"CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

1
The Centers For Disease Control (CDC) deleted a reference to a study it commissioned after a group of gun-control advocates complained it made passing new restrictions more difficult. The lobbying campaign spanned months and culminated with a private meeting between CDC officials and three advocates last summer, a collection of emails obtained by The Reload show. Introductions from the White House and Senator Dick Durbin’s (D., Ill.) office helped the advocates reach top officials at the agency after their initial attempt to reach out went unanswered.

The advocates focused their complaints on the CDC’s description of its review of studies that estimated defensive gun uses (DGU) happen between 60,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the United States–attacking criminologist Gary Kleck’s work establishing the top end of the range. “[T]hat 2.5 Million number needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again,” Mark Bryant, one of the attendees, wrote to CDC officials after their meeting. “It is highly misleading, is used out of context and I honestly believe it has zero value – even as an outlier point in honest DGU discussions.” Bryant, who runs the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), argued Kleck’s estimate has been damaging to the political prospects of passing new gun restrictions and should be eliminated from the CDC’s website. Despite initially standing behind the description in the defensive gun use section of its “fast facts” website on gun violence, the CDC backtracked after a previously-undisclosed virtual meeting with the advocates on September 15th, 2021.
The decision to remove a CDC-commissioned report from the agency’s website on gun statistics at the apparent behest of gun-control advocates may further strain its relationship with Congressional overseers, especially pro-gun Republicans who are set to take control of the House next year. The relationship between the two, already frayed over the Coronavirus pandemic, could reach new lows not seen in decades. During the 1990s, Congress put restrictions on CDC funding in response to officials openly working with gun-control groups to try and ban handguns. “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention, told The Washington Post in 1994. “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol–cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly–and banned.”
Kleck, Professor Emeritus at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, stood by his research. He said the CDC did not reach out to him for his perspective before making the change. He argued the removal of the reference to his estimate was “blatant censorship” and said it was evidence of the politicization of the agency. “CDC is just aligning itself with the gun-control advocacy groups,” Kleck told The Reload. “It’s just saying: ‘we are their tool, and we will do their bidding.’ And that’s not what a government agency should do.”
https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-remove ... e-meeting/

The Reload is journalist Stephan Gutowski and David Yamane has written for it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

5
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention, told The Washington Post in 1994. “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol–cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly–and banned.”
That's the game plan that Democrats and the media have been following over the decades, guns are evil and dangerous and should be banned.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

6
highdesert wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:09 am
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention, told The Washington Post in 1994. “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol–cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly–and banned.”
That's the game plan that Democrats and the media have been following over the decades, guns are evil and dangerous and should be banned.
tobacco isn't banned.

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

7
There's an old Russian adage that half a loaf of bread is just half a loaf, but half of the truth is a LIE!
Unless that defensive use of firearms report can be shown to be substantially defective in its Science and Statistics, removing it is EXACTLY what Trumpists and Force-Birth advocates do--and just as immoral and wrong.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

9
F4FEver wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:34 am
highdesert wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:09 am
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention, told The Washington Post in 1994. “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol–cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly–and banned.”
That's the game plan that Democrats and the media have been following over the decades, guns are evil and dangerous and should be banned.
tobacco isn't banned.
Really? People 18-20 have been banned from buying tobaco for decades now. Clove cigarettes have been banned for more than a decade for no reason other than that they smell pleasant and are therefore appealing to people. Menthol cigarettes are in the process of being banned right now for the very same reason. What you meant to say is that tobacco is not *completely* banned - yet.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

10
There are fundamental differences in the "public health threat" posed by firearms v. tobacco.

Firearms may inflict injury or death to the user, or casual bystanders. Suddenly, more likely than not. Tobacco will inflict injury and death to the user and casual bystanders - very slowly, but the damage accrues over time. Cancer rates for secondhand smoke in high-exposure settings like bars were substantially higher than elsewhere, even for non-users.

Of course, both are addictive.

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

11
Eris wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:24 pm
F4FEver wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:34 am
highdesert wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:09 am
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Mark Rosenberg, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention, told The Washington Post in 1994. “It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol–cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly–and banned.”
That's the game plan that Democrats and the media have been following over the decades, guns are evil and dangerous and should be banned.
tobacco isn't banned.
Really? People 18-20 have been banned from buying tobaco for decades now. Clove cigarettes have been banned for more than a decade for no reason other than that they smell pleasant and are therefore appealing to people. Menthol cigarettes are in the process of being banned right now for the very same reason.
What you meant to say is that tobacco is not *completely* banned
- yet.
c.mon...the quote was.
“It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol–cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly–and banned.”
And I didn't say it, 'highdesert' did.

