20 Children per day shot (Pediatrics Journel)....

[Tinner666]

Well, you have this from the Center of American Oppression:

The Center for American Progress “only look at the harm of guns and refuse to take into account any deterrent or self-defense effect of firearms,” Kopel said in an interview.

Chelsea Parsons, associate director of crime and firearms policy at the Center and a co-author of this report, responded by saying the report measures all gun violence and not just homicides. “The numbers speak for themselves,” she said. She added that the fact that the states with fewer gun restrictions tend to have more gun deaths and injuries “is likely more than a coincidence.”


Read more: States With the Most Gun Violence - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/#ixzz2rdTSNdvn
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook

 

[Tinner666]

They even include the Boston Bombers. Don't forget that fact either. Even Boomgerger had a memorial for them in his cross country tour list.

 

[jimbob86]

Chelsea Parsons, associate director of crime and firearms policy at the Center and a co-author of this report, responded by saying the report measures all gun violence and not just homicides. “The numbers speak for themselves,” she said.

....

So, if Larry the LEO wings Gary Gangbanger during Gary's arrest, because Gary is 19, does he count toward the "Children shot per day" statistic? Even though he was pointing a gun at Larry?

How about if Herbert Homeowner shoots Karl Krackhead when Karl pulls a home invasion on Herb's house ...... just because Karl is 17 (and thinks the worst that could happen would be another stint in Juvie Hall)?

How about the .... um ..... "disturbed youth" who kills a dozen adults in a shopping mall, and then turns the gun on himself as the police sirens begin to be heard?



If cases such as these get counted get counted as "Children who were victims of gun violence", then this "study" is meaningless .....

The numbers speak for themselves,” she said.

.... and they don't say what you are telling us they say, lady.

 

[FAS1]

Considering the study includes air guns, I have to wonder if some of the injuries aren't the result of paint ball guns!

From the study "Firearm injuries due to BB or air guns were included, whereas those due to paintballs were excluded."

There is actually some pretty good info in the study. It shows that most of the injuries by far are in the 15-19 age group and a result of an assault, not an accident or suicide.

It also breaks it down by gender and ethnicity. What is doesn't provide is who is doing the assaulting, so we will have to draw our own conclusions from who is being assaulted.

 

[Willie Lowman]

There are three kinds of lies.

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[Hal]

From the study "Firearm injuries due to BB or air guns were included, whereas those due to paintballs were excluded."

I didn't see that part.
I only saw a part that mentioned air guns.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[FAS1]

I didn't see that part.
I only saw a part that mentioned air guns.

Thanks for the clarification.

I had the same thought so I read the study a little instead of just the article. So much is still left vague at best, but some good info in it.

 

[Tom Servo]

From the study "Firearm injuries due to BB or air guns were included, whereas those due to paintballs were excluded."

Wow, good catch there. It really skews the data.

 

[FlyFish]

Wow, good catch there. It really skews the data.

In what way? And how do you know? I didn't see any breakdown in the study of air gun vs. "real" firearm injuries.

Remember, the study concerns injuries that require admittance to a hospital, not simply ER treatment or a visit to the doctor. Given that the study clearly indicates that the majority of the injuries are in the 15 to 19 age group, and mostly to blacks and hispanics, I really doubt that excluding hospitalization due to air gun injuries (primarily eye trauma, I would guess) would have changed the results much.

 

[Tom Servo]

I really doubt that excluding hospitalization due to air gun injuries (primarily eye trauma, I would guess) would have changed the results much.

We won't know from this study. Airguns can cause plenty of injuries causing hospitalization.

 

[Dashunde]

I'm not quite sure what you people are so stirred up about...

Dr. John Leventhal and his team studied children and adolescents younger than age 20 at the time of admission to the hospital in 2009. In that year, in the United States, 7,391 hospitalizations occurred in this age group because of firearm injuries, and 453 of those young patients died while in the hospital. Most of these hospitalizations resulted from assaults (4,559), but in children younger than age 10, 75% of the almost 400 hospitalizations were due to unintentional or accidental injuries.

Again, so that its clear where they point out young-adult antics and mayhem..

Most of these hospitalizations resulted from assaults (4,559),

I'm no big fan of Eastern high-brow studies or journals, particularly as they have historically applied to firearms... but nitpicking this one seems like a was of time, for a few reasons, some already mentioned here.

 

[carguychris]

Setting aside political objections and teeth-gnashing, I was taken aback by this tidbit in the study (pg. 221).

Of all hospitalizations, 89.2% were in males, and this marked difference in gender was found regardless of the cause of the injury.

