Politics and Porn

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

It doesn't matter that it's only a small proportion of the population - risk management means we have to assume it could be ANY man.

Look, a small proportion of people will bring a knife to your kidney to steal your wallet.

It's not like you are afraid to go out of the house because of that.

I don't know what experiences you have had in the past, but it doesn't mean that people are actually scared of this shit all the time.

You are basically say that you are scared and wary because it COULD happen. Are you scared when eating food that you may get sick? Are you scared to cross the road because you COULD be hit by a car? Are you actually scared to go out to the nature because you COULD bump into a bear?

No.

You know why? Because the majority of experiences is positive.

It's true, I'll give you that. You are saying the truth that everybody do a risk assesment when meeting new people. I do it too - all the time.
But does it mean negative emotions? No. Because my experience is generally positive about this. And I'm willing to bet that 95% of women have a generally harmless and positive experience of being complimented or meeting new guys who want to befriend them.

You don't get SCARED or freaked out, or creeped out, as Bramblethorn have suggested.
You may get annoyed, I'll give you that - when you are not looking for relationship.

But if you are single and looking for a boyfriend? A good looking man, good clothes, no ogre expression on his face - comes up to you and says he likes you and wants to know you better? In the middle of the street, in broad daylight, with hundreds of people around you? I think you won't turn him down because you are scared shitless of him being a creep and molesting you right in front of all the witnesses. You may still turn him down for other reasons, but not like this.
If you do, well, then we have a completely different experience, is all I can say.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KimGordon67]

Look, a small proportion of people will bring a knife to your kidney to steal your wallet.

It's not like you are afraid to go out of the house because of that.

I don't know what experiences you have had in the past, but it doesn't mean that people are actually scared of this shit all the time.

You are basically say that you are scared and wary because it COULD happen. Are you scared when eating food that you may get sick? Are you scared to cross the road because you COULD be hit by a car? Are you actually scared to go out to the nature because you COULD bump into a bear?

No.

You know why? Because the majority of experiences is positive.

It's true, I'll give you that. You are saying the truth that everybody do a risk assesment when meeting new people. I do it too - all the time.
But does it mean negative emotions? No. Because my experience is generally positive about this. And I'm willing to bet that 95% of women have a generally harmless and positive experience of being complimented or meeting new guys who want to befriend them.

You don't get SCARED or freaked out, or creeped out, as Bramblethorn have suggested.
You may get annoyed, I'll give you that - when you are not looking for relationship.

But if you are single and looking for a boyfriend? A good looking man, good clothes, no ogre expression on his face - comes up to you and says he likes you and wants to know you better? In the middle of the street, in broad daylight, with hundreds of people around you? I think you won't turn him down because you are scared shitless of him being a creep and molesting you right in front of all the witnesses. You may still turn him down for other reasons, but not like this.
If you do, well, then we have a completely different experience, is all I can say.

Oh. My. God.

I give up. Don't believe what and countless other women say. Obviously you know better than us how we manage our everyday interactions. I honestly don't know how I managed before you came along to make it all clear for me.

 

[MeekMe]

Oh; so people who are good looking aren't creepy? Only unattractive people?

It's not just who or where, it's how. That you do not see that this could be discomforting is perhaps an issue, people who would see it could be discomforting might approach with a certain softening approach or humour that makes it not so. Perhaps your approach is naturally so

Fwiw , it bears reminder most assaults are by people known to us, not people in the street but known to us can include dating.

I thought for sure this would be stated at some point. I'm not particularly fond of people when they use this statistic to tell others not to be so disturbed by strangers. I know you aren't using it like this Elle, but before it comes to that I'll just say that I'm one of those people in the statistic. And to anyone that wants to use it to justify being approached by strangers as not being somehow scary: how should one react to the unknown stranger when they have already been assaulted by someone known and trusted? If someone that claims to have cared for me could do that, I don't like my chances with the stranger that has absolutely no reason to care about my wellbeing.

I don't run away screaming in terror, but I'm on edge towards those that are unknown to me.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[MeekMe]

It doesn't change the stat. I just wanted to nip that before anyone decides to use it as a means for shaming those that do take precautions in public. Women are in an unfavorable position. If we take all the necessary precautions (which aren't fail proof) we're overreacting. If we don't take enough and something happens - well why the hell didn't you do more to negate this?! Certainly everyone is entitled to handle things as they see fit. Some women have no problem with being approached and that's fine. Others that are not should not be shamed for feeling fear in such situations.

