Guns aren’t a public health issue
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2022
- A deeply flawed documentary by the gray lady unwittingly makes the case for why the CDC shouldn't be studying gun violence.
Full text: reason.com/video/2022/09/30/g...
--------------------------
The New York Times published an 11-minute documentary in June titled "'It Was Really a Love Story.' How an N.R.A. Ally Became a Gun Safety Advocate," which tells a heartwarming story of how friendship transcended political differences and convinced a right-wing partisan to come to terms with the truth about firearms.
The film stars a couple of improbable friends: Dr. Mark L. Rosenberg, who for many years oversaw research on gun violence at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the director of its National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and "NRA Pointman" Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), who was the author of an amendment inserted into a 1996 spending bill that prohibited the CDC from using federal funds to advocate for gun control.
The story is also framed by the findings of a famous (or infamous) 1993 CDC-funded study, which was "the first piece that we funded by external scientists," Rosenberg recounts. It allegedly showed that owning guns made Americans overwhelmingly less safe. According to the film, the National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbied for the Dickey Amendment because of the 1993 study's damning results. The organization "didn't think it would be good for business," Rosenberg says, "and they went to Congress, and they said, 'You have got to stop this research because it's going to result in all Americans losing their right to have a gun in their homes.'"
Dickey and Rosenberg started out as "mortal enemies," but after making small talk about their kids during a chance conversation they developed "an incredible friendship," as Rosenberg recounts. Years later, they were habitually ending their conversations by telling each other "I love you," and "we really meant it," Rosenberg says. Through the power of this human connection, Dickey ends up seeing reason and changing his mind. He comes to believe that the amendment bearing his name was a mistake.
It's a story of redemption through friendship that's well-tuned to our own hyperpolarized times. The lesson is that if blind partisans aren't swayed by empirical evidence, human connection might just do the trick. "Underneath what people think are such opposing forces are some very important shared values," Rosenberg says.
Although the moral of the documentary is undoubtedly true, every other detail is wrong. The takeaway from the story of Dickey, Rosenberg, and the 1993 gun study at the center of the piece is that the congressman was correct to begin with. The CDC shouldn't be studying gun violence.
Despite the study's problems, which have been written about widely, Rosenberg attributes all of the criticism to gun manufacturers concerned about potential loss of sales. Though the Dickey amendment prohibited the CDC's Injury Center from spending money on gun control promotion and advocacy, Rosenberg blames it for shutting off all research into gun violence.
Rosenberg sums up the Dickey amendment as follows: "If you do research in this area, we will harass you." An example of the harassment Rosenberg gives is "the threat of congressional inquiries" that can "wreak havoc with your research."
Why does Rosenberg think that taxpayer-funded research shouldn't be subject to congressional inquiry? Rather than stating that he was willing to answer sensible and relevant questions, Rosenberg wanted to be shielded from congressional Republicans like Dickey, who he deemed ignorant and evil.
"Worse than not understanding," Rosenberg says, "he doesn't care."
The Dickey amendment didn't prevent the CDC from gathering and analyzing data on gun injuries and deaths. Many gun control researchers rely on CDC data. But gun control is part of a much larger issue of crime, violence, rights, and policy effects; it's not something that can be studied usefully with only infectious disease models, methods, and data.
Written by Aaron Brown and John Osterhoudt; edited by Osterhoudt; graphics by Adani Samat; additional graphics by Regan Taylor and Isaac Reese.
Photos: Associated Press; Cottonbro/Pexels; Roll Call/Newscom
As a Native American I fully support the 2nd Amendment and understand how important gun ownership is to protecting your family and community.
Protect from other guns lmao.
@@edh615 Protect from the govt and criminals.
Government guns, remember what happened a wonded knee
Or what happened to the Armenians 1.5 million deaths, nazi gremany 6 million jew 250 million people were murdered by there own governments
@@marvinbrewer8637 Modern day, they want to force other people's culture on us but forget America did the same thing to the people who before the white man
Last CDC gun study I saw showed a conservatively 10 times higher likelyhood of protecting yourself with a firearm than dying from it.
I have not been able to find this, it would be helpful in my discussion elsewhere, do you have a link?
@@quietus13: The study was a 2013 study by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, for the CDC. I saw the data in a few RUclips videos, but I can't find them quickly. Rumor has it the CDC pulled the data from their website, but it should still be available. The CDC didn't come right out and say that guns were more often used for defense than homicide, etc. but (as I remember it) the data indicated it.
Sourc pls, I believe you, just want to use it
@@jackbrightside find it the same way everyone else found it, search. there are youtube videos on it, people have posted copies of the studies, etc. just lift a finger.
"500,000-2,000,000 defensive uses of firearms per year" is a good search term to find this study
Having books in the house makes you 130,000 times more likely to get a paper cut
Mind. BLOWN.
You know, studies show that keeping a ladder in the house is more dangerous than a loaded gun. That's why I own ten guns: in case some maniac tries to sneak in a ladder!
-Gruncle Stan
Inside peanutbutter outside jellyyyy
One time for each page...
@@seaweeb2258 🤣😂 ASSAULT LADDERS MUST BE BANNED!
Guns are a health risk but being fat today isn't. We're literally living in Bizarro world.
I don’t want my tax money going toward mental health.
