Showing posts with label Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Show all posts

Monday, May 18, 2015

BRADY CENTER: GUNS IN HOMES INCREASE CHILDREN DEATHS


In a February report from the Brady Center, they found that suicide by firearm increased among American adolescents for the third consecutive year. Before you gun nuts question the figures, it comes from the latest fatal injury data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). You remember the CDC don't you, the organization that has been compiling information on gun violence for years that the National Rifle Assn. would not allow to be released. Well it's out there now and the numbers are appalling. In 2013, suicide by firearm claimed 876 lives among adolescents ages 10 to 19, the highest level since 2001. Most of these youth suicides occur with a gun belonging to a family member, usually a parent. And therein lays the problem: irresponsible parents leaving firearms unsecured so the kids can just fetch them up and blow theirs or their brother or sister's brains all over the couch.

Brady says that parents who think having a gun in the house is a safeguard are missing the point entirely because the CDC data says that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the danger that a child will be shot and killed. Further, the same holds true for preventable accidents and school shootings, including the tragedy at Sandy Hook. It’s usually a gun that belonged to a parent or a relative. This might give some credence to what the NRA is constantly flashing in the face of gun control advocates, that "Guns don't kill, people do."
In this case guns don't kill, feckless gun-owning parents do.

The Brady Center’s analysis of the latest CDC fatal injury data shows:
  • States with the most gun deaths (Alaska, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming) had high rates of gun ownership. Conversely, states with the fewest gun deaths (Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) had low rates of gun ownership.
  • In 2013, firearm-related injuries were the second most common cause of death for children and teens ages 1-19. Only motor vehicles were responsible for more deaths among this age group.
  • Following a decrease in 2012, the unintentional gun death rate for children and teens rose 15% in 2013.
It's hard to argue with these cold facts but I am sure the gun nuts will.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

BRADY CAMPAIGN SAYS NINE CHILDREN DIE EACH DAY IN U.S. OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

PolitiFact checked Brady's figures with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database and found that from 2007 to 2011--latest data available-14,258 children died of gunshot wounds. That makes it 7.81 deaths per day, close enough to Brady's figures. The fact that it is even one per day is too much. These incidents include accidental shootings by adults, kids who find unsecured guns, gang violence, suicide and planned mass shootings. Brady acknowledged their error citing a volunteer incorrectly using the number nine for deaths. Eight is correct and they said the nine represents children unintentionally shot daily who survive, which is in addition to the eight who die. Any way you look at this the outcome is pathetic.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

WHY ISN'T CDC ALLOWED TO DO GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH?

Ask wacky Wayne LaPierre who heads up the National Rifle Assn. He or his minions tell us it isn't needed. But the real reason is that the horrifying statistics that would result would shatter all the bullshit coming from the NRA that protects guns under their trumped up figures. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), who gets an A+ rating from the NRA, is willing to reconsider gun control and has talked with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the gun violence research. They are ready now as they were in the 1990s until the NRA forced cuts in funding. But more than a year ago Kingston opposed this same funding when competing in a primary. Just shows you what these people will do to get reelected. Congress did approve some funding for the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), which keeps tabs on things like youth violence, child maltreatment, domestic violence, and sexual violence.

But what we need are hard figures on how many people are getting shot each day and how many of them die.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban work? Actually…yes


Alex Seitz-Wald has done an excellent job in Salon of organizing and evaluating statistics that relate to the success of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  Having expired in 2004, the question was whether or not it had helped reduce gun violence while in effect.  The answer is that it did, especially when you consider the main obstacle the results were up against.  In 1996 Congress passed a law limiting the use of gun violence data collected that could be used to analyze this issue.  Naturally, this was backed and promoted by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA). 

Although Obama has issued a memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies to conduct more gun violence research in the future, fortunately one group did not wait for this to happen and compiled their own data on the success of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  In the Salonarticle, it accuses the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) of misleading the American public on assault weapons.  It’s full of loopholes, Seitz-Wald says, and there are studies confirming that the ban was effective. 

Congress required an assessment of the law in 1999 which was paid for by the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Department of Justice.  Conducting the investigation were two criminologists, Christopher Koper and Jeffrey Roth.  The report was updated in 2004, evaluating everything from homicides to gun prices.  To start, it was found that banned guns and magazines were used in up to 25% of gun crimes before the ban.  Assault pistols were used more than assault rifles also finding large-capacity magazines were the biggest problem.

Comments on 2013 assault weapons ban:

I did a blog back in January, “NRAafraid of gun violence statistics,” that examined this issue of the missing gun violence data.  I came to the conclusion that, although the NRA made sure we can’t use the numbers, we still know that the gun violence is caused by guns.  No matter who is doing it or where they got the weapon, it was a gun that caused the injury or death.  Without the “death data” the gun manufacturers continue to sell more firearms and pour more money into the coffers of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA.  It is truly a vicious circle.

Not in the defense of assault weapons but more facing the reality of just what kind of gun control legislation might pass a much prejudiced Congress, my blog, “Would banning highcapacity magazines and requiring universal background checks be a good start tostricter gun control?” asks whether limiting these magazines to no more than ten rounds would at least be a start.  The Salon article reported that assault weapons accounted for only a fraction of the total gun deaths overall.  It was the high-capacity magazines that really caused the mayhem.
 
The infamous AR-15
 

As an example, Seitz-Wald says, “the same .223 Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle was used  in the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre, the shooting at the Clackamas Mall in Oregon, the Newtown elementary school shooting, and, just a few days ago, the killing of two firefighters in upstate New York.”  Jared Loughner in Tucson used a 33-round high-capacity magazine, Seung-Hui Cho used a 15-round magazine at Virginia Tech.  The big question here is whether curbing the size of the magazine would limit the effectiveness of the assault weapon?

Following are additional factors found in the recent independent gun violence research:

· An October 2012 study from Johns Hopkins concluded that “easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings.”

· Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) also shows a significant drop (66%) in assault weapon usage in gun crimes following the 1994 ban.

· The 10-year ban was also complicated by the fact that millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines meant that any progress in stopping the violence would be gradual. The real results of the ban may not be known for years.


Seitz-Wald concludes with a comparison between American gun violence and our lack of gun control and Australia’s enactment of an assault weapons ban following a 1996 massacre killing 36 people.  Gun-related homicide plummeted by 59 percent.  In my 2012 blog, “Australia: Another gun control successstory,” I wrote about this carnage where the shooter also used an AR-15 assault rifle.  Are the citizens of Australia and some European countries with tough gun control laws more intelligent than the U.S. or do they just love life more?

I urge you to read the Salonarticle.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...