If you want these things deleted we can do that I suppose.

 

[Nezhul]

I thought for sure this would be stated at some point. I'm not particularly fond of people when they use this statistic to tell others not to be so disturbed by strangers. I know you aren't using it like this Elle, but before it comes to that I'll just say that I'm one of those people in the statistic. And to anyone that wants to use it to justify being approached by strangers as not being somehow scary: how should one react to the unknown stranger when they have already been assaulted by someone known and trusted? If someone that claims to have cared for me could do that, I don't like my chances with the stranger that has absolutely no reason to care about my wellbeing.

I don't run away screaming in terror, but I'm on edge towards those that are unknown to me.

Well I'm very sorry for whatever happened to you. But you should understand that not nearly a lot of women have such traumatic experiences. In fact, I would go as far as to say that only a few percent would have something like that happen in their life.

But it's the same for every traumatic experience, don't you think? There are people who associate certain objects, smells or actions with something traumatic. Just because there are such people, it doesn't mean everyone should be silent and not interact whatsoever around strangers, just in case something might trip someone off.

Oh; so people who are good looking aren't creepy? Only unattractive people?

No. But some people are looking and acting creepy. I'm just isolating this case right away, saying that the guy who approaches looks fine, because otherwise the next argument would have been "it depends who he is/how he looks/how he talks/ etc."
Which is a point you making here.

I already said that some amount of work needs to be done before approaching people like that. Work that women are very familiar with on a day-to-day basis but men often neglect.
You need to have a good image to be likeable. But if you DO have it, then there's nothing wrong with approaching anybody.
Of course if you are imagining a guy with messy clothes and bad manners - everyone would be on edge.

That you do not see that this could be discomforting is perhaps an issue

Never said it couldn't.
I'm just arguing that approaching properly is in fact a good thing that does not make women freak out and be creeped to chills.
I'm saying that Bramblethorn, who said, I cite: "That's not a fun experience. If you like women, don't do this." is in fact wrong.

And I said numerous types - everything if done wrongly can be creepy. If done right, approaching on the street will not be creepy to MOST women.
He just can't accept it. And maybe neither can you.

Don't believe what and countless other women say.

Here's the funny thing. You are telling me all your girlfriends find this thing creepy.

Also I think your friends are not actively seeking a pair now. Maybe I'm wrong, well, I'm just assuming here. A woman who's not interested in new guys does not have the positive emotional drive associated with the prospect of getting a good boyfriend. A woman who seeks a boyfriend will think every opportunity through, don't you think? It's not like there are dozens of potential free guys in your social circles every day, so every new opportunity is at least worth considering.
I think you don't take that into account.

But over the course of this discussion I had a chance to talk to 4 of my girl friends (not girlfriends - just friends).
The consensus is that it matters on how the guy is acting and who he is. One said she doesn't like meeting this way.
But none of them said it was always creepy. Sometimes. When a weirdo approaches them. Or a guy turns out bad-mannered. But not a lot of times.

In addition to that, I have my own experience to consider. I'm a good judge of character when it comes to face-to-face interaction. Take it or leave it - I am. And I can notice when a person is annoyed, upset or scared, creeped out. I do not see that often, when I approach women. Most of times - simply not interested. And it's understandable.

When I started dating, I read a lot of manuals on how to get a girlfriend, what to talk about, etc. They were for my country, i.e. they covered Russia and what works here. I remember reading several times that pretty girls get used to approaching men, because they get approached several times a week, or even a few times a day, if they are active.
I don't think this info was false. In fact, I think that's just how it works here. We do not have a lot of places where you can meet new people - streets, parks, malls - are your safest bet. We have clubs, dance floors, but they often cost too much to visit frequently for most people.
Of course a lot of people still hook up in their social circles, but that became harder as telephones and internet spread - a lot of people just don't gather up for big crowded parties where you can meet new people. Some still do.

So the more I read your posts and how completely SURE you are in your evaluation of female reaction - the more I think it's a matter of culture. It's not that I don't want to listen to wise women here. It's just that my experiences are so different from what you describe that I think you are not representative when it comes to the ENTIRE world.

