Printable View
J Ben,
"In your response to a previous question on this forum, and not reported in your original paper, it now appears that 55.1% of unintentional firearm injuries came from BB guns and airguns."
Thanks for finding this figure I knew it was buried in there somewhere and really cant be bothered reading the dribble put out by these doctors.When Dr Austin was on the telly she was talking about serious injuries from air guns and it sounded like every kid was losing their eye sight.
Do you get out of the house much? I have better things to do that ruminate over such studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
When you not nit picking on matters of no real importance maybe address the other issue I posted.
"Are we to then believe that statements that were purported to be made by a certain Doctor was not in fact made and its fake news?
Austin said there is a pervasive belief that Canada doesn't have a problem with firearms, primarily because the level of gun deaths in the United States is so "spectacular" in comparison."
"It's like being shorter than (NBA star) Wilt Chamberlain," she said of measuring Canada's firearm death rate against that of its southern neighbor.
Is this Doctor really being serious in comparing the firearm death rate between both countries.First she talks about a "firearms problem" then its onto gun
deaths in the United States in the same breath.Double talk at best.
I did address that, in my previous reply to you. But instead of talking about that "other issue" -- the one you now tell me is the really important thing -- you responded by disputing Dr. Austin's place of employment. Remember? If we've been talking about "matters of no real importance," it's because you chose to make an issue of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Here's what I posted before with respect to that "other issue."
No. I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and that is not in any way a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote.
What I suggested is that (a) those statements can't be taken to represent the entirety of the doctor's beliefs, and (b) those statements can't be used to infer motivations that in turn are used to discredit the study by poisoning the well (i.e., arguing ad hominem by reference to those supposed motivations).
I don't think those are confusing ideas.
As for your having better things to do than to "ruminate over such studies," am I to understand that you have all kinds of time to run your mouth, but no time to make sure you know what you're talking about?
Gilroy, when it first hit without splitting hairs I had "mixed" thoughts, that sort of ran along the following lines.
1) Theres an agenda.
2) Bit of shame because if there are in fact a lot of young men (teens/young adults) being "accidentally shot", by guns maybe its worth looking into.
But as more and more came out, was made to stand up before the light as any research paper/scientific study should be. "What a joke".
There are so many things wrong with this and I am not referring to the sensationalism by the media. Any grade schooler...well high school student anyways learns the importance of vetting data and the concepts of "garbage in=garbage out". Apparently highly educated and paid Drs didn't.
And thats just the start. It's one thing for some person to do faulty research, its quite another when it comes from the so called professionals. Its one thing to engage in sensationalism, it's quite another when its from so called medical professionals. As the the Neurologist rightly noted and Im guessing he toned down his criticism substantially (aka was biting his tongue) given where he was expressing his disagreement.....
Or as the one mill right, someone who is not a Dr quite rightly noted. "why even use the data, if you don't know jack about it". Yes, why indeed........Why might someone want to intentionally "pad the stats"..Well one only need look at Bre-X for an example of salting the statistics gone wrong....
And excuses about the classifications, don't pass the stink test given how fast they were able to parse it once it hit the "light of day and fan".
At best, the title of the paper.........
and there's more, a lot more, but that alone says "all that needs to be said"
Hm, seems to me when I studied how to do research, when I started doing some writing the title is referred as "the hook" ( these days "click bait"), in fact when learning how to do basic essays in high school your taught what exactly about the title? And then what about the supporting arguments/paragraphs......
An embarrassing over reaction thats utterly discredited them all, at best, given, at best it's misleading sensationalism, the things said by the Authors, the CMAJ and CPS who apparently wasted their money on their University degrees and need to go back to school and learn how to do proper research so um, they don't come to faulty conclusions, don't mislead the public and or cause unnecessary alarm.
If someone wants to think or feel differently, well thats "their opinion" on the matter. But sort of surprising given many of them arguments over wee bones, semantics (meaning of words/phrases)
When is a gun and firearm.... a toy?
Apparently some of the time, so long as it suits the narrative
I think there is always an agenda when research is involved. Why else would they do it? And then as you say "follow the money". When a person or group funds research ( and gives the researchers a job) they do it with an agenda. If research is done without this type of funding it's usually done in anticipation of future consideration. Not unlike what pollsters do. So occasionally I'm sure truth can't be suppressed but research is expensive and i doubt much of it happens without an agenda.
JBen
"Gilroy, when it first hit without splitting hairs I had "mixed" thoughts, that sort of ran along the following lines.
1) Theres an agenda.
2) Bit of shame because if there are in fact a lot of young men (teens/young adults) being "accidentally shot", by guns maybe its worth looking into.
My conclusion there was a anti firearms agenda at play.