Just let everyone buy a gun.
@@Bigdogspyke why not compromise with not paying for mental health and barring insane people from buying guns. No tax dollars for mental health, no guns for crazy people, everybody’s happy 😃
@Jelliot Why? That would be a huge public benefit. You would have dramatically lower crime rates. More people would be able to have jobs and even create jobs. Reducing tax money spent on crime. The medical debts would be at greater ease. More help with the suicides. This is one of the best things you could possibly hope to have your tax money spent on. You could also get negotiations with democrats to actually come through and allow you to keep your guns.
@@SS-yj2le I want my tax money going to giving everyone guns
You don’t get it the obviously a dem
@@Bigdogspyke Why not? Mental health issues cause the majority of problems we see in America today. It would be a win win. Crime would go down, and you could own any gun you wanted.
the NFA really needs to go. Going to prison for a rifle barrel being a quarter of an inch shorter than 16 inches is insane.
Yup. And pedophiles get lighter sentences.
"Shall not be infringed". Benjamin Franklin owned field artillery and lent them to the militia during the Battle of Boston. The Navy in the infant years of the US were mostly privately owned ships with privately owned cannons. A law abiding US citizen should be able to own whatever he wants short of weapons of mass destruction. The point of the Second Amendment was for average citizens to be able to arm and equip themselves on the same level as the standing army so that they may be able to mount a defense should the government turn tyrannical and use the military against the citizens.
@@killswitch1982 The problem is anti gunners either don't care, are uneducated on the Constitution, or just blatantly evil and tyrannical. Anti gunners think AR 15s are "weapons of mass destruction" like tyrant Newsom and Hochul keep saying.
@@killswitch1982 finna Commission my own Gerald R. Ford class and name it the USS Yankiedoodle
Sick of the gun shaming.
If guns don’t kill people, then guns don’t protect people.
I know right.
School shootings are a reality I can live with
I'm sick of it too
Gun control or banning will never work because criminals will always try to get their hands on guns illegally
3 hidden replies, welcome to the Youtoviet Union Comrade!
@@Mika-ph6ku wow I'm not the only one that youtube hides half of the replies from
Apparently every weapon I’ve ever been around is defective because not a single one of them did anything without a person. Pretty sure it’s a human violence problem.
Yup, guns don’t protect people; only people protect people.
It is. The problem is the fact that people are willing to use them on each other. Not the fact that anyone has them. A gun isn’t going to kill someone. A person is going to use the gun to kill someone.
Guns amplify a human's ability to commit violence.
@S S exactly why firearms should be regulated.
@@A_J502 They already are 🤷🏼♂️
I'll die defending my right to own a gun and defend myself. Here in New Jersey it's getting scary as the state is using red flag laws to steal guns from citizens.
Yes, and youre children may die of another schoolshooting. You Americans 🙄. Ever wonderd why over entire Europe we had only 3 mass shootings in 35 years, with all combined "only" 25 victims?
At least your not in California like me
I moved out of NJ for many reason, but that was one of them. They wouldn't even let me buy a gun, which is the issue with NJ gun rights laws. They are all "may issue", and a local sheriff or municipality doesn't need a reason to say no, they can just say no. I moved to PA and now I own multiple guns, my background check is completely clean, I have no history of violence, and most importantly, nothing that should have prevented me from purchasing a gun in the first place. I even have a concealed weapon permit. PA is a "shall issue" state, which the constitutionally correct. Don't get me wrong, there are things I miss about NJ. Whenever I'm in NJ, it still feels like I'm going home. But the truth is, I will never move back.
When you go out in a blaze of glory, have reason post a video here.
Should a doctor be able to prohibit you from driving if he knows that you do not have the capability, and could crash and kill someone? Should we let everyone drive heavy machinery?
I have only recently begun to meet people who take these studies seriously. When I hear them talk about guns as pathogens, my brain freezes up as it tries to reconcile the apparent contradiction of seeing a fully grown adult, and hearing a pre-adolescent child. Though I am also fairly confident these same people would not handle a gun in anything approaching a responsible fashion, and presumably they believe every gun owner is as ignorant and untrained as they are.
I get that feeling reading youre comment.
@@The.world.has.gone.crazy... Never had to correct the other variant of your lmao. “Reading you are comment”
That's really the idea: they don't want to live in a world where they HAVE to be gun literate in order to live safely and comfortably. Having the time, money, and desire to become gun-literate is awesome (I am!) and everyone should do it, but you can't force that lifestyle. Not everyone wants to learn how to swim, you have to be willing to put up signs and have a shallow end as not everyone is going to be comfortable in the deep end. The pool is a public space, and that's why safer cities hire lifeguards and enforce no running policies. It's a good analogy.
@@raygunn13 What's your point?
@@The.world.has.gone.crazy... thank you for proving his point.
I'm surprised that the statistician didn't mention that having a gun in the home doesn't actually increase the absolute likelihood of suicide in general, it only increases the likelihood of suicide with a gun.
Indeed, if not a gun then another method will be chosen. Just like violence in general, if determined any weapon at hand will be used. But they (gun controllers) pick the inanimate object.
Increases the likelihood of successful suicide; get your priorities straight.
@@melgillham462
If guns don’t kill people then guns don’t protect people.