And my the way, let me give you an example. In China, as far as I know, it's customary if you like somebody to approach this person and openly suggest a relationship. Straight away, not beating around the bush at all. Both men and women do that, if they find someone they fancy.
That's just an example how dating traditions and reactions are different. It would be very creepy if someone asked it like that in my country. "Hello, my name is _____ let me be your boyfriend/girlfriend." But it works for them.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[MeekMe]

I agree with this post entirely.

No, I wanted not something I felt uncomfortable about posting not out there. I quoted you and in asking you not to quote me was aware you were exposed and might not care to be under another's posting power for that, that's all

No, I'm fine. I typically try to stick to what I put out there and if there's anything that you want to disappear I'll comply because if I ever did want something down I'd hope the quotes went down with it.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[MeekMe]

Nezbul, how do we know how many go through this?

All we know is that anecdotally a lot of these are not reported.

I mentioned my surprise when women report never having felt compromised. Maybe add those facts together.

In my day to day life I've never met another woman that I was close enough to speak about this subject with who didn't have something similar happen.

http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/...packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

I'm taking the train now so I won't be back to comment for awhile. If I decide to comment anymore.

 

[Nezhul]

Again, this statistics is for US. It's not for the entire world.
All I can say is, I think it's much less of this shit where I leave. Of course you hear about bad things from time to time, but that's just how crime works. It happens, everywhere.
I don't think in Russia it's as widespread.

But I can't really find any real stats, because whatever I find mostly concerns real rape. And not what we are talking about here (I hope).
Also Russia is lousy in that respect because as far as I know not even all rape cases are accepted by the police to start any sort of investigation. Let alone simple harrasment without rape. So these kinds of things won't even be reported properly and thus not even registered.

So basically I can't pull numbers. Just from what people are talking about - I can say that it's very rare when someone is molested or sexually harassed here. Not as rare as it doesn't happen at all, but so rare that most of the girls, thankfully, avoid that experience. Of course you can argue that I'm death to evidence or that these things are discussed only among women exclusively. But I think I'd have heard something.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Bramblethorn]

How old are you?

Just as old as my tongue, and a little older than my teeth.

How old was she?
Dating world does not so much change as refresh and outgrow.

Another generation - another rules. Doesn't mean the older generation adjusts to those rules.

Hmm. A little earlier Pockle wrote "Nezhul is right - this is the way its been done for hundreds of years." But now you seem to disagree with him about that?

Every time somebody points out a flaw in your reasoning, you go looking for some excuse to ignore them. Previously you claimed Kim and I weren't informed because we dated new people in "decades". When I pointed out that was badly wrong (apparently wrong for Kim too!) you went looking for another reason to ignore my comments. You think I'm over forty, so you're arguing that I'm too old to be knowledgeable... but if you thought I was twenty, I expect you'd be arguing that I didn't have enough experience. There's no right answer. I've seen that pattern from you over and over, and not only in this discussion.

So, no, I'm not interested in playing that game with you.

Also: I'm not basing my comments solely on my own experience, or on people I've dated. I work with plenty of women, most of my friends are women, and I listen to what they have to say about things like that. (+ reading women who I don't know at all.) I can assure you that some of those women are younger than you are, and I've heard nothing to suggest this is a generational thing.

(At least, not on womens' side; younger men may be slightly more aware of these issues than the older generations, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.)

Also, I don't know what you think of yourself, but I'm not actually interested in you enough to remember facts about your personal life.

Nobody said you had to. I'm just pointing out that when you don't know, you're better off not making assumptions. The fact that you'd assume "in a long-term relationship" = "no recent experience of dating new people" suggests that your knowledge of 21st-century dating isn't exactly comprehensive.

(As it happens, you've made several other assumptions about me in the course of this discussion, but I won't point them out just at the moment. Maybe another time...)

YOU are making assumptions about how the entire woman population all around the world THINKS. Or at the very least - the majority of them.

I'm not assuming. My position is based on listening to women. Plenty of women have said that this is an issue; I count several just in this discussion.

You, OTOH, made assumptions about me and other people based on no information whatsoever. Neither Kim nor I had ever said "we haven't dated in decades"; you just plucked that out of nowhere.

But if you are single and looking for a boyfriend? A good looking man, good clothes, no ogre expression on his face

When you say "a good looking man, good clothes", do you mean like the Christian Bale character from "American Psycho"? Or more the Ted Bundy type?