Never smoked a cigarette, ever..and it is dirty, smelly, disgusting but tobacco nor nicotine is not banned. A 18-20 YO can't buy alcohol or weed either but that doesn't make it 'banned'.

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

12
Looks like this study was done in 2013, in Pres. Obama's second term.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catal ... d-violence

Here's what deleting that reference looks like to me.

Gun controllers response: "We don't like what the the study that our team commissioned says, so now it goes down the memory hole!"
Democrats' response: "We'll get you to the top folks at the CDC so you can pressure the heck out of them, no problem!"

I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the ones that believed in Liberalism! This really, really stinks. Censorship...memory hole...they're getting closer and closer to 1984 as the time goes on, eh? And these people aren't getting Primaried?
Last edited by CowboyT on Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

14
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:35 pm
A true Liberal must back the Second Amendment 100%!
That includes the so-called "prefatory clause" that Scalia dismissed in Heller. Otherwise one is NOT backing the 2nd "100%", but is editing out the "inconvenient part".
Yeah, Scalia wasn't a Liberal (unfortunately). There are indeed times when he did what the Democrats did above.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

15
CowboyT wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:18 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:35 pm
A true Liberal must back the Second Amendment 100%!
That includes the so-called "prefatory clause" that Scalia dismissed in Heller. Otherwise one is NOT backing the 2nd "100%", but is editing out the "inconvenient part".
Yeah, Scalia wasn't a Liberal (unfortunately). There are indeed times when he did what the Democrats did above.
Actually, more frequently than Dems, once you look past just 2A. He was happy to violate 1A, 4A, 5A, and 6A, just as Alito violated 9A. None of the reactionaries on the Court actually believe we have a Right to Privacy, although when you look at the BoR, none of the Amendments, with the possible exception of 7A, make any fucking sense if you do NOT have an implicit Right to Privacy.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

16
Same, sadly, goes for the Democrats, too; they're just as bad. I've watched them repeatedly violate the 1A, 2A, 4A, 9A, 10A, and other parts of the Constitution. It's definitely not just "the other tribe". That's why voting in Primary elections is so important. Just about everybody in the Congress needs to go, IMHO. Same goes for the White House. And that's been true for many years. In this particular case, the Dems seem to support 1984's "memory hole". That's a very bad thing, no matter who does it.

We, The People, need to do a much better job of vigilance in the choice of our officials, regardless of political "tribe".
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

17
CowboyT wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:27 pm Same, sadly, goes for the Democrats, too; they're just as bad. I've watched them repeatedly violate the 1A, 2A, 4A, 9A, 10A, and other parts of the Constitution. It's definitely not just "the other tribe". That's why voting in Primary elections is so important. Just about everybody in the Congress needs to go, IMHO. Same goes for the White House. And that's been true for many years. In this particular case, the Dems seem to support 1984's "memory hole". That's a very bad thing, no matter who does it.

We, The People, need to do a much better job of vigilance in the choice of our officials, regardless of political "tribe".
You make these assertions but I do not know when the Dems--in the last 50 years--have looked to violate 1A, 4A, 9A, 10A or anything other than 2A.

You constantly make assertions that sound like Trumpists and Republicans.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

18
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:04 am
CowboyT wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:27 pm Same, sadly, goes for the Democrats, too; they're just as bad. I've watched them repeatedly violate the 1A, 2A, 4A, 9A, 10A, and other parts of the Constitution. It's definitely not just "the other tribe". That's why voting in Primary elections is so important. Just about everybody in the Congress needs to go, IMHO. Same goes for the White House. And that's been true for many years. In this particular case, the Dems seem to support 1984's "memory hole". That's a very bad thing, no matter who does it.

We, The People, need to do a much better job of vigilance in the choice of our officials, regardless of political "tribe".
You make these assertions but I do not know when the Dems--in the last 50 years--have looked to violate 1A, 4A, 9A, 10A or anything other than 2A.

You constantly make assertions that sound like Trumpists and Republicans.
The party that's in favor of red flag laws aren't trying to destroy 4th Amendment protections? That's news to me.