@@A_J502 The ease of getting guns has no impact on suicide rates, successful or otherwise. Japan and South Korea have higher per capita suicide than America, despite guns being effectively totally banned.
Besides, suicide is a human right.
I don’t understand why so many Anti-2nd are completely hesitant to even do the basic research in how firearms operate. And yet expect to make policy regulating them without being even the distinguish the most basic differences between firearms.
It’s almost to the point I feel as though the majority of anti-2nd americans just refuse to even hold a gun because they’ll eventually realize its not unreasonable to own or use.
But it easier to quote outdated statistics and talk about mass shootings as if theres a direct correlation to the firearm used and not the fact that unarmed people are almost helpless against an individual with any type of firearm.
To call anti-gun folk "Americans" is offensive to real Americans. It's cultural appropriation!
Theyve been indoctrinated to government dependency, actually believing the government has a duty to protect them, and the government only does what's best for them...🤣😂 the scariest words ever uttered, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Its criminal in my opinion.
Like commiefornias laws about banning flash suppressors but somehow they don't ban muzzle brakes or compensators. Flash hider/suppressors mearly cut down on the muzzle flash. Muzzle brakes and compensators actually help felt recoil which helps the shooter.
Lots of ignorant, slow-witted, mentally lazy sheep among us. Take the past 2.5 years as an example.
Guns aren’t the problem, guns aren’t the solution.
Anyone scared or admiring of a gun has a mental illness and needs professional help in a residential program.
I think we have an epidemic of phylanthropist nannies that want to dominate and clear all in their path.
That is hitting the proverbial nail on the head. Only I'd change it to despot..🤣
Truer stuff about conservatives was never said.
@@A_J502 you misspelled "liberals" and demonazis. Liberal is a perversion of libertarian and not a compliment. Conservatives arent the ones stomping on the constitution like Democrats try daily. But rest assured, we wont allow you to continue your crimes.
@@A_J502 Irony of ironies, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were bankrolled by a German-based industrial philanthropist. Israel Gelfand aka Aleksandr Parvus. Revolutionary socialists as practical capitalist businessmen have a long and detailed history.
Bingo
Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms" is to "protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Ben Franklin - “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
And for the far leftist here is one from Karl Marx. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary'
Nice!
Lefties be like "but Karl guns kill people"
(I don't like politics. I just wanna own a gun or two and be able to smoke weed without that being illegal)
Karl Marx wasn't advocating for gun rights, he was stressing the need for the communist vanguard party to arm themselves to violently overthrow the capitalist system, and the importance of resisting the attempts of the entrenched system to suppress the capacity for revolution.
Marx vision of communism was bottom up. Workers raise up and revolt. Lenin saw that was never going to work as more and more workers rights were being put in place, he did a top-down revolt. And the top held all the power, which wasn't really Marx's vision. Not saying Marx was in the right either, just putting the context why the quote works.
@@jasonmajere2165 Funny how today's Marxists don't even know the difference or care to make the distinction as they fight right alongside those who would entrust ALL to the government. Pure ignorance and puppetry.
Sig pistols are definitely a public health problem. Whenever I see a Sig Legion price tag I have a heart attack.
I really want the new SIG XM5 rifle the Army just adopted this year when the civilian version becomes available. I know it's going to be bloody expensive though. And it's ridiculous that I have the buy a "civilian version" of anything. Law abiding US citizens have a Constitutional right to own anything the military uses short of nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, and that right should be honored and protected by everyone who swears an oath to the Constitution, from the cop on the street all the way up to the President of the United States.
The *_bad guys_* will always have guns. Good, bad or otherwise you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. 🙂
Why you going to knife fights? That’s stupid.
@@rhabdob3895 Yeah m8. But I'm really good at stupid. 🙂
@@Freedom_Half_Off 🤣
“During my twelve-and-a-half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime,” - Joe Biden 1985
It seems likely that people who live in bad neighborhoods or othwise know themselves to be at elevated risk of being attacked would be more inclined to own a gun.
Yeah, one would think so. I lived in lots of bad neighborhoods and *wished* I had a gun - but the reason I lived in the bad neighborhood was that I didn't have enough money in the first place. Being poor is both expensive and dangerous.
Agreed
Hi-Point has entered the chat.
@@Christopher.Bingham Yep, poverty always brings violence with it unfortunately. However, it's clear that making everyone richer may very well reduce violence as a whole.
if you accidentally get killed by your own gun that's literally just a skill issue
It took the CDC almost two years to study natural immunity related to covid, just to find out what doctors had been saying (and censored) about natural infection. Pretty sure nothing from the CDC will be taken seriously by myself and others again.
Agreed
What are you even talking about? No one even knows anything about this virus yet and two, natural immunity is worthless since you have to get infected to get it and even then, it isn’t immunity. Go ask the Europeans how natural immunity worked out 800 years ago. It didn’t exactly go well. Quit making over-simplifications of medical topics you know nothing about. You wish to actually make something worthwhile of it, go to medical school.
I am reminded of the old adage- "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
_I live in a really dangerous neighborhood with lots of break-ins. I better buy a piece._
"A homeowner was found shot to death in his living room earlier today. Police say he was killed during a burglary. In the homeowner's bedroom, a gun, locked up in the nightside table. If only he hadn't bought that gun, he miraculously would have survived."