This is not a fairy tale. The villains are not conveniently labelled with crooked teeth and an evil sneer.

- comes up to you and says he likes you and wants to know you better? In the middle of the street, in broad daylight, with hundreds of people around you? I think you won't turn him down because you are scared shitless of him being a creep and molesting you right in front of all the witnesses. You may still turn him down for other reasons, but not like this.

You haven't been paying attention at all. Turning men down is ALSO a risk. I posted info about women who've been attacked, even killed, just for saying no to a guy.

If you do, well, then we have a completely different experience, is all I can say.

Yep. And on the question of "how do women feel about this issue?" it's women's experiences that count.

 

[Blue]

When I started dating, I read a lot of manuals on how to get a girlfriend,

Uh huh......

what to talk about, etc. They were for my country, i.e. they covered Russia and what works here. I remember reading several times that pretty girls get used to approaching men, because they get approached several times a week, or even a few times a day, if they are active.
I don't think this info was false. In fact, I think that's just how it works here.

Wait.
You spent the past day arguing that women being uncomfortably suddenly approached by men is a rarity. But women being comfortably suddenly approached by men can happen multiple times a week according to your information sources.

Well according to the women who actually get approached, your source is wrong about what the women experience and perhaps the majority of spontaneous flirtations by unknown men are actually perceived as uncomfortable or downright dangerous.

 

[Blue]

Double post

 

[Bramblethorn]

Again, this statistics is for US. It's not for the entire world.
All I can say is, I think it's much less of this shit where I leave. Of course you hear about bad things from time to time, but that's just how crime works. It happens, everywhere.
I don't think in Russia it's as widespread.

But I can't really find any real stats, because whatever I find mostly concerns real rape. And not what we are talking about here (I hope).
Also Russia is lousy in that respect because as far as I know not even all rape cases are accepted by the police to start any sort of investigation. Let alone simple harrasment without rape. So these kinds of things won't even be reported properly and thus not even registered.

...but you think the rate would be much LOWER for Russia, even though it's easier for perpetrators to escape consequences?

So basically I can't pull numbers. Just from what people are talking about - I can say that it's very rare when someone is molested or sexually harassed here. Not as rare as it doesn't happen at all, but so rare that most of the girls, thankfully, avoid that experience.

Russian women appear to disagree with you. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/russian-ukrainian-women-sexual-abuse-stories-go-viral

(waits for the inevitable "you can't believe anything that people publish about Russia" response)

Of course you can argue that I'm death to evidence or that these things are discussed only among women exclusively. But I think I'd have heard something.

That's a big assumption. In my experience women who've been assaulted/abused are very selective in who they tell about it, ESPECIALLY men.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

...but you think the rate would be much LOWER for Russia, even though it's easier for perpetrators to escape consequences?

What does ease have to do with it?
We just don't do that. Don't think it's appropriate.

Russian women appear to disagree with you. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ories-go-viral

(waits for the inevitable "you can't believe anything that people publish about Russia" response)

Wait for it.... Waaaait for it........ aaaand..... no. pfff.
I said it happens. I also said it doesn't happen a lot.

So you found an article. Good job Surely this doesn't happen in any other country.
Oh, and surely if hundreds of women are sharing such stories - this means ALL Russian women are regularly sexually assaulted.
Yeah, right.

Look, you can find such article for EVERY country on the planet. Rape happens. Everywhere. Violence happens.
It's the question of how often this happens, and this article doesn't really give you any idea about that. Again, there's no reliable stats.

That's a big assumption.

All you POST are assumptions.

In my experience women who've been assaulted/abused are very selective in who they tell about it, ESPECIALLY men.

Yeah, sure. And they do such a good job at this, that when men hear about someone being harassed so damn rarely that it makes the talk of the day. Women are molested and assaulted every day. Men just don't know about it - hear about it once every few months, when some girl does a mediocre job at consealing her misfortune.

What I'm saying is, when somethin happens often - people will know. They will come to treat it as something normal - not good, but something which belongs to daily life and makes it suck more. Like inflation or road troubles.. They will come to be aware of it on a large scale.
It doesn't happen here. Molestings and harrasment actually come up so rare as to be bizzare topics. And people "can't believe such things happen", rather than "can't believe everyone in the room didn't experience that already".

