On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 22:36:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I'm not "suggesting", I posted a link to an article citing
an actual study. Funny you clipped it and then ignored it,
probably without reading it. That's the behavior of a troll.
OK, let me describe how an intelligent consumer approaches something
First of all, every news medium has an editorial position... you may
call it a "bias" if you please. The New York Times has an editorial
bias, as does WaPo. I always ask: what is the editorial position of
< QUOTE (from your news article) >
The liberal media are terrified of the truth, especially when it leads
to uncomfortable questions about their own leftist worldview.
CNSNews covers the stories that the liberal media are afraid to touch.
It drives the national debate through real, honest journalism not by
misrepresenting, misquoting, or ignoring the facts.
< /QUOTE >
Right! OK, so I will expect to see them quoting NRA spokes-people and
generally touting their political philosophy; I was not long to be
< QUOTE >
"The findings of the CDC's study - that guns are an effective and
often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not
fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research." John
Frazer, director of research and information at the National Rifle
Association (NRA), told CNSNews.com.
< /QUOTE >
May I interject a couple of points?
Point 1) The "study" they're discussing was done by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, not the CDC... but
one must read more closely than JW is likely to read before one will
find that little tid-bit buried down in paragraph six. They never
cite the original document; however, it may be accessed via:
(Before you waste bandwidth, please be aware that it's a 160-page
document without the bib.)
Point 2) It's not a "study"... it is an exhaustive literature review,
the stated purpose of which is to identify "Priorities for Research to
Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" (which is its official
title). The document neither produces data nor states any "findings"
besides identifying weaknesses and recommending research priorities.
Point 2a) It's almost seven years old; the priorities may well
Point 3) The document never says that there are or ever were three
million defensive gun uses per year (or even one, for that matter); it
says "a national survey" suggests that and then they cite Kleck (then
CNS changes that to "*all* national surveys...", which is true, I
suppose, since there is only one such survey). But, Kleck says only
that three million people would respond affirmatively to his survey if
it were run nationally.
Point 3a) The document points out Kleck's problem with
operational definitions: a "DGU" is an answer to a survey.
Point 4) In the original paper, there is an entire chapter dedicated
to "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" which
documents a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide
suggesting that a gun in the home might increase the probability of a
family member dying by gunfire.
But, JW didn't see that part because the only thing JW read was an
800-word blog article condensed by the NRA just for him... then, the
fool says *I* don't read.