If only he kept the loaded gun laying around for anyone to reach and constantly pointed at all ingress points at all times throughout his day, there is a 50% chance he would have survived!
I have an old gun that's developed a disease I need to cure: rust.
No cure
@@GUITARTIME2024 I'm confident the pharma industry will produce a vaccine
It wouldn't matter if half of all people that own a gun died I would still want my gun because it is my constitutional right to have it
Constitution takes precedent over any real or perceived pragmatism.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
@@jagartharn6361 emphasis on "perceived". The left often perceives things that just arent true. 🤣
So, even if hypothetically it was predicted that gun violence would kill half of the population of the country, you'd still be against any regulation or banning of guns?
Wow gun nuts really are insane
According to my HM1 in my old unit. It's Preventative medicine. He was preventing health complications from incoming small arms fire by sending 5.56 from his M4 before the arms fire could hit him or his marines.
That's hilarious lol
Mental illness is a public health issue.
And by that I mean the lack of self discipline, in every way.
I. Know this is a free country, but that doesn't mean you should let yourself go completely.
Good point. But I'd suggest that the dangers of tyranny exceed those of people letting themselves go completely.
Definitely a balance to strike there between freedom and voluntary responsibility.
Do you even know what mental illness means? Do you tell your friend that is going through cancer to just muscle up? Or maybe that person in a wheelchair, ''hey just walk like a normal person". Don't let yourself goooo, man! Here is a crazy thought; why not make it more difficult for people to get a gun if they can't pass a mental health examination? You know, like when your doctor says you can't drive because you are not capable, for whatever reason. I'm no scientist so I could be completely wrong and we should give everyone a blaster.
@@funkaddictions
Mind you : I didn't even the rest of your most likely excuses of bullshit.
I know a crazy person most of the time when I see them.
AND I don't need someone brainwashed into thinking that they need a degree, some 5 to 10 years in college, and 100000$ in student debt to tell me the obvious or try to convince me of some cooked up or invented nonsense to justify the above.
@@dustinabc
Thank you, I agree.
But as shown in another comment, we are told that we need health care "professionals" to lead our lives.
@@funkaddictions rights are not up for debate. And your analogy is just as bad as doing what you just said to cancer patients.
This should be shown on every major news network at least once a month for at least a year, on prime time television!
Another obvious statistical flaw is confusing cause and effect. If people with guns in the home are more likely to be murdered, could that be because people who are murdered are more likely to have lived in rough neighborhoods or work in professions (legal or not) which make a lot of enemies? Would such people feel threatened, and therefore be more likely to buy guns?
I think this was why it was stipulated that the two samples were "similar households". I don't know what that means exactly because I haven't read the study. In any case even if the potential confounding variables were well controlled, there is the obvious ease in p-hacking this result. If p=.04, you only need 25 iterations to find one that appears to be significant. I think the biggest issue with this correlational study was what was described in the video.
Guns are not a public health issue because no gun does anything on its own. The outcomes around guns are entirely controlled by human behavior. Once you treat it as a simple "having a gun increases the chance of X happening" you autistically throw out a lot of critical contextual information. Why you would throw out such important context (which in many cases can be easily modelled statistically) that only helps you see a clearer and more realistic picture of what is happening is a question everyone should be asking.
@@offensivearch In assuming that they are controlling for these types of variables, you are presuming a lot more integrity on the part of gun control advocates than I would. Some of the statistical arguments I have seen for gun control torture the statistics so badly that they ought to be banned by the Geneva Convention.
I've seen the study debunking, but then later had friends bring up the original study, where they mention two specific states that changed their gun laws. In one case they put new restrictions on legal gun ownership, and crime goes down over the next few years. The other state made it easier to own guns, and the crime rate promptly went up. The problem is that there are many states that have changed their gun laws each direction over the last few decades. When you look at a graph of each state's crime rate over an X-axis of years before and after the change in the law, you can clearly see that the two states cited by these gun control advocates are the statistical outliers, and the bulk of the data shows the opposite trends. They don't really even offer an excuse for this statistical cherry-picking.
I've also seen the argument that when someone has a gun in their home and it is used, it most likely is used either purposely or accidentally against the gun owner or one of their relatives. First of all, they define "used" as shooting someone, to ignore all the times that a gun is pointed at a criminal and the criminal backs off, so the gun is clearly useful but is never actually fired. Also, by combining purposeful and accidental shootings of self and near relatives, they make it sound like there are a lot of accidents and cases of fratenercide. The reality is that over 90% of the shootings in these categories are purposeful self-shootings of the shooter. Suicide is certainly tragic, but it clearly cannot be stopped by banning guns, as there are many other ways for suicidal people to kill themselves. Statistically, this would be like saying that the Calgary Flames, Dallas Stars, St. Louis Blues, and Montreal Canadians have 26 championships between them. Technically true, and it makes it sound like all of these teams have won the Stanley Cup many times. The reality is that Montreal has won 23 championships, and the other teams I mentioned have won only once each.
Perhaps the pro-gun control stats mentioned by the CDC are the statistical outlier in that they attempt to be honest in their statistical arguments for gun control, but I see no reason to presume so.