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

19
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:04 am You make these assertions but I do not know when the Dems--in the last 50 years--have looked to violate 1A, 4A, 9A, 10A or anything other than 2A.

You constantly make assertions that sound like Trumpists and Republicans.
Ah, I was wondering when that canard would come out. No, it's simply that I'm as willing to call out inconsistency from the Democrats as I am the Republicans or anyone else. You seem not to like it when "your tribe" gets called on this, and that's really unfortunate. We should be just as willing to call "our team" (whatever "our team" may be) out on their problems as we are "the other team(s)".
TEXGunny wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:34 pm The party that's in favor of red flag laws aren't trying to destroy 4th Amendment protections? That's news to me.
Agreed, and well said.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

20
CowboyT wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:48 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:04 am You make these assertions but I do not know when the Dems--in the last 50 years--have looked to violate 1A, 4A, 9A, 10A or anything other than 2A.

You constantly make assertions that sound like Trumpists and Republicans.
Ah, I was wondering when that canard would come out. No, it's simply that I'm as willing to call out inconsistency from the Democrats as I am the Republicans or anyone else. You seem not to like it when "your tribe" gets called on this, and that's really unfortunate. We should be just as willing to call "our team" (whatever "our team" may be) out on their problems as we are "the other team(s)".
TEXGunny wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:34 pm The party that's in favor of red flag laws aren't trying to destroy 4th Amendment protections? That's news to me.
Agreed, and well said.
Still not supporting your assertions. BOTH parties support red flag laws. But you're willing to toss out words like "canard".
I learned when I was 10, that when someone belittles you when you ask a question, it's because they cannot answer it.
That was 57 years ago that I learned that hard lesson, and the belittler was over 50, trying to make a 10 year old look stupid when, in fact, he could not answer me.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

21
TEXGunny wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 3:34 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:04 am
CowboyT wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:27 pm Same, sadly, goes for the Democrats, too; they're just as bad. I've watched them repeatedly violate the 1A, 2A, 4A, 9A, 10A, and other parts of the Constitution. It's definitely not just "the other tribe". That's why voting in Primary elections is so important. Just about everybody in the Congress needs to go, IMHO. Same goes for the White House. And that's been true for many years. In this particular case, the Dems seem to support 1984's "memory hole". That's a very bad thing, no matter who does it.

We, The People, need to do a much better job of vigilance in the choice of our officials, regardless of political "tribe".
You make these assertions but I do not know when the Dems--in the last 50 years--have looked to violate 1A, 4A, 9A, 10A or anything other than 2A.

You constantly make assertions that sound like Trumpists and Republicans.
The party that's in favor of red flag laws aren't trying to destroy 4th Amendment protections? That's news to me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/five-ho ... law-2022-6

BTW-a restraining order, say because of 'potential' domestic violence is the same thing...A roadside search, with 'probable cause', something every GOP leaning LEO does daily. 'Your license plate light is out'.....'You didn't use your directional'..'do I smell marijuana?'...step out of the car....happens everyday.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...
BTW-a properly administered RFL could very well have prevented more than a few 'mass shootings'. Like the Club Q murders...IF the local tyrant LEO hadn't ignored it.
Or the Boulder grocery store shooting, or the Denver Tattoo parlor shootings or the............etc. How many women would have been beaten up or killed w/o a properly obtained and administered restraining order?
Last edited by F4FEver on Sat Feb 11, 2023 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

22
F4FEver wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:18 am
--snrps--

BTW-a properly administered RFL could very well have prevented more than a few 'mass shootings'. Like the Club Q murders...IF the local tyrant LEO hadn't ignored it.
Or the Boulder grocery store shooting, or the Denver Tattoo parlor shootings or the............etc. How many women would have been beaten up or killed w/o a properly obtained and administered retraining order?
I believe this to be true. If we paint out an extremist interpretation of Red Flag Laws, we do a disservice to laws that in unfortunate hindsight would have worked. Proper administration of due process is a good thing.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting"

23
CDFingers wrote:
F4FEver wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:18 am
--snrps--

BTW-a properly administered RFL could very well have prevented more than a few 'mass shootings'. Like the Club Q murders...IF the local tyrant LEO hadn't ignored it.
Or the Boulder grocery store shooting, or the Denver Tattoo parlor shootings or the............etc. How many women would have been beaten up or killed w/o a properly obtained and administered retraining order?
I believe this to be true. If we paint out an extremist interpretation of Red Flag Laws, we do a disservice to laws that in unfortunate hindsight would have worked. Proper administration of due process is a good thing.