Look, Bramblethorn, I can't say what screwed up shit happens to women in US. Seriously I can't, but from what you say - molesting and harrasment is your NORM, and a lot of girls go through this in some form. Just like screwed up shit like school shootings is your NORM, because it happens several times a year. It doesn't mean it happens EVERYWHERE ON THE DAMN PLANET.
But I will damn well bet that you can't say shit about Russia. You can find news articles - yes - but you can find those about ANYTHING. They are not representative.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What does ease have to do with it?
We just don't do that. Don't think it's appropriate.

Oh, my sweet summer child.

Oh, and surely if hundreds of women are sharing such stories - this means ALL Russian women are regularly sexually assaulted.
Yeah, right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Look, you can find such article for EVERY country on the planet. Rape happens. Everywhere. Violence happens.

Yeah, that's the point we have been trying to make to you in this thread.

It's the question of how often this happens, and this article doesn't really give you any idea about that. Again, there's no reliable stats.

Yup. And that, in itself, tells us something.

When there are no stats about an important issue, that's not an accident. Governments decide what stats they want to collect. They make those decisions (1) on the basis of what kinds of policy they care about (obviously if you want to manage an economy you need economic data, etc. etc.) and (2) what will make them look good.

If the Russian government chooses not to collect stats about harassment and abuse of women, it means that they don't care about that issue (quite likely because they think their citizens don't care either), or because they suspect the data might look bad if they did publish it.

Similar things happen in other countries. For instance, at the behest of Republican legislators the US CDC are specifically banned from using their funding to do research into gun deaths... for reasons that will be obvious to anybody with a working knowledge of US politics.

Collecting data about sensitive topics like this is a very tricky area, but there are ways to do it and many countries do do it. The fact that Russia officially doesn't even want to know how good or bad the situation is... suggests that it's bad.

All you POST are assumptions.

This, as you know full well, is an outright lie. Anybody who wants to read the history of this thread, or others where we've talked, can see that I've provided links to scientific studies, articles about violence against women, dictionary definitions, and statistical analysis, inter alia. I have done far more to provide evidence for my position than you have ever done for yours.

Look, Bramblethorn, I can't say what screwed up shit happens to women in US. Seriously I can't, but from what you say - molesting and harrasment is your NORM, and a lot of girls go through this in some form. Just like screwed up shit like school shootings is your NORM, because it happens several times a year. It doesn't mean it happens EVERYWHERE ON THE DAMN PLANET.

...and there you've made another wrong assumption. Let me know when you've figured out your mistake.

But I will damn well bet that you can't say shit about Russia. You can find news articles - yes - but you can find those about ANYTHING. They are not representative.

Indeed. I'd much prefer to cite representative stats - I'm a data wonk at heart - but Russia doesn't bother to collect them.

And that says a whole lot about the situation in Russia right there.

 

[Ishmael]

Oh, my sweet summer child.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



Yeah, that's the point we have been trying to make to you in this thread.



Yup. And that, in itself, tells us something.

When there are no stats about an important issue, that's not an accident. Governments decide what stats they want to collect. They make those decisions (1) on the basis of what kinds of policy they care about (obviously if you want to manage an economy you need economic data, etc. etc.) and (2) what will make them look good.

If the Russian government chooses not to collect stats about harassment and abuse of women, it means that they don't care about that issue (quite likely because they think their citizens don't care either), or because they suspect the data might look bad if they did publish it.

Similar things happen in other countries. For instance, at the behest of Republican legislators the US CDC are specifically banned from using their funding to do research into gun deaths... for reasons that will be obvious to anybody with a working knowledge of US politics.

Collecting data about sensitive topics like this is a very tricky area, but there are ways to do it and many countries do do it. The fact that Russia officially doesn't even want to know how good or bad the situation is... suggests that it's bad.



This, as you know full well, is an outright lie. Anybody who wants to read the history of this thread, or others where we've talked, can see that I've provided links to scientific studies, articles about violence against women, dictionary definitions, and statistical analysis, inter alia. I have done far more to provide evidence for my position than you have ever done for yours.



...and there you've made another wrong assumption. Let me know when you've figured out your mistake.



Indeed. I'd much prefer to cite representative stats - I'm a data wonk at heart - but Russia doesn't bother to collect them.

And that says a whole lot about the situation in Russia right there.