@@jeremykraenzlein5975 No I definately don't believe they are acting in good faith. Not after seeing as much of their "data" and thinkpieces as I have. Gun control stats are some of the easiest places to see innumeracy and cherrypicking in action. This is partly why gun control activists have to make it an emotional issue: this is what you do to win when the data isn't on your side. Radical left wingers commonly employ these tactics.
Anyway in my opinion none of this even matters. Owning a gun is your inalienable right and nothing can change that. It is not up for discussion. This narrative that gun owners have to justify their ownership of a gun is nonsense.
As a libertarian, I fully support the second ammendment
It kind of makes sends that living in a gated community, alone and getting in trouble for drinking at work would correlate with being murdered at home. People don't put up walls if they trust their neighbors and it's much easier to overwhelm a single person than multiple ones.
Remember, it is the right to bear ARMS, not just guns. Think tanks, blackhawks, drones, etc. We have a gun mentality when in truth the weapons needed to defend ourselves against tyranny have advanced significantly since the founding. The founders thought of this when wording the second ammendment.
The category of "arms" also includes both weapons and armor - basically anything that can be used to attack or defend.
I forgot what ruling it was but it has been ruled before that Arms doesn't just mean firearms. Arms can mean any type of defensive or offensive tool. This ruling involved a taser which was ruled as an Arm so it's constitutionally protected.
@@alanlight7740 The only thing that should be discluded are chemical warfare because those are immoral weapons. Maybe require a license for nukes at the least to prevent major incidents. This is how far weapons control should go
Exactly.
Self defense should be considered an unalienable right for all.
Love how direct and precise Aaron Brown is on these. Spot on again pointing out things that are so absurd as to deserve ridicule, which are instead being promoted without their appropriate context because that context discredits the narrative of authoritarian ideologues.
Don’t waste my taxpayer money on “mental health”
When a gun will do the same thing
The fact that the CDC interpreted a ban on creating biased and unscientific anti-gun propaganda as a ban on researching gun violence tells you everything you need to know about the need for the ban.
Yep.
The CDC doesn’t warrant an opinion about anyone’s second amendment right.
These guns are generally referred to as “crime guns” though some of them may not have been recovered during the commission of a crime
This was my favorite part of the atf report
Indeed.
The lack of guns able to defend against criminals is a danger to the public!
We need more a freer guns for our citizens’ protection!
They want your guns…do not give it to them!
First time I fired a gun was 8 years old I have had access to guns for 22 years I'm in zero danger lmao
We've forgotten that they used to refer to humans as the thinking animal. Now any/every anti-social violent behavior is excused or reasoned away leaving just the animal that lashes out. Never taught empathy, compassion or self control.
A large number of incidents are suicides. If the method is guns was it the tool or the desire? We all know it's the desire and the tool is the most successful.
They ignore the problem that no one thinks or cares of consequences or accountability.
The CDC should not be studying gun violence. Look it up. This is beyond the scope of what the CDC is supposed to be legally doing.
It is weird how a disease control agency is talking about gun deaths. Last time I checked guns weren't ebola?
@@S1D3W1ND3R015 That's what happens when you have a "public health" agency ran by a bunch of Karens.
With the large number of homeless people living on the streets does that mean every murder committed out in the streets is a murder in someone's home?
Technically, their home is the street.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
Fuck it! Let’s call everything a public health crisis. Social media. Fast cars. Rock and roll. Everything.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
I think guns should only be legal if in the hands of private citizens. The government should not be allowed to own any weapons whatsoever, and all of our soldiers and police should be armed with their own personal weapons (it's cool if the government pays for them, but the weapons will always belong to the individual citizen)
I don't think that is very viable when it comes to the necessity of complex weapons systems for national defense. Systems that are extremely expensive with massive support and maintenance requirements such as tanks and aircraft.
I can see both your point, and @quietus13 point. It should be qualified as "small arms" in that respect. Personal weapons so to speak. But that in general creates a whole subset of problems to be fleshed out.
@@quietus13 Well our founding fathers didn't intend for us to have a standing army. Our Constitution was framed and written with the idea that we wouldn't have a permanent military. Of course it was also written with the idea that Senators wouldn't be directly elected either but here we are.
I remember the 1993 study being cited by Marge on The Simpsons when homer bought his own gun. "TV said that!?" Lol!
Guns are a health issue like spoons, hammers, dirt, or any other inanimate object would be a health issue.
Inanimate radioactive objects are a health issue. Don't eat uranium, kids.
That was a really poor analogy.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
@@bloodspartan300 not really "if" you see it in the proper perspective. Since when are inanimate objects a health issue? When all that should be considered is the individual with a health issue.
Asbestos, lead, and seat belts are inanimate objects, do you consider those not to be a health issue as well?
4:33 For other things, the required P value is 0.01. Events with a probability of 1 in 20 happen way too often for 0.05 to be a meaningful P number.
Yep, the classic issue in epidemiology is that a study with 100 control parameters will fail to show significance, so the researchers will data mine the control data, whereupon they magically find 4-6 parameters that do have the studied for effect with 95% certainty.
Does drinking diet coke cause obesity or does being heavy lead one to drinking diet coke?
@@WeighedWilson It's rare for anyone to point out the "correlation equals causation" fallacy in these discussions.
