Doctor documents dangers of guns

Oatka

New member
Out of the mouths of HCI and VPC ...
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea00/feb00/170177.html

Doctor documents dangers of guns
Educating parents is goal of study

Sunday, February 6, 2000
By Mark D. Somerson
Dispatch Medical Reporter

During the past decade, Children's Hospital physicians have studied injury patterns and issued public health warnings about dangerous products such as trampolines, watch batteries and baby walkers.

Yet one product that has consistently wounded, maimed and killed children has gone unaddressed. Until now.

"If we can convince people that guns are no different than baby walkers, then maybe we can do something about it,'' said Dr. Jonathan I. Groner, a surgeon and acting director of Children's trauma program.

"If you look at this from a public health angle, parents have to weigh the risks of having a gun in the house.''

To put the risk into perspective, Groner is studying patient records for every gunshot victim treated at Children's Hospital from 1992 through 1999.

The study, which Groner hopes to publish in a pediatric medical journal, includes details from the 177 gunshot victims who were treated at Children's during that period.

Of these patients, 18 died of their wounds.
Groner's information doesn't address the politics of guns or whether a shooting is an accident or homicide -- it simply provides a snapshot of its victims, he said.

According to patient records, 105 victims were Franklin County residents, and the remainder were brought to the hospital from 23 other Ohio counties, as well as from Kentucky and West Virginia.

Victims' ages ranged from less than a year to 18. He said some older teens are treated at adult hospitals, which would explain why only 23 16- to 18-year-old victims were treated at Children's.

That age group traditionally has the highest rate of gunshot injuries and deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of firearm deaths for 15- to 19-year-olds was second only to the rate for 20- to 24-year-olds.

Groner said the most compelling information concerns where children are shot. The data show 51 percent of the shootings occurred in the victims' homes; 20 percent occurred in friend's or relative's homes.

In 93 percent of the cases, victims were shot by relatives or friends.
"Only 7 percent were shot on the street,'' Groner said. "People are so obsessed with children being swept up off of the street, but they are being killed by friends, relatives and neighbors.''

Kathy Haley, trauma nurse coordinator at Children's, said no other injury affects emergency-room staff like gunshot wounds.
"When a kid comes in who is shot, there is this feeling that these types of injuries are senseless,'' Haley said. "It's always a tragedy. How can this happen to our youngest citizens?''

Groner and Haley said although the politics of guns has no place in the emergency department or operating room, the public-health concern nags at a lot of the staff.
"It's not like car seats,'' Haley said. "Everyone can agree on that.

"But when you think about it, guns and children simply don't mix. The risks are so great.''

Groner said the study will also include combing through police records of each shooting to determine the make and model of the guns.

"What's remarkably overwhelming is the preventable nature of these injuries,'' he said. "This doesn't have to happen.''
Groner's data show that 51 percent of the shootings were reported as "accidents.''
"If toaster ovens were killing kids in the home, we wouldn't have toaster ovens,'' he said. "But still there are guns.''

Dr. Robert T. Brown, chief of adolescent medicine at Children's, said parents need to know the risks associated with having a handgun in their house and their children's friends' houses.

He said although it may be awkward to ask others about guns, parents need to know.
"You can say 'By the way, do you keep a loaded handgun around your house?' '' Brown said the awkwardness of asking is outweighed by the risk of a child being injured.

He said pediatricians and family- practice doctors need to discuss guns with their patients and their patients' parents.
"We ask about guns on our standard intake form in the adolescent clinic here,'' he said. "We ask about the type of gun, how it's stored, and then we counsel them on risk.''

Bill Myers, health commissioner with the Columbus Health Department, said gun violence is a public health threat. "We will approach it as a health issue, like we do with an epidemic of a communicable disease,'' he said.



------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Read this article again, very carefully. This is part of a strategy the anti-self defense movement placed into motion at least 5 years ago (see the 'Not Even One' report at the Carter Center - it has been discussed on TFL).

"If you look at this from a public health angle, parents have to weigh the risks of having a gun in the house.'' - notice the alternative of securing the firearm and providing education is not even on the radar for this guy. And, the 'public health angle' is part of their strategy, not a nonpolitical, reasonable review of facts.