You are mixing the apples with the oranges there.

First of all gun violence is NOT a disease, it is raw violence. The CDC has far more important public issues to deal with, like antibiotics not working anymore.

If you want the gun violence stats go to the FBI's UCR site. It's all there, all of it.

Why should the taxpayer be soaked for duplication's of data accumulation? It's not a 'Republican' issue, it's a common sense issue. Just how many fucking government agencies am I supposed to support to provide me the same information?

Ishmael

 

[Bramblethorn]

You are mixing the apples with the oranges there.

First of all gun violence is NOT a disease, it is raw violence.

Despite the name, CDC's remit is not limited to "disease". Once upon a time it did focus solely on communicable diseases, but that scope was expanded a long time ago to include health more generally. For example, CDC funds research into injuries, partner and sexual violence, etc. etc.

The CDC has far more important public issues to deal with, like antibiotics not working anymore.

That's certainly an important issue! But it's possible for an agency to do more than one thing.

If you want the gun violence stats go to the FBI's UCR site. It's all there, all of it.

Okay, I'll bite...

Let's suppose I'm interested in accidental shootings: toddler shoots sister, that sort of thing. I want to understand the extent of the problem and what sort of factors contribute to accidental shootings. (Should we be focussing on safety education? Storage requirements? Are some kinds of households more likely than others to experience accidental shootings, so we can target our efforts at those households?)

Can you point me to the data on the UCR site that I could use to answer those questions?

Why should the taxpayer be soaked for duplication's of data accumulation? It's not a 'Republican' issue, it's a common sense issue. Just how many fucking government agencies am I supposed to support to provide me the same information?

I wasn't talking about duplication of data. UCR is very useful for some things, but there are others - like the example I gave above - where it doesn't go very far.

Some of that deficiency is about scope: UCR is about crime, and it's not very helpful for shootings that aren't considered crimes.

But it's also about skills. If you want to answer questions like "what circumstances increase the risk of accidental shootings and how can we reduce that risk?" that's fundamentally a public health/epidemiology question, which puts it in CDC's area of expertise.

And in some cases, it's also about not being cops. Health research quite often involves questions about illegal activity: is drug use a factor in shootings? What about shootings that weren't reported to the cops? You're more likely to get truthful answers to those questions if your card says "CDC" rather than "FBI".

 

[Ishmael]

Despite the name, CDC's remit is not limited to "disease". Once upon a time it did focus solely on communicable diseases, but that scope was expanded a long time ago to include health more generally. For example, CDC funds research into injuries, partner and sexual violence, etc. etc.



That's certainly an important issue! But it's possible for an agency to do more than one thing.



Okay, I'll bite...

Let's suppose I'm interested in accidental shootings: toddler shoots sister, that sort of thing. I want to understand the extent of the problem and what sort of factors contribute to accidental shootings. (Should we be focussing on safety education? Storage requirements? Are some kinds of households more likely than others to experience accidental shootings, so we can target our efforts at those households?)

Can you point me to the data on the UCR site that I could use to answer those questions?



I wasn't talking about duplication of data. UCR is very useful for some things, but there are others - like the example I gave above - where it doesn't go very far.

Some of that deficiency is about scope: UCR is about crime, and it's not very helpful for shootings that aren't considered crimes.

But it's also about skills. If you want to answer questions like "what circumstances increase the risk of accidental shootings and how can we reduce that risk?" that's fundamentally a public health/epidemiology question, which puts it in CDC's area of expertise.

And in some cases, it's also about not being cops. Health research quite often involves questions about illegal activity: is drug use a factor in shootings? What about shootings that weren't reported to the cops? You're more likely to get truthful answers to those questions if your card says "CDC" rather than "FBI".

That much is true. UCR also doesn't provide stats on pool drownings, poisoning (accidental), auto accidents, and a host of other stats that are available from other sources.

I have zero interest in the number of children killed (accidentally) by firearms. That number (somewhere around 50/yr (+/-) is insignificant outside of the immediate family. Further, in many states even those deaths would result in a criminal charge. (In my state the charge would be "child abuse resulting in death", thus showing up on the UCR,)

The CDC's attempt to use emotionalism to expand their funding is nothing more than an emotional appeal to, well, get more money. More of my money, more of yours. It's not about public safety, it's all about the money.

Ishmael