Guns are bad for the Criminal Industrial complex. Crime necessitates courts, judges, lawyers, cleks etc. The you have prisons and their builders and suppliers and the prison staff including wardens, guards etc and finally police and detectives etc. If law abiding citizens pop off the criminals this whole business is ruined.
If you think about it law-abiding citizens should not have weapons and criminals should receive them at state expense. makes perfect business sense.
In Spring 2020, I took a global health course where I kind of tangentially learned about the thought process public health officials have.
The CDC already has an injury and accidents unit, and I think most would agree that’s fair and appropriate. However, accidents aren’t pathogens. Thus, health officials define their job as to reduce harm to humans because preserving human life and health is paramount.
Diseases are then classified as anything that causes harm to humans, and all diseases fall within the purview of the CDC. Mental well-being is also considered part of human health and thus causes of mental harm such as stress are also diseases and thus fall within the purview of the CDC.
While I did learn many useful things in the class, and I do agree with some of the points above, a significant portion of the class was constantly expanding out the definitions of disease and harm, and thus what should be controlled by public health officials.
My favorite highlights were when racism or even just lack of diversity, which can cause stress and thus harm, are public health issues and thus the CDC should have a say in controlling them. (My professor really wanted Congress to adopt a racial quota system. So many seats for white representatives, so many reserved for black representatives, and so on.)
At one point, they finally let the cat out of the bag and they showed us an interview of someone (I believe it was the Vice President of the CDC, but I could be wrong) who just straight up said, “political power is a public health issue.” (PS I have been trying for a while to find that clip again, if someone knows what I’m talking about can you please tell me where I can find it.)
Suffice to say, I loved that class it was great.
While the information was likely very enlightening, it certainly exposed the subversive nature they seem to espouse. Power hungry.
Classic mission/concept creep. The bureaucracy exists to expand the bureaucracy...
This is exactly why we have a constitution. To remind the authority that there are powers reserved for the people. Including our rights to free speech, peaceful association, bear arms, security in our possessions, freedom to not self incriminate and others.
Guns can endanger more than the user, they can endanger the public, therefore guns are a public health matter.
@@A_J502 No they aren't Karen.
Then are knives a public health issue? What about power tools?
I've just killed 25 people with my power tool, in 120 seconds. I really must be dangerous....
They dont kill as many people
I see what they're saying, infact I agree with the contradictions they pointed out with the reports in this video...
But then again, for the other half of the population without guns, to them, they can see that a knife and power tool can't nail down 15 people in a matter of seconds.
I wonder how much cardio you'd need to achieve the same with those tools.
@@alexcarlone7967 But what about injuries?
@@usmanGTA it's easy to find countless examples of mass murders by vehicle, knives, swords, poison, etc. Guns being singled out is usually just fear mongering.
“The risk of suicide via gun was raised by 5% [when a gun was in the household]” honestly I’d be concerned if it wasn’t that way
Yeah it like saying people that travel in cars are 5% more likely to be saved by an airbag in a car accident as opposed to individuals that don’t travel in cars. Or Those in Honolulu are 5% more likely to surf daily than those living in Dallas.
I just always tell my non-gun owner friends that if they want to go to the range with me and convert to freedom I'll gladly pay for their time and ammunition. That's when you learn guns aren't the demons the media makes them out to be, every gun has a person behind it.
Speaking of violence, it is time for cannabis users to stop being kind and patient doormats for those in power who love to victimize.
Actual gun violence is low, it's when they mix suicide with guns into gun violence numbers to try to make a point. Also (gun crime) shows a trend of being in gun restricted cities.
As soon as the studies were to be funded by the CDC is the exact time we would have numerous "undeniable claims" from them as to what gun control needed to be enacted.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
CDC "researching" "gun violence" is just an overt case of "when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Why can't we put all this obsession over "researching" "gun violence" into actual research and study into _violent crime_ . Shouldn't we be more concerned about violence and crime as opposed to just one _means_ of perpetrating violent crime? Shouldn't we want to understand and reduce ALL _violent crime_ rather than just obsess over one specific means that violent crime might be perpetrated? If we instead put that obsession into actual understanding and mitigation of violent crime in general, not only would "gun violence" be reduced, but we would _also_ gain the benefit of reducing not just "gun violence" but ALL violent crime. But I guess to some people, violent crime not committed with guns is of no concern to them and is just a-ok since they don't seem to be concerned by it, bothered by it, or understanding and reducing it. But if we were to look at that, it might draw unwanted attention onto various anointed identities, and we can't allow that. So they have to distract from any possibility of that by blame shifting to an inanimate object. And in what I am sure they see as a bonus, they can use that to blame shift to identities they hate (because they disagree with them) and want to vilify.
Always, ALWAYS question the motives of anyone who desires to strip you of your right and ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property. If they struggle to understand (or flatly ignore) something as simple as the phrase "Shall not be infringed", then should they really be writing policy and laws for millions of people?
When Hitler took the Jews' guns, he was worried about their safety.
What would be interesting to me is a statistical study of the damage that the sloppy application of statistics in research has caused.
The only problem is, who could be trusted to do the study?
Competent statisticians seem to be as rare as hen's teeth. Certainly most of the academic "research" of the past century is riddled with obvious errors - frequently not just concerning statistics but just basic math where the researchers appear to be unable to add or subtract accurately.