CDFingers
Every RFL I've seen on paper (all by the Dems) has been a blatant violation of the due process clause. I'd challenge anyone to come up with one example of a RFL that doesn't. The idea of a judicial proceeding without a conviction by a jury removing someone's constitutional rights is simply unthinkable... Unless you're talking about guns. Then all you need to do is say "think of the x y or z" and it's ok. That's not how rights work. That is the case with RFL as well as protective orders, which in almost every jurisdiction is a civil proceeding in which the accused is rarely informed or given an opportunity to defend him or herself and doesn't have right to council.

The question is do we support the second amendment or do we not? I may not like having a potential (but not proven) domestic abuser armed, but that's the whole point off rights. They have the right to bear arms until a court decides they can't during the course of normal due process.

What's next, bench warrants to quarter government officials?

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk


Re:

24
TEXGunny wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:59 pm
CDFingers wrote:
F4FEver wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:18 am
--snrps--

BTW-a properly administered RFL could very well have prevented more than a few 'mass shootings'. Like the Club Q murders...IF the local tyrant LEO hadn't ignored it.
Or the Boulder grocery store shooting, or the Denver Tattoo parlor shootings or the............etc. How many women would have been beaten up or killed w/o a properly obtained and administered retraining order?
I believe this to be true. If we paint out an extremist interpretation of Red Flag Laws, we do a disservice to laws that in unfortunate hindsight would have worked. Proper administration of due process is a good thing.

CDFingers
Every RFL I've seen on paper (all by the Dems) has been a blatant violation of the due process clause. I'd challenge anyone to come up with one example of a RFL that doesn't. The idea of a judicial proceeding without a conviction by a jury removing someone's constitutional rights is simply unthinkable... Unless you're talking about guns. Then all you need to do is say "think of the x y or z" and it's ok. That's not how rights work. That is the case with RFL as well as protective orders, which in almost every jurisdiction is a civil proceeding in which the accused is rarely informed or given an opportunity to defend him or herself and doesn't have right to council.

The question is do we support the second amendment or do we not? I may not like having a potential (but not proven) domestic abuser armed, but that's the whole point off rights. They have the right to bear arms until a court decides they can't during the course of normal due process.

What's next, bench warrants to quarter government officials?

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Yes, I haven’t seen one yet that wasn’t an infringement or denied due process. In principle fine, if you can craft one that protects an individual’s rights and can’t be used by others as an act of vengeance or retribution I’d be in support. Have not seen one yet.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Re:

25
sikacz wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:10 pm
TEXGunny wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:59 pm
CDFingers wrote:
F4FEver wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:18 am
--snrps--

BTW-a properly administered RFL could very well have prevented more than a few 'mass shootings'. Like the Club Q murders...IF the local tyrant LEO hadn't ignored it.
Or the Boulder grocery store shooting, or the Denver Tattoo parlor shootings or the............etc. How many women would have been beaten up or killed w/o a properly obtained and administered retraining order?
I believe this to be true. If we paint out an extremist interpretation of Red Flag Laws, we do a disservice to laws that in unfortunate hindsight would have worked. Proper administration of due process is a good thing.

CDFingers
Every RFL I've seen on paper (all by the Dems) has been a blatant violation of the due process clause. I'd challenge anyone to come up with one example of a RFL that doesn't. The idea of a judicial proceeding without a conviction by a jury removing someone's constitutional rights is simply unthinkable... Unless you're talking about guns. Then all you need to do is say "think of the x y or z" and it's ok. That's not how rights work. That is the case with RFL as well as protective orders, which in almost every jurisdiction is a civil proceeding in which the accused is rarely informed or given an opportunity to defend him or herself and doesn't have right to council.

The question is do we support the second amendment or do we not? I may not like having a potential (but not proven) domestic abuser armed, but that's the whole point off rights. They have the right to bear arms until a court decides they can't during the course of normal due process.

What's next, bench warrants to quarter government officials?

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Yes, I haven’t seen one yet that wasn’t an infringement or denied due process. In principle fine, if you can craft one that protects an individual’s rights and can’t be used by others as an act of vengeance or retribution I’d be in support. Have not seen one yet.
Agree. I'm all for the concept. But the execution always seems to be lacking.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests