U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller

Prove it.

 

No. You made a claim about ther VPC. Prove that first.

 

The VPC "studies" have been disproven every time you try to use them as evidence. I've disproven some, other people here have disproven the rest. This forum is filled with good evidence showing the VPC lies. Read this thread.

VPC lies. Fact.

NRA does not lie. Fact.

Deal with it. If you can.

 

Uh....that is called an unsupported claim. Present your evidence or your claim is dismissed.

 

Yeah, but.. you don't care, so...?

 

Wrong. Read this thread. And you are the prime purveyor of the VPC, and your posts and OP's have been discredited every time. You already now the truth that the VPC is a scam and fake.

 

Brilliant!

 

One of these days you will add something of value to the conversation.
Today is not that day.

 

Your lack of evidence is noted. Your claim is dismissed

 

The evidence was provided, but you didn’t read it because you rejected the NRA article out of hand, yet it presented evidence that stood on it’s own....

Statistics and their charting can be presented to dishonestly represent data to support a bias as the VPC obviously intentionally did.
But again, VPC rolls suicides into the figures and ignores any other variables, such as increased violence against police, increased violence by the ANTIFA Crowd, inflamed and increased tensions within the minority community.
Disregarding other variables than the Heller decision, their figures try to make hay on two years of data that may be the result of other factors than Heller. Trends are not measured by spikes in data, but measured over time. In addition, what the stats fail to account for is the Heller decision hasn’t resulted in new pro gun legislation equally across the board to all cities and states...yet. Some, like LA, Baltimore, NY, and Baltimore that significantly skew over all crime data were not impacted by the Heller decision thus far (meaning gun laws weren’t passed to be pro gun and be reflected in rising gun ownership) and continue to climb. To show the effect of the Heller decision in honest light, data should be segmented to only show impact of Heller where the decision resulted in pro-gun legislation where that legislation has resulted in the change of gun ownership and carry. The premise that Heller had any causal impact given the data selection by the VPC is flawed and dishonest from the get go.

 

Claims from the nra are automatically dismissed as biased. Present a real source

 

I think we have all made the point I was trying to make. When using statistics I think we all need to use a reliable source. I feel the NRA, VPC or any of the groups trying to win the argument for their side have a tendency to twist the stats to say what they want. I hope that the Government can still be counted on for that information. Maybe the CDC, FBI, DOJ, BJS, NIJ.

 

Harvard medical school also has no vested interest

 

You didn’t read my post, it’s obvious. First, regardless of the source, the NRA article showed the flaws in the stats.... truth is the truth.
Second, I provided a second arguement why the VPC tainted narrative had no basis for their supposition from the get-go, something the NRA refutation should have done.

 

Like in the very article linked in the OP. "U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller" attempts to draw a linkage between Heller and an increase in gun deaths while failing to note:

1. Most gun deaths are suicides, and the non-gun suicide rate increased at a higher rate than the gun suicide rate did since Heller was affirmed, and
2. The only geography actually affect by Heller was DC, and the homicide rate in DC declined 35% from 2008 to 2016, according to FBI UCR data.

 

It does. It has a funding bias. Bloomberg provides huge amounts of funding for anti gun research. They cannot claim to be objective.

 

To Harvard medical school? Prove it

 

Not just Bloomberg, but George Soros. And not just to that institution, but others that contributecanti gun biased studies.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...for-gun-control-is-backfiring/2/#2de489f536fa
There are more confirming sources you can find by simple Google queries.

 

Why not? Between Harvard Medical and Harvard School of Public Health, they've published significantly in the area of gun control. However, they seem grossly underfunded, according one of the more well known authors, Hemenway.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/harvard-david-hemenway-gun-research-underfunding/
http://www.dw.com/en/us-researchers...n-existent-but-it-would-save-lives/a-37638095
https://www.nature.com/news/fight-the-silencing-of-gun-research-1.22139

"
By Laura Crimaldi GLOBE STAFF FEBRUARY 17, 2017
An average of about 100 people nationwide die every day from gun injuries, but funding for firearms research is virtually nonexistent, a Harvard University professor said Friday.

David Hemenway, who teaches at Harvard’s School of Public Health, described a grim research landscape during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

“It’s very, very hard to get data, and there’s virtually no funding for research,” Hemenway said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had once set aside $2.6 million annually to study firearm injuries".

If this research is so important, and so underfunded, and with such eminent researchers, why isn't Harvard coughing up the money? They've got an endowment of $37 billion. $2M is round off error for an endowment of that size for such an important cause.

Why doesn't Hemenway use crowdfunding? Maybe they picked the wrong person to name their school after, unlike Johns-Hopkins did.

 

Are you against all gun death research?

 

I'm against government funded research with the intent of increasing gun control. If Harvard or Johns-Hopkins uses private money for their research, I have no basis for any complaint.

I found these to be quite interesting:

http://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/cdcfinalreport.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Cl...57b24005ef7f8/$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf

 

And i find these interesting

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/

 

I have a problem where research is funded with the intention of biasing results and then passed off as objective. And, that is used to promote legislation that cloaks other political agendas. This is why Congress impeded the funding of CDC for research to support the political objectives of the LW with biased research.

Much of the anti gun rhetoric lauds saving lives as the objective...yet, the underlying objective is supporting an ideology of central social control, reducing civil liberty, and identifying and vilifying political opposition.

Funny, I note, the end result of gun control is limiting individual liberty (the cost), however, I have yet to see a study of the impact and cost of eliminating civil liberties... the goal of the powered LW elite.

 

So you are against all gun death research even by the CDC since you find it all biased. How conveinent.