• #3
    The FBI also lumps in justifiable homicides with murders in the statistics. So when they say that there were 11,078 homicides in involving a firearm in 2012 that includes the deaths from citizens and police legitimately shooting people in self defense.
  • #137
    It's still a death and should be reported. To me it shouldn't matter who pulled the trigger or for what reason. To state the obvious its all gun related.
  • #144
    @mebisconer true it is gun related but the problem is that the Anti's use the TOTAL number and disregard how many of those deaths were justified.

    It is like reporting how many people died under a doctors care each year but not reporting what they actually died from. Doctors kill people and they must be stopped.

    Completely ridiculous and just as true as what the Antis report on guns.
  • #147
    It is totally un-important as to the tool of criminal violence. We should consider justified homicides as a positive in that they are the result of saving lives from violent criminals that would not only kill in their last event but in future events as well.
    The goal is reduce criminal violence not the legal self defense use of guns.
  • R Load more replies

  • #102
    Jmiller94 why the hell not, just another reason to spend OUR $$$!!! Who the hell sits around and thinks up this wasteful crap every day that's what I'd like to know.
  • #152
    @MissMostly We have a 2 block area with a Super Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Super Target and a boutique grocery with organic food and 50 restaurants that has been declared by the administration as a food desert. Huh?
  • #153
    @dns_kimble probably because they don't offer enough organic tofu or whatever tasteless tripe is being heralded as the savior of the American heart and waistline by Moochelle this week.
  • #179
    Here Here Mam You just spoke a mouthful and that is definitely a big mouthful :)
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    The whole issue is so political that the reports are probably bent to reflect the administrations views. That means that like homicides including legal killings by the police or people for self defense are included. They also never report the times someone with a gun stopped a crime or minimized the killing because the criminal was either shot or stopped and ran. If one were to build a national database all of that information should be captured, correctly categorized and reported. If the results show what the Harvard study of 2007 showed more citizens should be encouraged to carry weapons, especially school teachers and administrators.
  • #170
    I guess you would be including every administration that has been in place since they started gathering information on gun homicides, not just the current.
  • #193
    @aztecace Some were more honest than others. Obama is a proven liar. The only other proven liar I am sure of is Bill Clinton. There may be others. The Obama administration is the most political one since FDR.
  • #2
    We have a military so we are not seen by the rest of the world as "gun free" or defenseless. Criminals have brains, enough so to avoid a gun, they also have criminal intent, enough so to target the helpless.......
  • #75
    Cops have killed 5,000 people since 9/11. So our "peace officers" have killed more Americans in the last what, 6-7 years, as all the "terrorists" in American history. Shows us who the real threat is.
  • #10
    Here is the problem with collecting data in this fashion.

    1) How are you going to do it.

    2) What are we considering non-fatal. Is getting you finger sliced in the slide.

    3) What are we considering a gun injury. Is this ALL injuries where a gun was present? Does this include cops shooting criminals? Does it include suicides?

    When I see data I typically have more questions than answers but I am in a business driven by data.

    Government sees data and the bend it to meet thier needs.
  • #90
    Non-fatal gun injury refers to getting shot, and not dying. It does not refer to say...breaking your leg while holding a gun. It also does not refer to something like burning your hand on a hot gun barrel.

    Yes, it would include all instances of non-fatal shootings, whether self-inflicted, by police in the line of duty, criminal, or anything else. Why would you exclude instances?
    You wouldn't do a study on fatalities caused by car accidents, and then say....well....lets not count those caused by police chases, or those that were intentional....that would be silly.
  • #97

    And you know all this how?

    Please don't miss understand my question it is not ment as a personal attack and what you say might seem to make sense however the government rarely makes sence.

    I have personally seen the numbers behind-the-scenes of some of the governments information acquiring tactics...lets just say its never as straight forward as you might expect.
  • #140
    @boombatic - You don't have to exclude different causes to distinguish them. After all we would react very differently to suicides, and justified homicides. And why pick out "gun deaths" instead of including stabbings, beatings, etc.
  • #148
    When CDC counts home gun injuries it considered a gun that the criminal brought to the home the same as a gun owned by the home owner.
  • #164
    @LarryArnold Because the report was on gun violence....which doesn't include stabbings, beatings, etc.