@@alanlight7740 I mean fair enough but in fairness this is a bit of a pipe dream to begin with but yeah you're right it would be hard to find someone good to do it
My gun isn’t a Heath my gun isn’t a health issue…unless someone tries to take it.
And back then , there was not rules saying your guns and ammo needs to be locked up .
A major shortcoming of the CDC gun violence study is that it relies on the body count doctrine that was a colossal failure in Vietnam. One glaring similarity is that in Vietnam every dead body was at least one Vietcong--if not four or five Vietcong guerrillas. Every dead body in the home was due to gunfire from the gun in the home in the CDC study.
Same thing with COVID...once COVID came along notice no one died from the Flu anymore? It doesn't (shouldn't) take a genius to figure out what was going on there. The CDC is a politically bankrupt organization at this point.
Excellent video, and I'm glad you brought in a statistician to talk about why the most-touted study was so flawed. People like to talk about how "pro-gun research" authors like John Lott are biased, but Kellerman was openly biased against guns, too, and unlike Lott, hid his data for years. I'm not saying Lott is a beacon of intellectual honesty -- for all I know, he is extremely biased here -- but I have a lot more respect for a researcher that says, "Here's my data, come show me how I'm wrong."
I'm also not against gun violence research, or moreover, violence research in general. I'm not even entirely against funding some of it with tax dollars. It's one of the few issues we can all agree is a problem, since our murder rate is higher than most developed nations. But it should be done right and by groups who are properly equipped for it.
I am from Europe. Basically most people here can get a handgun of the black market for around $50, Ak 47 for around $300-$500 and an RPG for around 1-1,5K $. I would also like to mention that I live in a shitty part of Europe, I was even offered a fragmentation grenade for $5 a piece in the middle school (they used them as fire crackers during the new year parties)... I would also like to mention that you can literally find an AR receiver on most torrent sites, 3D print the mold and make it from aluminium cans (at the temperature of around 600 degrees, you can basically use homemade stuff to make it...) .
There are no school shootings, no extreme gun violence or mass shootings, almost makes you think that the problem is cultural and not based on availability of the firearms...
Cars are a public health emergency.
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
The idea of wasting our tax money on mental health is dumb
I don’t care how many school shootings there are a year. Doesn’t matter.
They are according to the wef, international law and the global constitution. Load of malarkey!!
Living in Northern California and there's a serial killer on the loose but you cant carry without going through tons of hoops, with limited guns on the roster. Cops will surely be there the instant you need them.
I find beyond preposterous the notion that a law abiding citizen should be expected by law to just cross their fingers twice: once that the person who's already commiting a crime by breaking and entering _won't_ be the kind of criminal that commits worse crimes *and* that the _defunded_ police will arrive soon enough to deal with the situation.
Having said that, if I could find some report that the overwhelming majority of gun owners take cqc classes and take full advantage of being on their home turf to position themselves somewhere they can ambush an assailant, I'd be all for gun ownership. Now, full disclosure, I've never seen any research of such kkind, all I have is a small sample of anectodal evidence but most I ever see about gun ownership seems to be about shooting targets far away in a firing range, with long weapons, unsuited for close quarters, and some notion that "the great equalizer" will turn a law abbiding citizen with neither the desire nor experience in taking lives, into some Jon Wick character.
To me, any law that punishes a home owner for hiding in a dark, out of sight corner and ambushing someone who broke into his house is an objectively bad law, but any person, still half asleep from being suddenly awaken in the middle of the night, that goes out looking to scare away someone (that already knows where you live) and that by definition is a criminal, is asking for trouble and going after it
I wonder what would happen if the CDC (and other similar government agencies) were required to publish, open and free of charge, all methodology and underlying data for all research it funds, even if the research produces no publishable results? The point would be to first; ensure that anyone who cares to do the legwork can critically asses the methodology and analysis used, and second; ensure that there isn't a publication bias for results that support any given addenda (including things like looking smart and getting more funding).
Thanks Reason! I think private groups can study whatever they want. Peer reviewed studies are great. Find out why people want to kill each other, but don't make tax payers fund it. So long as everyone agrees there is a way to change the constitution, but the current reading is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Yes, the old texts are written in stone and will always remain the same and never change. Except all those ''amendments''. Those don't count. Nor the future ones. Because back in the day, people were smarter than us dummies. Peak evolution occured in 1787. Don't spend tax money on health research. Genius!
Fully agree on the taxpayer part, but the core problem was taxdollars used for political think-tank style advocacy. A deeply flawed study was produced to influence an external political outcome, rather than tax dollars being spent so the organization itself understands something better. I would object far less to tax dollars being used to educate and train public servants for example.
There are many reasons why people kill each other. They want your stuff, they don't like your face or your politics, revenge, self defense, etc. You can't just boil it down to a simple study.
wow --- great episode
Medical errors ARE a health issue and medical errors are either the third or sixth leading cause of death, depending on which study you want to believe.
If guns are cdc’s idea of a virus,I am seriously infected….🤷♂️ 😂 If all these people will place signs in their yards declaring no guns in this home,it would help keep criminals safe and us from shooting them.
