Many in government say that if we give them our guns they will keep us safe.

One of the three most frightening statements: "Hi, I'm from the federal government and am here to help you out."

 

When did the New England Journal of Medicine become an anti-gun group?

It sounds as if you believe there is at least a "correlation" between living in a house where there is a gun present and the risk of being shot to death, even if you deny a cause and effect. If a gun did not cause someone to be shot to death, what did?

The following is quoted from https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death
Guns can kill you in three ways: homicide, suicide, and by accident. Owning a gun or having one readily accessible makes all three more likely. One meta-analysis "found strong evidence for increased odds of suicide among persons with access to firearms compared with those without access and moderate evidence for an attenuated increased odds of homicide victimization when persons with and without access to firearms were compared." The latter finding is stronger for women, a reminder that guns are also a risk factor for domestic violence.

The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.

"When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard," Harvard gun expert David Hemenway writes. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "the absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents."

[emphasis mine]

 

Another one is "Put up your hands! I've got a gun!"

 

You did not link to the NEJM.

It does not matter how many different ways or how many times you restate your post hoc fallacy, a fallacy it remains.
Even your own source - using the term "associated" - recognizes a causal effect cannot be shown.

When you can prove the necessary relationship you claim, let us know.

 

Those "experts" should have referenced the CDC which lists the following as causing the most injuries in children (to 15 years old): Falls, motor vehicle crashes, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, fires, being struck by or against an object, animal bites or insect stings,and overexertion. Firearms didn't make the list. Firearms starts to play a bigger part when "children" up to age 23 like as reported in network news are included.

 

Reality and the anti-gun left rarely have use for one another.

 

As you must have heard, the CDC has been prohibited from studying guns as a health hazard for years under political pressure from the NRA. I believe only in the past weeks has its authority to study the effects of guns been restored due to the outcry following the Florida school shooting. That explains why it has little information on guns as a cause of children's injury and death. I hope that the CDC will be allowed to include guns in its future studies of children's injuries.

 

Awww still salty about getting beat by your upstart colony huh?

 

I'm american, your asinine assumptions aside.

 

Well then, answer the question I posed to you on page one. Name one of the "MANY" you claim want to take our guns.

 

Maybe in your house.

 

The CDC has all kinds of information available with regard to guns, kids and death - it is searchable and on their website.
Your implication is their information is incomplete, and is so because it lacks funding to conduct research on cause.
As you know, funding for research on cause is not the same as funding for obtaining raw information - and you have no basis in fact for an argument that the CDC is underfunded that regard.

Feel free to try again.

 

Wow, someone blew a dog whistle in your ear. Got reality much?

 

The ones who want to ban guns that look scary. The logical conclusion to such nonsense is a ban on all guns, because to such people, all guns are scary (unless they're carried by a uniform oc).

 

Then use the real data, not the data that has been possibly warped by an anti-gun site.

The rest of the post was irrelevant to my point, which is your use of biased sources.

 

Actually, it hasn't. The CDC was only prohibited from advocating or promoting gun control. They were allowed to study gun violence.

Here is the exact text of the Dickey Amendment (emphasis added):
110 STAT. 3009–245 PUBLIC LAW 104–208—SEPT. 30, 1996

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

 

You are being disingenuous. If you follow the news, you know that the CDC's ability to study the effect of guns on health was quashed after a 1990s study revealed that having a gun in a house made all of the residents of the house MORE likely to die from a gunshot wound. The NRA pushed Congress to have the study quashed, and in 1996 Congress put the Dickey amendment into the budget bill that not only stated that the CDC could not use funds to advocate or promote gun control," it also redirected the money that the CDC had been using for gun studies to traumatic brain research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html

The fact that CDC zero funds to conduct gun research was in effect a prohibition from conducting that research. The CDC has not had the resources to do any research into gun safety since then.

I though everyone knew that. I think you know that, too, but are pretending you don't for ideological reasons.

Everyone knows in their heart of hearts that the proliferation of guns in our society is responsible tor the fact that the USA has by far the highest homicide rate among modern democracies. It saddens me that people are willing to promote guns in order to score political points even though they know that by doing so they are also promoting murder.

 

Talk about disingenuous. No one is promoting murder. What is your stance? Do you want to see the 2nd amendment repealed and all guns taken away?

 

For people like this, yes.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/detroit-man-shot-and-killed-while-live-on-instagram

http://abc13.com/charges-upgraded-for-woman-accused-in-facebook-live-shooting/3300536/

For people with an IQ over room temperature, not so much.

 

Exactly. It's not all that hard to not kill ones self. Tens of millions of gun owners manage to make it through life without accidentally killing themselves.

 

Correction: The CDC is not prohibited from studying and analyzing gun injuries and violence. They are prohibited from issuing advocacy analyses and reports. Plus they routinely include firearms in their extensive reports on mortality and injuries.
They last (IIRC) issued a research report on guns and violence in 2014. You might (or not) be interested in some of the statements from that report.

• Unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns. Controlling access to guns through background checks or restrictions on particular types of firearms remains controversial, and the effectiveness of various types of control is inadequately researched. Research on the impact of imposing additional penalties for firearm use in illegal activities has also produced mixed results. Studies on the impact of right-to-carry laws on firearm violence also have inconsistent results and have been debated for a decade.
• Risk stratification with respect to mental health and the use of firearms is imprecise and not well understood. Although the risk associated with some specific psychiatric diagnoses is better understood now than in the past, mental health issues that foster a propensity toward violence and risk taking are not well defined and not readily recognized by authorities.
• defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 [????] to more than 3 million per year.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

As I wrote, everyone (including you) knows that the proliferation of firearms in the USA is responsible for the fact that the USA has the highest murder rate in the world. Wrapping yourself in the Second Amendment and doing nothing to stop the carnage makes you partly responsible, even if you manage to convince yourself that it does not. Humans are very good at finding excuses for their destructive instincts. By denying your responsibility for pushing "gun rights" and thereby indirectly enabling murders, you may be fooling yourself, but that does not relieve you of a terrible moral responsibility.

 

You didn't answer my questions.

 

With the funding for the effects of firearms on injuries and deaths taken away by Congress under pressure from the NRA, the CDC is effectively prohibited from studying those injuries and deaths. You bullets (no pun intended) stating that a number of indirectly related studies are inconclusive only illustrate the fact that studies of the health effects of gun ownership are desperately needed. Where's the money to conduct them?