    If you want a report that includes all those, don't call it a report on gun violence, just call it a report on violence in general.
  • R Load more replies

  • #98
    Yes it is. And with Obamacare every little reason for a trip to the ER is on record as well as every doctor visit. Privacy my ass. This from the most "transparent presidency" in history.
  • #119
    Here we go again, if it isn't guns, it's homophobia or how evil Conservatives are according to those that live in glass houses that should be undressing in the basement. <wink>

    It is indeed unfortunate they don't generate the same hysteria over texting while driving and murdering their progeny by the millions for convenience sake as they do for guns, <smh>
  • #131
    yes they do The point is that here is no national database to compile data and come up with the total per year.
    A database would be a waste of resouces and would only lead to selective publishing to suit a political agenda
  • #141
    @jmh Helllllooooo McFly. Obamacare will pay for the worse and most expensive tracking program available. How else you gonna keep track of granny before you deny her medical treatments and let her die?
  • #188
    About like the great tracking program they have now to get our vetrans in for an appointment?
  • R Load more replies

  • #91
    What stops a bad guy with a bomb? How about those terrorists that hijacked those planes and flew them into the world trade center....I know...the only thing that would have stopped them, would have been good guys with planes.

    That type of "logic" is nonsensical at best, and downright ignorant at worst.
  • #143
    @boombatic - On Flight 93 "good guys" on the plane kept the terrorists from hitting their target. Since then every attempted hijacking of a U.S. plane, including those involving explosives, has been stopped by "good guy" passengers.

    At Arapaho School the SRO stopped the killer before he could throw his second Molotov cocktail.

    Logical enough?
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    @PauldenZangpo Because of the one siding reporting. Did you see the mass media and Politix talking about how a shooter was stopped in Arkansas?

    And look at the Zimmerman/Martin thing. The media was very anti-Zimmerman and portrayed Martin as some perfect kid.
  • #17
    @PauldenZangpo 99% of the guns in this country has never shot a single person. How often do these politix articles state anything positive about firearms? I am not a gun nut personally, I am a freedom nut. Evert aspect of politics and government in general needs to be considered in the name of freedom, not security which leads to loss of liberty.
  • #22
    @BobSmith that's no excuse for the blanket accusation 'anti-gun' against anybody who dares question the sanity of our nations gun policy.
  • #25
    @Fitz fair enough-didn't address my question. One can favor varying degrees of gun control and still support the 2nd Amendment.

    I believe the absolute language of gun nuts, along with the predictable regurgitation of stock talking points, is an insulation against critical thought.
  • R Load more replies

  • #18
    I don't understand why you'd want to suppress information. We should know how many people are getting shot, that seems pretty important since in this country we continue to debate about gun control. This is like the tobacco industry suppressing medical studies in the 50's, even if your side starts to look bad... why deny people the facts?
  • #142
    Shouldn't we also know how man people are getting stabbed? And how many times guns are used defensively without anyone getting shot?

    What we in the gun-rights side object to are the kind of "studies" that count the Boston Bomber, shot by police, as a "victim of gun violence" and reason for more gun control.
  • #149
    No, there is no desire on the pro-gun side to suppress information. However, we do not want made up studies funded by people like Bloomberg that are all just lies. That is exactly what happens when anti-gun groups publish studies, they are just junk.
    Like do we have global cooling or global warming? It all depends on what years you and locations you look at. Each side wants more money for their point of view claiming to have all of the evidence.
    Bloomberg Makes Up Data

    VPC delusions
  • #156

    that is a stupid argument. its not as if the databases dont include information about the incident. its not just a number. there are flags in there for who the shooter was, what kind of circumstances, etc. basic database management stuff.
  • #232
    if the facts about the victims of intentional shooting were reported correctly You can bet the farm people would be calling them racist If the CDC estimates are between 27 and 91K . Most of the victims would be primarily blcks with a small percentage of whites Can you imagine the outrage from the black community that someone had the audacity to publish facts?
  • R Load more replies

  • #92
    There should be a national database of people that make ignorant comments like the one above, but I doubt they have hard drives big enough to store that much data.
  • #106
    Lol that was good .

    I do not agree at all as far as "Left HATES AMERICA" but I will give you that the media has done everything but perform oral sex on Obama .

    They cover for him . If Bush jay walked they tore him to shreds with Obama they look the other way .

