The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 27, 2014, 11:01 AM   #1
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,605
20 Children per day shot (Pediatrics Journel)....

> About 20 children per day in the United States are injured by firearms
> seriously enough to require hospitalization, and more than 6% of these
> children die from their injuries, according to a study by Yale School of
> Medicine researchers and their colleagues published in the Jan. 27 online
> issue of Pediatrics.
http://news.yale.edu/2014/01/27/afte...among-children

I am stunned by what this study is reporting.

I was unable to find it in the current issue of PEDIATRICS to dig through the data, so does anyone have a cite to the actual article?
mehavey is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:13 AM   #2
Kev
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2013
Posts: 497
I have not searched for the exact data...
However I "think" that included in that 20, is 17 year old gang members
There is no separation of accidental discharge, and so
__________________
"Classic over Plastic"
Kev is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:21 AM   #3
mcb66
Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2013
Posts: 27
The last time a similar study showed up it did contain "children" up to 20 years old all gang and drug related shootings.
mcb66 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:22 AM   #4
Knight cadet
Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2014
Location: The Gunshine State
Posts: 70
Kev is right. That number also includes under 21 "youths" who are shot by police in the commission of a crime, killed in self defense, and who committed suicide.

I wouldn't consider someone my age shot robbing a liquor store a "child victim of gun violence". Their same epidemiology would list the shooters at Columbine and Sandy Hook as victims.
Knight cadet is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:32 AM   #5
JERRYS.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 398
seems like a teen age criminal street gang problem, not a firearms problem; considering that there were fewer shooting when guns were more easily obtained decades ago, yet there were fewer teen age criminal street gangs.
JERRYS. is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:32 AM   #6
Colt46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 581
Same old page, same old book

A study that includes 18,19 and 20 year old ADULTS as Children.
Not even slightly dishonest.
Colt46 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 11:42 AM   #7
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,328
It does seem like organized medical groups tend to be anti-gun.

The article does say they defined "children" as “under 20” so yeah, the 19 year old gang-bangers would be included.

I don’t understand the following though.
Quote:
Leventhal and his team found that the most common types of firearm injuries included open wounds (52%); fractures (50%); and internal injuries of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis (34%).Traumatic brain injuries occurred most often in children younger than age 5.
Only 52% of firearm injuries result in open wounds? I’d think it would be very close to 100%.

And why the traumatic brain injuries in children younger than age 5. Do children under age 5 have a propensity for being shot in the head? Perhaps being shot anywhere leads to blood loss and in little kids the blood loss leads to brain injury? Shrug. I can assume that but the article should have explained it better.

Count me in as being interested if anyone finds the complete study.
DaleA is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 12:18 PM   #8
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,471
More emotional arguments rather than reason and logic.

20 children INJURED per day! What does that tell you? Absent other facts, nothing at all.

Look at the CDC's report on childhood mortality. Firearms deaths are such a small percentage that they're not even listed separately, they're simply included in "Other" and even being included in every "other" cause, they amount to 0.9 per 100,000 of a total of 15.1 per 100,000. Even if firearms were the ONLY cause of "other", they would amount to 5.9% of fatal injuries. The only causes that are statistically smaller are bicycles and falling.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:03 PM   #9
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,605
Brian, it doesn't need to tell you anything. It merely needs to wave the bloody shirt. I'm still
waiting to find the original/whole paper and so break it down by age group, circumstance, etc,
but I'm not fooling myself. "Save the Children" written in blood on that shirt is all that's needed.

If as noted by Kev above, the data include "children" up to/including 19 year olds, those above
~age 12-13 are likely not victim to a "safety" problem, but rather but one of their own making.

However... once this is all effectively labled "a health & safety issue," this is a whole new game
for the regulators.

Last edited by mehavey; January 27, 2014 at 01:14 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:19 PM   #10
TRX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2008
Posts: 111
For purposes of the Accordable Care Act, a "dependent child" can be as old as 27.
TRX is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:28 PM   #11
FlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Overlooking the Baker River Valley
Posts: 1,468
The original article appears in the February issue of Pediatrics, which apparently isn't up yet - clicking on the "Current Issue" link at the AAP site only brings up the January issue.

I was, however, able to find this on-line press release, which does indicate that the study defined "children" (clarified to "children and adolescents" in the body of the text) as being individuals younger than age 20 at the time of admission to the hospital. And previous posters are absolutely correct - that definition would include individuals that most of us wouldn't think of as children.

Remains to be seen if that mischaracterization originates with the authors of the study or whoever prepared the press release.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
SASS #84900
03 FFL
Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club
FlyFish is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:37 PM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,472
You guys are absolutely correct on the slanted reporting of "child" as anyone under 20. In fact, some DOJ statistics on violence call anyone under 25 a child.

The study also trots out the chestnut that "75% of the almost 400 hospitalizations were due to unintentional or accidental injuries." That sounds frightening, but one of the most frequent defenses offered after a shooting is, "it just went off" or "I didn't mean to pull the trigger."

This is why many suicides are reported as accidents. Joe's wife left him, he lost his job, and that night, he had a cleaning accident.

