Quote:
Originally Posted by Justus
Tom, I will answer at the risk of raising Gracie's ire, which I am loath to do...sorry, Gracie...
The study I cited was performed by Mark Perry, a well-known authority specializing in Military, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs analysis, who retrieved the data directly from the CDC.
The CDC stopped performing its "analyses" years ago after they were revealed as biased by several responsible national organizations. For reasons of additional funding, the CDC would like to resume their "analyses", ergo the piece by their advocate, the Washington Post.
Here is a link you should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author) |
Mark Perry is an author. This seems to be where he got his chart and data.
Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up
Gun homicides steady after decline in
"The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 30% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent. For example, in 2013 there were 467 fatal police shootings, up from 333 in 2009. (Government data on fatal police shootings are also collected and reported by the FBI, though the agency acknowledges there are discrepancies between federal and local law enforcement counts.)"
I find that interesting.
I think I understand. Mark Perry got his data from the CDC who got it from the Pew Foundation that did the polling.
"The public has been divided on the issue of gun ownership in recent years. In our July survey, 50% said it is more important to control gun ownership and 47% said it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Support for controlling gun ownership has declined; throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, a majority of Americans said it was more important to control gun ownership."
It sounds like an even split of this subject. Why do the news sources make it so difficult to unravel?