    Obama has used drones extensively and what Bush critics would call reckless abandonment .

    Any civilian killed is categorized as Al Qaeda, Taliban or terrorist sympathizer and the media not only knows this but they dare not utter a word.

    If 'Bush's' drones killed a stray Kabul fighting dog by accident the media would call him an animal hater and a monster.

    Obama gets a free pass in everything .
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #246
    I guess you are not old enough to remember WWII, Korea or Vietnam. Millions of innocents were killed. It is called collateral damage. What is one or two innocent lives when it could save thousands? I guess you would like to experience another 9/11 only with a hell of a lot more fatalities. If there is another world war, the world's population will be decimated.
  • R Load more replies

  • #136
    Obama wants $23.5 million dollars to make guns look bad, while he released 36,000 criminal illegal immigrants onto our cities' streets. But, hey, only 193 of them were murderers!
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #16
    The data is already collected...Being proactive in ones own self defense and the defense of innocents, saves more lives than any new gun law or data base...This tax money should be spent on building a working, solid mental health infrastructure and to enforce the laws already on the books.
  • #139
    [Should there be a national database of non-lethal gunshot wounds?]

    If there's a national db it should not be limited to people shot. Include stabbings, beatings, chokings, and other violence, and distinguish between illegal offensive attacks and justified defensive responses. That might actually tell us something, instead of being another OMG BAN GUNZ tool.
  • #161
    Nobody is suggesting we should NOT collect data on other types of violence. Rather, the CDC is not allowed to collect data on gun violence.

    "In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues,“Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Kellerman was affiliated at the time with the department of internal medicine at the University of Tennessee. He went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.
    The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association,“Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”"
  • #167
    I remember the "gun ownership" study. Kellerman and the CDC refused to release the data it was based on, so it couldn't be peer reviewed. That's a gross violation of the scientific method.

    Kellerman himself has since repudiated the findings.

    These studies have since been reauthorized (which is where this article came from) so we'll see if they're any more rigorous than the old ones.

    Now that we have this internet thingy it's a lot harder to get away with nonsense.
  • #240
    Kellerman's study has been widely condemned as poorly researched, replete with statistical errors & quite possibly intended to reach a preconceived conclusion.
    If you're going to hold up Kellerman as a source, then I think you should also include John Lott.
  • #129
    We dont need the government tracking this. Its not allowed by the Constitution.

    Every study I have seen was biased and included criminals getting shot while committing crimes and people using guns legal in self defense.

    The feds have proven time and time again that they can not be trusted to collect fair truthful data.

    The feds have proven that they will lie about assault guns saying the are machine guns when they know they are not just to get them banned.

    The feds have proven they will lie over and over again they can not be trusted with our gun rights.
  • #80
    Why would we spend the money for this. We don't know how many people are robbed, stabbed, assaulted or die of natural causes. Things cost and you don't do them just so some pinheaded liberal can have information unless of course pinhead wants to pay for it.
  • #158
    Wrong on all accounts.

    We do know how may people are robbed and assaulted. We specifically do not have a comprehensive database of gun-related injuries and deaths. This is because of specific legislation that was passed that banned the CDC from spending federal money on collecting gun-related data.
  • #118
    I'm all for anything that DOESN'T start a controversy, or create bizarre NRA predictions of doom and apocolyptic scenarios, or create paranoia amongst gun owners.........if there is such a thing that DOESN'T create pranoia anytime someone even mentions the word "gun in public debate. What was the "need" for this database, again?

    All I care about is how many time I fire my weapons, really, and since no one is going to be injured or killed from my weapons, it's a non-issue for me.

    Methinks our editor buddy Mr. Greg Zeman, a.k.a Hagrid, is just stirring the pot by posting this article....just to get the gun advocates a'buzzin' up another fake controversy.

    Ther isn't any reason to create this database, is there? Why, so we can measure annual upticks and downticks in the total and then waste bandwidth decrying the end of the world as we know it?
  • #124
    I must be missing something. Non lethal GSW victims are always reported to local authorities.
    So what so difficult about adding those numbers together? If its mandated that hospitals report GSWs, then make the authorities accountable to that info. Intent has little relevance.
  • #111
    I have guns and I have no problem with them tracking numbers because. I have nothing to fear if iam wrong I want to know it any legitimate person should want to at least know the FACTS............
  • R Load more comments...