"Groner's information doesn't address the politics of guns or whether a shooting is an accident or homicide -- it simply provides a snapshot of its victims, he said." and, "Groner and Haley said although the politics of guns has no place in the emergency department or operating room, the public-health concern nags at a lot of the staff." - right. It has no political import or 'angle', and the study is just intended to provide data. Hogwash. He's grinding his ax, and telling us he isn't.

"Groner said the most compelling information concerns where children are shot. The data show 51 percent of the shootings occurred in the victims' homes; 20 percent occurred in friend's or relative's homes." - none of us have seen this fellow's data, but this is how the game is played. Read his words carefully. The shootings occurred in the victims' homes - isn't it also possible that most of them were the result of criminal activity in the home? If my home was the object of a home invasion robbery, and my family was subject to such an attack, any gunshot injuries to us would have occurred 'in the victims' home' - that doesn't mean it occurred because I owned a gun. And, the use of the term 'friends' is also often misleading - usually their definition will be whether the victim 'knew' their attacker. In the past this has encompassed drug dealers killing each other, prostitutes and johns, etc.

"If toaster ovens were killing kids in the home, we wouldn't have toaster ovens,'' he said. "But still there are guns.'' - Really? This is probably the most irrational statement he makes. Accidents with buckets kill more kids than accidents with firearms, but we still have buckets. The truth is, if toaster ovens were killing kids, we'd do what we could to reduce any unreasonable risk from them, we'd teach people how to use them properly, and we'd still keep using them.

One glaring fact always missing from an analysis like this is any reasonable cost / benefit analysis. These people perform triage in their hospitals - they are quite aware that they can save some but not all patients, and they make those tough choices. They also know that medical mistakes kill tens of thousands each year. But they don't propose the elimination of medical treatment. Why? Because they save many more than they kill. I find it fascinating that such people cannot begin to fathom that firearms are usually used to terminate violence, and that same cost / benefit examination should likewise be applied to firearms. For some reason, when it comes to the RKBA, folks like these see only the costs, never the more numerous benefits.

Groner is a gun bigot, and better minds than mine may be able to tell us if he has reared his head before in such work.
 
As a medical professional, it shames me to be associated with physicians of such low integrity and intelectual honesty.
Realise that his views are not representative of physicians as a whole.
 
I've got a doctor's appointment next week at the Univ of Kansas Medical Center. I just hope they ask me about firearms in the house. I will tell them that it's NONE OF THEIR F*^KING BUSINESS.

Mike
 
Good Afternoon Everyone-

This type of political posturing really burns me up. The response of the sheeple is usually, "Why would a doctor fabricate a story like this?" The answer is, "Because they have an agenda of their own to promote!"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The study, which Groner hopes to publish in a pediatric medical journal, includes details from the 177 gunshot victims who were treated at Children's during that period.

Of these patients, 18 died of their wounds.
Groner's information doesn't address the politics of guns or whether a shooting is an accident or homicide -- it simply provides a snapshot of its victims, he said.[/quote]

OK, so Dr. Groner (is that name for real?), is conducting his research with no political agenda, he merely wants to get published in the pediatric medical journal. Yeah, right!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Groner and Haley said although the politics of guns has no place in the emergency department or operating room, the public-health concern nags at a lot of the staff. "It's not like car seats,'' Haley said. "Everyone can agree on that.[/quote]

And here is where Dr. Groner really flips his lid and shows his true intentions:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Groner said the study will also include combing through police records of each shooting to determine the make and model of the guns.[/quote]

Excuse me, but where is this agenda-driven doctor going with his "findings?" Doctor, concentrate on saving lives in the ER and leave the investigative work to the police. They're professionals and they don't need your amateur assistance.

In the words of one of the fellow TFLer's here, "Better days to be."

Regards to all,

~ Blue Jays ~
 
The article included the statement, "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of firearm deaths for 15- to 19-year-olds was second only to the rate for 20- to 24-year-olds."

Now, I don't have the 20- to 24-year-olds data in front, but I do have the CDC data from 1996 for the 15-19 age group. There were 238 accidental deaths, and 2,457 deliberate shooting-deaths.

For the 0-14 age group, it was 138 accidental deaths, and 379 deliberate shooting-deaths.

If the statement "In 93 percent of the cases, victims were shot by relatives or friends." is true, one wonders at a whole new meaning of "dysfunctional family", not to mention the meaning of friendship.

It ain't a gun-thing; it's a cultural thing.

Har-effing-umph!

Art
 
Back
Top