CDC Study - Guns Kill More Kids Than Cancer

[Lloyd]

CDC study is said to reveal that guns kill more kids than cancer.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...many-kids-cancer-does-new-study-shows-n950091

I'm interested in some perspective here. Has anyone actually read the study? Does anyone know the rate of cancer deaths among children?

I'm sure there is something funky here, like cherry picking data, but I can't put my finger on it.

.

 

[Glaron]

kids include gang members.

 

[smokey]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf



This is the actual mortality data from 2016. It runs pretty consistent from year to year.

 

[t84a]

Cherry picking. 35% suicides. Let's also not call 19 year olds kids.

 

[DanGuy48]

^^^^

So, “kids” age 15-24?

 

[Boats]

CDC study is said to reveal that guns kill more kids than cancer.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...many-kids-cancer-does-new-study-shows-n950091

I'm interested in some perspective here. Has anyone actually read the study? Does anyone know the rate of cancer deaths among children?

I'm sure there is something funky here, like cherry picking data, but I can't put my finger on it.

.

It isn't so much cherry picking data as it is choosing a study with predictable results.

Cancer is a disease that is based on genetics and environment. With children, except in very rare circumstances, there simply isn't enough time for the environment to play a role. (Primarily environment based cancers being melanoma, lung cancer, etc)

So that leaves the cancers that are purely genetic (e.g. leukemia), basically a subset, of a subset, of a subset.

Finally, cancer is a powerful connotation. Using this as a comparison is misleading, because it makes the gun deaths seem larger. The average reader won't be able to ferret out the reality that guns AND cancer don't really kill that many kids (when viewed as a percentage of the whole population)

 

[CrazySanMan]

^^^^

So, “kids” age 15-24?

It's almost Christmas, where's your holiday spirit?

Kids from 1 to 92...

 

[MigraineMan]

The CDC's website directs you to the United States Cancer Statistics page. They provide some nifty tools for visualization.

In 2015, the latest year for which incidence data are available, 1,633,390 new cases of cancer were reported, and 595,919 people died of cancer in the United States. For every 100,000 people, 438 new cancer cases were reported and 159 died of cancer.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, exceeded only by heart disease. One of every four deaths in the United States is due to cancer.

Didn't see any reference to "guns kill more kids than cancer" anywhere on the CDC pages. Looks like the conclusion was drawn by the New England Journal of Medicine. I'm willing to bet that anyone under 26 is considered a "child." (Hey, if it's good enough for Obamacare ...)

 

[smokey]

It's relatively rare that kids die in general(thankfully). If they die it's typically because of an accident, or intentional harm by someone else or by themselves. Speaking of self-harm....look at firearm self-harm vs non-firearm self-harm. It's basically the same amount of deaths. Looking at the gun as a reason why someone commits suicide or homicide completely ignores the human making the choice. The suicide data demonstrates that where there's a will, there's a way. Our focus should be on that will.

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

Torture the data long enough and it will confess to anything.

 

[traveller]

We have been doing very well on childhood cancer in recent decades.



Once you limit the analysis to actual children, then I doubt that the gun thing holds true.

 

[Bob A]

Torture the data long enough and it will confess to anything.

QFT.

Also very well stated.

 

[K31]

Do these include homicide before birth?

 

[Lloyd]

...the reality that guns AND cancer don't really kill that many kids (when viewed as a percentage of the whole population)

Yeah that's what the numbers apparently show.

I figured it some sensationalism going on, but Ibefore I start spraking off on my Liberal co-workers that seem to get real chatty when some BS article gets published

Do these include homicide before birth?

Well played, and that's where my head went too.

.

 

[Lloyd]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_05.pdf
View attachment 249483

View attachment 249484
This is the actual mortality data from 2016. It runs pretty consistent from year to year.

Thank you doing the research and posting it. I was getting texts from my more Liberal colleagues citing this article and I needed some clarity and what you posted was perfect.

.

 

[smokey]

Thank you doing the research and posting it. I was getting texts from my more Liberal colleagues citing this article and I needed some clarity and what you posted was perfect.

.

No prob. The data really doesn't matter as much as the direction someone takes it. If we just go with the assertion that more kids die from gunshots than cancer, it still doesn't make much sense to view the problem as one stemming from an inanimate object. It makes much more sense to then look at why people choose to end a life...by any means.

You're likely to catch liberal colleagues off guard if you express an interest in helping disadvantaged people before those people choose to end their own life, or someone else's. Itll be hard for them to argue with school reform/investment, criminal justice reform, increasing economic opportunity in urban settings, and reforming our mental healthcare system. It helps when you declare that you dont want to reduce gunviolence, you want an approach that reduces all violence. These kinds of approaches begin at the individual human level and the opportunities the individual has for healthy and meaningful growth. These approaches also increase rights/opportunities rather than infringing on them.

 

[Odarlin1]

Torture the data long enough and it will confess to anything.

Eloquent reality.