soccer mom's all worked up about safety on airliners. (Then it turned out all you needed was a 79 cent box cutter from Ace Hardware)

IIRC there was some experimentation years ago with some ceramic barreled guns but it never went anywhere. I think most of the uninformed still just use it as the boogey man to frighten people.

I guess they mean the Glock's and the Kel Tec products with some plastic components.

Don P.

[MrBenchley]

31. Gee, Don....nice to see that RKBA hooey is evergreen

"Cheney also was one of four votes against a 1988 bill which banned the production of firearms with less than 3.7 ounces of metal, the minimum level needed to be detected by conventional security methods. While no such weapons were being produced in 1988, the legislation was aimed at discouraging theoretical "plastic guns" which could pass through metal detectors. "

http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2000/09/02/3cb4ed1ed01cb

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a2birdcage]

24. And you just answered my question.

Doesn't look like you have to many friends are here Bench.

[MrBenchley]

29. Gee, you mean the RKBA crowd

is slinging their usual crap here.....what a surprise.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

[a2birdcage]

25. It was illegal....

before the vote in Congress. Like I said, research it a little further and you will discover the truth. It had nothing to do with the manufacture of armor piercing bullets. Now who is bone stupid.

[MrBenchley]

30. Too too funny....

""It was illegal...."
Posted by a2birdcage
before the vote in Congress."

Yeah, surrrrrre....

"One area where Cheney's votes are noteworthy is gun control. Cheney was one of only 21 House members to oppose a 1985 proposal to ban the manufacture and import of armor piercing bullets, a measure that even the National Rifle Association did not oppose."

http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2000/09/02/3cb4ed1ed01cb


"Cheney "was one of just 21 members of Congress in December of 1985 to vote against a ban on armor-piercing bullets, called 'cop-killer' bullets. Three years later, he was one of only four members of the House voting against a ban on plastic guns that could slip through airport security machines undetected. The NRA did not oppose this ban" (CNN Newstand Live, July 24, 2000)."

http://www.njdc.org/readNews.php?show=67&subcat=3

[demsrule4life]

18. Law Enforcement Groups asked

the antigun news media not to run the piece of cop killer bullets because it was not common knowledge that cops wore vests. The news media jumped on the cop killer bandwagon anyway. Guess they didn't give a shit about cops lives. I remember sighning a petition to keep it off the news. I wonder how many cops have been headshot by the info gained from the news media.

[Withergyld]

21. statistics on officer deaths

"Body armor was worn by 279 of the officers
who were gunshot victim over the past 10 years.
Of those officers, 160 suffered gunshot wounds to
the head. One hundred and one officers suffered
gunshot wounds to the upper torso, and 18 suffered
gunshot wounds below the waist. (See
Table 9.)
Of 101 victim officers who died of upper
torso wounds despite their body armor, 40 officers
were slain when bullets entered between the side
panels or the armholes of the vests. Close in number
at 34 were the officers who died as a result of
wounds above the vest area. Twenty officers were
slain when the bullets penetrated their protective
vests. Seven officers died as a result of wounds in
the abdominal or lower back area not protected by
their vests. (See Table 10.)"
From Page 5 of the folowing PDF file from the FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/99leoka.pdf
Over half of the Officers killed died from headshots. This does not tell if the criminals shot for the head intentionaly or not.

[MrBenchley]

23. Wow, deems...

It must be exciting to live in RKBA fantasy world where you can just make up crap like that at a moment's notice.

[demsrule4life]

26. I was a cop for 8 years when NBC posted their story

Many urban legends exist about bullet-proof vests, the most popular, convoluted and contradictory is the mythical "cop killer bullet" legend. This myth, originally invented by NBC TV news in a 1982 special, claims that an ordinary handgun is capable of penetrating these vests, thus killing a cop, if a certain type of ammo (specifically, teflon-coated rounds) were fired from the handgun. In fact, no such ammo exists and not one law enforcement officer has ever been killed by any type of handgun bullet fired from any handgun penetrating one of these vests (if the bullet actually struck the protective area of the vest


There was a nationwide petition signed by police officers asking NBC not to air the story since it was not well known that cops wore vest's. Unlike some people on this board I dont live in a fantasy world.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet-proof_vest

[DonP]

27. NBC of the exploding truck fame?

Wasn't it NBC that rigged the truck to explode to goose up their story on the dangers of some specific model of truck?

Imaginary "Cop Killer" bullets

Imaginary "Plastic Guns"

Imaginary "Exploding Trucks"

Boy, they have a great track record for the truth.

I'd believe anything they told me about guns from now on. They would never lie to you, would they.

Don P.

[Lefty48197]

38. If you want to know the truth

then you should turn to FOX TV News like the rest of us right wingers do.

[MrBenchley]

39. Evidently the RKBA crowd only believe

Newsmax and the Washington Times...

[1a2b3c]

40. You forgot the Sierra Times.

[MrBenchley]

28. RKBA fantasy land

Now tell us what that has to do with Cheney's vote....

[DonP]

33. Fascinated with Cheney, huh?

I'd love to tell you what to do with Cheney's vote, as would many others here I'm sure. But we all like being able to chat with each other and won't be provoked into being tombstoned.

In case you hadn't noticed you are the only one here talking about Cheney or his votes. You have a thing for middle aged bald men or are you just fascinated with his philosophy? Or maybe you just like people that vote against things that don't exist, just in case.

The point is there never were any plastic guns or cop killer bullets outside of the Brady press relations department.

The CDC does not have a responsibility to "push for gun control" and none of their research has been able to prove it works.

A lot of people around here seem to be getting tired of you defining what constitutes a "real" Democrat, vis a vis gun control issues.

Have a swell weekend.

Don P.

[MrBenchley]

34. At least I'm not in bed with him like the RKBA crowd is...

in case you hadn't noticed (and judging by your silly message, you haven't) this ALL began with another RKBA "enthusiast" claiming that the Democrats had done nothing for gun control in 40 years, whereupon I produced Cheney';s two losing votes as evidence of AT LEAST TWO GUN CONTROL BILLS Democrats put through.

At whicch point the entire "bullets for brains" squad began disputing that the subjects of the bills were real.

"A lot of people around here seem to be getting tired of you defining what constitutes a "real" Democrat, vis a vis gun control issues. "
Tough titty, don. I suggest you go sulk about it to somebody else. Try one of the others here who run down every Democrat you ever heard of and pimp for racist asswipes like Larry Pratt and Ted Nugent.

[KS_44]

41. Neo!

Their is no spoon.

Hmmmm
Does anyone know the pressures created by modern bullets, and the problems that arise from plastic guns? Glocks are what? %80 metal?

ANTI-RKBA bullcrap.

[1a2b3c]

35. Back peddle

How do they come up with all those numbers you site,(that are wrong) like 11,000 gun homicides in 2001, if they are GOP and NRA controled? It is a good laugh to watch you backpeddle.

[MrBenchley]

37. Been there, done that

If you don't want to read answers, just tell us.

[jody]

32. Conspicuously absent are intelligent replies from the gun-control group.

[1a2b3c]

36. Where is CO?

We may not have agreed on a few things but atleast he could manage to post a reply worth resonding to.

[CO Liberal]

42. I Was Spending the Weekend Off-Line

A three-day weekend of quality time with the lovely Mrs. CO Liberal. I'll post my comments once I've read the linked info.

[demsrule4life]

43. Welcome back

Now if I could just get some quality time with the Mrs.