Printable View
They do touch on this, and Jamaican immigrants are in the Central America region of origin group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Quote:
In our study, the observed variation in firearm injury
by region of origin may have been related to higher participation
in Canadian gangs by Indo-Asian, Caribbean and African immigrants
than by those from other regions, and it highlights the
need to ensure a healthy transition to Canada for these particular
at-risk groups.35
The author has responded to a letter to CMAJ that questioned the types of 'firearms' that caused the injuries.
The reply is here:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/12/E452/reply#cmaj_el_733042
Looks like half of those unintentional injuries are BB guns & airsoft - or at least reported as such at the ER.
And the next biggest chunk is "undefined." Note that in the original study, the classifications used (per the reporting system) were handgun, shotgun/rifle, and undefined/other (including BB guns).
It's reasonable to suppose that the undefined category has similar distribution to injuries where the weapon is known, so it's likely the majority (over 85%) are BB gun and air rifle injuries, which is exactly what you would expect from a careful reading of the paper.
Edited to add: it's arguably conservative to suppose the distribution of the undefined category matches the distribution of known injuries, given legal requirements to report true gunshot injuries to police. I suggest the undefined category might be almost exclusively BB gun / air gun injuries.
So lets be perfectly clear.
All this hoopla by the media and by them. All those juicy quotes like "any other commercially available product" and the calls.....by them....for targeted intervention.....and they still are calling for it....Last sentence of their clarification.
Is because all those shocking, traumatic injuries, that require immediate targeted preventative measures......
.
1% legal intervention
85 or likely closer to 91% BB Guns, paintball guns....aka toys. How hard is it to determine whether a wound is from a .22, .308, shotgun vs a pinball/bb rifle, pellet pistols....
5.6% Shotgun/rifle
2.5% handgun
or 108 incidents.......................campare that against so many things that do send kids, teens and young adults to ERs every year, every day.
Embarrasing overreaction imo "at best"
Well, I'm not writing for the National Post, or the Toronto Sun, so I don't worry too much about whether "immigrant" is the right adjective. Everybody knows what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
This way this story is presented is complete sensationalism. The figures are presented as "children and youth" to dramatize the results. They actually pertain to children, youths and adults under 24. When you dig down further the number of gun deaths for those under 15-years old is 34 between 2008-2012, (or less than 7 a year). 7 of these 34 (or approx. 1 a year) are accidental. The rest are split fairly even between suicide and homicides. The vast majority of gun injuries and deaths are in youth and young adults, almost exclusively males.... strongly linked with poverty, crime, mental health issues no doubt. Of course I'd like to see no gun deaths, but I don't really like headlines that infer that vast numbers of children are dying when that is not the case.
Right on! No matter which way the liberal folks among us try to "spin" this,it's a classic example of "fake news." ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Larson
Well,not like I'm having a "Cliff Claven" moment,but,seeing as how you asked (can't tell you how I know) Canadians born of Italian heritage can be "made men" in La Cosa Nostra as long as both parents are Sicilian and can be traced back two generations to the "old country."Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Well I guess you have not been reading any of the posts placed on this topic by this Liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Well, you have two problems there.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
The first is that, as anyone who has done interviews can tell you, you may talk to a reporter for half an hour and only three sentences will be quoted. And the reporter will quote the things that support his slant. So trying to build arguments off those quotes is a fool's game. The study says what the study says, and quotes in the media don't change that.
The second is that the "commercially available product" quote did not come from one of the authors of this study, which suggests you ought to pay closer attention to who is saying what.
Which takes us to the "targeted measures" bit. Knowing that a toy (your word) is sending several people each week to the ER, wouldn't it make sense to take some kind of measures, such as (at least) warning people that you should maybe be a little more careful with said toy?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
This is the part where you sputter and say we should focus on more important things. (Suicide statistics in 3, 2, 1....) Let me point out that it's possible to focus on more than one thing at a time. It's not inappropriate to suggest we might look at any given thing that's putting people in the ER. Especially when many of those visits are easily preventable.
The media reports were indeed sensationalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larson
One interesting note: only one major media outlet, to my knowledge, corrected its initial coverage to more accurately reflect the study, even to the point of changing the headline to indicate that the "firearms" involved were not all firearms.
That would be the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/firear...cmaj-1.4040628
That's exactly what we'd expect of the Communist Broadcasting Corporation, that well-known nest of Liberal gun grabbers!
The rationale for the age groups is given in a response mooboy76 posted:Quote:
Originally Posted by Larson
In high income countries, youth (compared with young children and older adults) are the age group at highest risk of injury and most in need of targeted injury prevention strategies. A considerable number of research programs that explore youth injury and violence typically include those from 10 to 24 years (including routine reporting by the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control). As such, we felt it important to include those up to 24 years in our study. While there is no international consensus on age boundaries for youth, our study is consistent with the definition used by the United Nations (15 to 24 years).
So this was in line with common practice in the field.
This was a study of non-fatal injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larson