(Emphasis mine)

Given that the number of young males and females in the USA is very close to equal, the number of young people injured in truly random accidental discharges- e.g. dropping a single-action revolver on the hammer, or accidentally pulling the trigger of a loaded shotgun while picking it up- should be roughly equal. IOW this data shows that many unintentional discharges are NOT random- most are likely the result of a young male intentionally playing with an unsecured gun, or using a gun in an unsafe manner.

Also...

I really doubt that excluding hospitalization due to air gun injuries (primarily eye trauma, I would guess) would have changed the results much.
We won't know from this study.

Airguns can cause plenty of injuries causing hospitalization.

Tom is absolutely right, and furthermore, I surmise that many of the "unintentional" injuries in the study ARE the result of unsafe airgun use.

I'll be the first to tell you that the plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data", but I can tell you who I primarily see shopping the airgun section at the sporting goods store... preteen and teenage boys.

Kids need to be taught that airguns are NOT HARMLESS TOYS.

 

[jimbob86]

in children younger than age 10, 75% of the almost 400 hospitalizations were due to unintentional or accidental injuries.

I'm sure incidents such as the 5 year old killed last week here locally (eating breakfast and killed by a "stray bullet" from the gangland gun battle down the street) are classified as "unintentional" ....

I'd like to see what the data would look like if you took out all the "gang related" incidents.

It's not a "gun violence" problem. It's a "breakdown of the social order" problem.

 

[leadcounsel]

Chalk this up to not believing the media, and always look deeper into the facts.

Movements have learned that to control the 'facts' is to win the argument. Easiest way to control the 'facts' is to change the definition.

You can claim that more women are 'sex assault victims' when you change the definition of 'sex assault.' Suddenly, MOST women are victims. It's a self-fulfilling claim. Drunk driving is on the rise, because the definition has been changed. You get the idea. More victims = bigger movement = more money and political power.

Same is true here. People hear children, and think of a toddler. Reality is that most are not true children. Here's a good article on the subject. https://gunowners.org/opnem04.htm

 

[towboat-er]

Ban shopping carts.


data involving children younger than 15 years of age who were treated for shopping cart-related injuries in emergency departments from 1990 through 2011.

An estimated 530,494 injured children were documented during the study period, averaging more than 24,000 children annually — or 66 children per day, treated in an emergency department.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Given that the number of young males and females in the USA is very close to equal, the number of young people injured in truly random accidental discharges- e.g. dropping a single-action revolver on the hammer, or accidentally pulling the trigger of a loaded shotgun while picking it up- should be roughly equal. IOW this data shows that many unintentional discharges are NOT random- most are likely the result of a young male intentionally playing with an unsecured gun, or using a gun in an unsafe manner.

Or that a significant percentage of the injuries were incurred by budding criminals either engaging in gang warfare, or by being shot by would-be victims or by the police in the act of committing felonies.

Did this study actually say it was counting only accidental shootings?

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

The study included all shootings. The 19 year old Boston Marathon bomber shot by police is counted in this study, as is the 15 year old in this story. In fact the vast majority of the "victims" in this study are teenagers engaging in gang or other criminal activity, not some innocent youngster whose parent's didn't properly secure their firearms.

 

[UncleEd]

The FBI uses for its crime statistics "children" as being up to 21 years of age.
It's been that way for years.

 

[carguychris]

Did this study actually say it was counting only accidental shootings?

No. It very plainly explains that the vast majority of the tabulated shootings are the result of assaults (4,559 out of 7,391), and that the number of assaults goes WAY up in the 14-19 age group (4,143 of the 4,559). This study largely reflects a teenage crime problem, NOT an accident problem across all age groups.

Also, I surmise that a substantial number of the "unintentional" shootings- particularly within the 1,419 in the 14-19 age group- have been purposefully misreported to conceal criminal activity, although the study makes no readily apparent attempt to control for this factor.

FWIW my prior post was intended to make people aware that this study might tell us something useful about negligent firearms injuries, despite the fact that it's bound to be spun as a political hit piece, and I suspect that the authors intended it as such.

The study also makes some fairly stunning revelations about the racial and ethnic makeup of the victims. (Refer to the link in Flyfish's earlier post.) Unfortunately, I suspect that this aspect of the study will largely be ignored by the people who really need to read it.

 

[Kev]

I heard a joke years ago that is near and dear to me and I use it often with customers and while public speaking..

"78.5% of all percentages are made up"

I will say that in 2010, 1,537 children (and I mean children, 80% 4 years old and YOUNGER) were killed (murdered) from child abuse.

This to me is a much more disturbing number than this skewed report.