Lori Lightfoot seems like an awful mayor, but when FoxNews or Breitbart constantly bash her based on the sheer number of shootings in Chicago I'm always like "Yeah, but, how many of those shootings are good people defending themselves? Maybe 50 shootings every weekend is a good thing."
I think you'll find that the answer to your question is very few.
Have you ever taken a look at how hard it is for a law abiding citizen to get a concealed carry permit in IL? The VAST majority of gun violence in IL will be crime related (drugs/gangs).
@@212caboose Yes, and how many drug dealers (a minor crime) find themselves targets of attempted murder (a major crime), and defend themselves with a gun (a good tool)?
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
@@Appleblade .....what?
All I'm hearing is that they gave an agency with a hammer a screw and then were surprised when they hammered it in instead of screwing it in.
Another excellent Reason vid..calm. Dispassionate and reasoned.
Time to really get busy persuading our friends and neighbors to vote Libertarian (if they are inclined to vote at all).
Trying. It’s hard to help brainwashed people see the light.
We're all with you right up to the point you tell us chemically castrating a little boy or murdering an unborn baby is cool. The LP requires a healthy dose of Jesus Christ. Until then, you can forget it.
Imagine voting Libertarian 🤮🤮
@@2vexy It's nearly as disturbing as voting R or D.
@@myrealfakename6068 It's worse
What you get when you curate your “research” to match a pre-drawn conclusions.
#RIPnuance #RIPobjectivity
Shall NOT be infringed.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
I don't consider drug dealers and gangsters killing each other in the bad thing column. The less of them the better.
Would you all agree that people and not guns are risk factor? Please reply!
Then why do we only have 3 mass shootings in 35 years with all combined 25 victims here in Europe?
Yes, people kill people, using a variety of tools. Guns are just a cordless hole punch.
I agree that a gun burried 2 meters deep isn't going to shoot anyone, but by your logic, people are the risk factor for anything and everything. Any tool without a person is just a collection of atoms. People use all sorts of weapons or improvised things or non at all. The problem is when virtually anyone can get their hands on a weapon that is designed to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time and buy as many rounds as you please. A simple hand gun can have 8 rounds or more in it. A common glock can shoot semi-automatically.
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
Thats one of the issues with america. A small few make decisions that affect 330,000,000 Americans but yet they dont know a damn thing about the items they are making the law on.
the suicide rate in the US is lower than in Europe where guns are rarer and lower still than in Japan and South Korea where guns are almost non existent.
Maybe we should take a look at who is using those guns, demographically
Stop noticing things biggot.
You expect me to leave the house without carrying a firearm while crime is up like this? Yeah no
Based.
When I'm in trouble, I can rely on my only two friends; Smith and Wesson. Or my other two pals; Heckler and Koch.
The only health issue I've witnessed are MENTAL health issues. You have people that can't decide what gender they are, think that men can get pregnant, and that we're all going to die if we don't drive EVs.
It's why a lot of us refer to this as "clown world". People that have absolutely no business crossing a street by themselves are suddenly allowed to dictate national policy. It's insanity.
I'm honestly surprised that Reason had an intelligent take for once. If only they looked into the actual facts and data with things like drugs, abortion, degeneracy, borders, and election integrity rather than just believing whatever the news media and "experts" say.
Let's look at history as opposed to the murky surface arguments. Guns are a threat to DEMOCRATS and their agenda to tax away 80% of your income. If your paying some crazy tax invented in the last 122 years their is a 99.99% chance it was a Democrat that wrote it and voted for it. If you don't think some shape or form of "FINANCIAL SLAVERY" is going to take place in the future you have not been studying history. Gun Control inevitably leads to genocides and systems of taxation that boarder on slavery.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well regulated means well trained, not tons of laws.
Speech is violence… this sort of linguistic hijacking is everywhere nowadays.
Guns are catalyst in this whole thing not a cause. This is something that I learned being raised by a gun nut. If you take the right precautions and be proactive them you have mitigated the chances of the mundane & worse possibilities. This also applies to issues of mental health & socioeconomic issue.
Guns are not a catalyst in any way, shape, or form. The fact you call 2A supporters "gun nuts" makes your input entirely irrelevant.
I'm referring to a parent and being pro 2A the gun nut isn't meant to be pejorative but a compliment on their interest in firearms and firearm safety. As for the catalyst part it describes how guns affect outcomes without starting them, a misconception that most people failed to distinguish from something that causes the problem. It's being used in line with it's chemistry definition.
Thank you so much!!!
IT's almost as if people have an agenda.
It's so ridiculous this shouldn't even need to be said.
A gun won't save my life....it just gives me a fighting chance to survive.
Hit out of the park every time!
What we really need is cross disciplinary study on what drives people to violence.
So true.
We need to have real conversations. Lies like the 1993 study do not help us. Correlation is not causation and guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem. They are a solution to a problem.
Really some good journalism here.
The idea that having a gun doesn't project you is crap. Many people including myself own guns for protection because not everybody has it easy.
Having a gun in the home increases the chance of gun related injury/death much in the same way a backyard pool increases the likelihood of drowning. It's simply because the variable is now present.
Should be viewed as a mental health issue and that's very specific cases.
You don't hear people speak that clearly much anymore
the NRA has rarely ever worked in favor of gun owners