TexasCHLforum.com

rbwhatever1 wrote:Apparently these two guys have problems making rationale conclusions if they need a CDC report to tell them "what or how" to think. What's extremely Logical to most of us on this forum concerning firearms is completely foreign to non thinking humans.

Is the CDC a liberal organization? I'd expect reasonable and unbiased statistics out of them, but obviously we don't think that is what is happening... Why? Because we don't like the results in the data.

I can tell you that for me, acting on what is "obvious" or "rational" often results in poor results when I ignore the actual data. In fact, in terms of making business decisions, all we do is look a the data - results are much better that way.

There is nothing wrong with making policy on statistical results. If the studies are biased or inaccurate, let's point that out. But saying that people have "problems" because they base policy on what (should be) unbiased studies doesn't make much sense to me. Heck, if we applied science and statistics to governmental policy, things might get a lot better around here. It'd certainly put an end to spending on the TSA and the War on Drugs.

In 1996, Congress banned the CDC from doing any gun based study (gun control). I read that one of two ways:
1) The CDC is liberal and can't be trusted. Of course, statements like "“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” (1994) sure don't sound unbiased to me.
2) An interest group that had control over congress was afraid of the science and statistics.. I wonder what group that could be?


Before you throw the CDC under a bus and indicate that policy based on statistics and science runs against "rational conclusions", also know that CDC reporting has provided the following:
1) Defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals
2) Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths are a small fraction of all deaths and are declining as a trend
3) The probable result of introducing additional background checks cannot be determined
4) Firearm buybacks do very little to reduce crime

I was specifically referring to the opinions of two "humans" and not the CDC, or any reports conducted by the CDC.

AndyC wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Andy, I like the avatar.

I tired of seeing my ugly mug ;)

The new one makes you look as if you have lost weight.

Anygunanywhere

rbwhatever1 wrote:I was specifically referring to the opinions of two "humans" and not the CDC, or any reports conducted by the CDC.

Right.. And you think they should make up their own mind based on what they know instead of looking at the data, correct?

cb1000rider wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Apparently these two guys have problems making rationale conclusions if they need a CDC report to tell them "what or how" to think. What's extremely Logical to most of us on this forum concerning firearms is completely foreign to non thinking humans.

Is the CDC a liberal organization? I'd expect reasonable and unbiased statistics out of them, but obviously we don't think that is what is happening... Why? Because we don't like the results in the data.

I can tell you that for me, acting on what is "obvious" or "rational" often results in poor results when I ignore the actual data. In fact, in terms of making business decisions, all we do is look a the data - results are much better that way.

There is nothing wrong with making policy on statistical results. If the studies are biased or inaccurate, let's point that out. But saying that people have "problems" because they base policy on what (should be) unbiased studies doesn't make much sense to me. Heck, if we applied science and statistics to governmental policy, things might get a lot better around here. It'd certainly put an end to spending on the TSA and the War on Drugs.

In 1996, Congress banned the CDC from doing any gun based study (gun control). I read that one of two ways:
1) The CDC is liberal and can't be trusted. Of course, statements like "“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” (1994) sure don't sound unbiased to me.
2) An interest group that had control over congress was afraid of the science and statistics.. I wonder what group that could be?


Before you throw the CDC under a bus and indicate that policy based on statistics and science runs against "rational conclusions", also know that CDC reporting has provided the following:
1) Defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals
2) Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths are a small fraction of all deaths and are declining as a trend
3) The probable result of introducing additional background checks cannot be determined
4) Firearm buybacks do very little to reduce crime

The CDC is prohibited from doing so-called research on the subject because they have a history of presenting skewed and biased reports. Never outright lies, mind you. But something along the lines of 'gun deaths increased x% over last year' while not differentiating how many of those deaths were thug vs thug or justified self-defense, etc. Basically the idea is to keep public funds from supporting junk science with predetermined outcomes.

That's one way to look at it and I buy it if you've got CDC researchers making statements like the one I quoted above.
Nothing in DC gets done without political power. Especially muzzling the government.

Apparently that muzzle has expired. Is the CDC a fair organization now? If not, who is qualified to fairly report such statistics in an unbiased manner?

The prohibition either expired or the CDC is operating under imperial edict. Either way, it's just propagandist junk where guns are concerned. In not sure what a reliable source would be.

cb1000rider wrote:That's one way to look at it and I buy it if you've got CDC researchers making statements like the one I quoted above.
Nothing in DC gets done without political power. Especially muzzling the government.

Apparently that muzzle has expired. Is the CDC a fair organization now? If not, who is qualified to fairly report such statistics in an unbiased manner?

The NRA.

sjfcontrol wrote: The NRA.

Yea, no agenda there.

cb1000rider wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: The NRA.

Yea, no agenda there.

Just Truth, Justice and the American Way!

To quote Mark Twain (but edited to conform to forum rules): There are lies, dang lies, and statistics! Pick you poison carefully.

The CDC's liberal biased junk science ...

http://www.thegunmag.com/junk-science-p ... un-rights/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;