Since this is an article for a trade publication that's been deluged with anti-gun propaganda for decades, I don't see it making much of a difference either way.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:41 PM   #13
Crazy88Fingers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleA View Post
It does seem like organized medical groups tend to be anti-gun.

The article does say they defined "children" as “under 20” so yeah, the 19 year old gang-bangers would be included.

I don’t understand the following though.


Only 52% of firearm injuries result in open wounds? I’d think it would be very close to 100%.

And why the traumatic brain injuries in children younger than age 5. Do children under age 5 have a propensity for being shot in the head? Perhaps being shot anywhere leads to blood loss and in little kids the blood loss leads to brain injury? Shrug. I can assume that but the article should have explained it better.

Count me in as being interested if anyone finds the complete study.
Very young children have trouble holding handguns properly. They often end up holding the grip with the muzzle pointed toward their face, and then squeeze the trigger with their thumbs. Or so I've heard.

And I hate to sound callous, but in a nation of over 300 million people, 20 "kids" (however it's defined) is a lot lower than I would have expected.
Crazy88Fingers is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:44 PM   #14
FlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Overlooking the Baker River Valley
Posts: 1,468
Doh! - I just realized that it's possible to access the entire original article by following the link provided in the press release that I cited above. Or you can access it directly here.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
SASS #84900
03 FFL
Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club
FlyFish is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 01:48 PM   #15
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,427
I wonder how many children are injured each day in vehicle accidents? I wonder if this number has been reported in the Pediatric Journal?
Skans is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 02:11 PM   #16
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,673
Wow. What a disingenuous study: They include "children" up to 20 years old!? Hell, when I was 20 I had been in the Marine Corps for three years and was training for my second deployment. And how many of these are gang-related? Their age range includes part of the group most likely to be involved in gang violence.

It doesn't end: They use statistics that are vastly inflated by suicides and gang-on-gang violence, combined with the imagery of mass-shootings (which, while tragic, are extraordinarily rare in a statistical sense), to try to further criminalize lawful gun ownership.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is online now  
Old January 27, 2014, 02:38 PM   #17
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,452
Quote:
Wow. What a disingenuous study: They include "children" up to 20 years old!? Hell, when I was 20 I had been in the Marine Corps for three years and was training for my second deployment. And how many of these are gang-related? Their age range includes part of the group most likely to be involved in gang violence.
20 y.o. "Children"?

George Washington was left home @ age 16 to work as a surveyor......

..... add to this the number of actual children hit by stray bullets from gang related shootings (happens with such boring regularity in my nearest metro area that it only makes news if the child is killed) .....

To hear these people tell it, if we'd only further restrict gun ownership, then all these poor little tykes would stop accidentally shooting themselves with leagally purchased guns that are just running aound loose everywhere .....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 02:41 PM   #18
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,498
Just out of curiosity what is the standard definition of “children” used by the medical profession? Is it 0 – 20 years old?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 02:48 PM   #19
FlyFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Overlooking the Baker River Valley
Posts: 1,468
I've been spending some time looking over the full text of the article and also checking some of their citations, and in fairness to the authors, they're really pretty consistent in referring to "children and adolescents" not "children" - that's coming from the press release, which I'm sure the authors didn't write and likely didn't even get a chance to see, and from the media generally. They're also pretty up front about showing that the vast majority of these hospitalizations, 84% in fact, are within the 15 to 19 age group. Still, would have been better if they'd used a more restrictive definition of "children" - they might have anticipated how inflammatory this sort of work can be and how the article would be spun in the press.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
SASS #84900
03 FFL
Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club
FlyFish is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 03:23 PM   #20
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,377
Quote:
I don’t understand the following though.

Quote:
Leventhal and his team found that the most common types of firearm injuries included open wounds (52%); fractures (50%); and internal injuries of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis (34%).Traumatic brain injuries occurred most often in children younger than age 5.

Only 52% of firearm injuries result in open wounds? I’d think it would be very close to 100%.
Considering the study includes air guns, I have to wonder if some of the injuries aren't the result of paint ball guns!
It's somewhat obvious that not all the injuries come from being shot.
Some could even be from such benign sources as a kid getting his first taste of a 12 ga. recoil and ending up with a badly bruised shoulder.

On the whole, the "study" is pseudo-science and serves no purpose other than being a "publication".

If you've ever spent more than 30 seconds in the company of university professors, you'll understand the significance of the term "published".
Hal is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 04:14 PM   #21
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 330
Well, you have this from the Center of American Oppression:
Quote:
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/...#ixzz2rdTSNdvn
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 04:16 PM   #22
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 330
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.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 04:35 PM   #23
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,452
Quote:
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 .....

Quote:
The numbers speak for themselves,” she said.
.... and they don't say what you are telling us they say, lady.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 04:36 PM   #24
FAS1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 247
Quote:
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.
__________________
Glenn

FAS1 SAFE, LLC
FAS1 is offline  
Old January 27, 2014, 04:48 PM   #25
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,321
There are three kinds of lies.

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13163 seconds with 7 queries