If we take away gang bangers shooting themselves in urban settings every other day and
Kids getting injured with air guns in rural settings I don,t think there is anything to be to worried about.
It seemed to die a fast death in the media so that tells a story.
True to an extent. But we have to be careful when we declare that the existence of a motive makes the study false, and especially when we impute specific motives to the researchers. When we declare that the authors of a study had an obvious motive, we can easily be guilty of projecting our ideas onto them.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
What are we to make of past research into tobacco use, accidental drownings, tanning and skin cancer, ATV accidents involving kids less than 12 years old, playground injuries, accidental stranglings of toddlers, skiiing and snowboarding accidents, the effectiveness of seatbelts and car seats, trampoline accidents, or snowmobile accidents? These are all topics on which the CPS has issued positions. Are we to assume that the research backing up those positions was done because paediatricians secretly hate smoking, swimming, people with tans, ATVs, swings and slides, strangly things, skis, snowboards, cars, trampolines, and snowmobiles?
People assume air guns are lumped in with real guns because the researchers hate guns. Another possibility is that the researchers want people to stop thinking of BB guns as toys.
This is certainly the position taken by CPS. Indeed, the CPS positions related to this paper are not extreme: they want paediatricians to talk to parents about risks related to guns, and they want the government to stop allowing air guns that can cause injury to be sold as toys. People don't have to agree with those ideas. But to pretend that's a radical anti-gun agenda, and that to arrive at this position, the CPS deliberately conspired with a group of researchers to produce a misleading study ... that takes motivated reasoning powered by cognitive dissonance, or in simpler terms, emotional butt-hurt.
Classic example of motivated reasoning at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Can you name a single study published in Canada in the last two years that received more media coverage than this one, over a longer period? The irony being, of course, that the media coverage was sustained longest by ... Brian Lilley.
Many on
global warming/climate change, thousands relating fish, Moose, Ticks, etc,etc, West nile likely and more...
Risk of firearm injuries among children and youth of immigrant families.
What is about that word in the title of the paper, you don't understand Welsh? And the fact of the matter is all of them use the gun and more interchangeably.
For someone that is so often a stickler for nitty gritty we factoids...........semantics..
While are certainly entitled to your opinion (one no-one agrees with). You are not "god" Welsh, don't get to dictate what people can or can't think for themselves, nor are you an authority on the topic, nor did I see your name on the paper, or with any of the involved establishments. Do you speak for them with authority? And I dare say, the Nuerologist who likewise criticized them and trashed the study is more, far more an authority....just saying.
Project your bias much?
"Classic example of motivated reasoning at work." right back at you.
Pot meet kettle
Yep, considered that many times. It's not some revelation. Just as I'm sure some Drs did many years ago with firecrackers.......Quote:
People assume air guns are lumped in with real guns because the researchers hate guns. Another possibility is that the researchers want people to stop thinking of BB guns as toys.
Did those Drs lump injuries from controlled explosives in with them?
Did those Drs refer to firecrackers as explosives?
Did those Drs also pad the stats, and include data (if I recall almost 40% of the injuries are from unknown sources)
Funny thing is, because thats not some earth shattering thought, when trying to give them the benefit of doubt when I was considering those possibilities days ago, a week ago. I remembered the nights I and my friends would buy every roman candle we could. Then with baseball gloves in left hand, roman candle in right. Square off and duel at 20 paces.
Yep a few got badly burned..
I guess according to these Drs, and their defenders they to were injured by firearms given Roman Candles fire projectiles from a barrel.
For that matter so do straws and spit.
For that matter when we used to put thumbtacks in straws and use heavy rubber bands at each other..and occasionally birds...
Bottom line
Somewhere between 86% and 91% of all these injuries are caused by
Unknown sources
Toys
Not firearms
Not Guns
if they had simply wanted to study that, once noticing a high rate of injuries, as they would have firecrackers, bike helmets, poisons under the kitchen sink.
They'd have done so.They'd have simply looked at those/that.
its not "rocket science"
And not labeled bike accidents as vehicular accidents...
You are entitled to your opinions, so is everyone else. Would do well to remember that.
Decided to see if I could change the direction of this, turn it into something that's possibly useful, and productive as compared and contrasted to the useless and wasted effort and junk (and I'm being kind) by the good Drs, CMAJ and CPS.
I to, am not perfect. Despite years of hands on experience working with data and models, learning or attempting to learn and perfect how to remove myself (and my bias) from X and look at something completely objectively, without emotion so that good informed conclusions (always open to interpretation and debate, no one is god, not even Warren Buffet is right all the time) can be drawn and decisions made.
Personally, as stated many times, I actually suspect there is something there working looking at.But alas one of the problems with producing junk, is that the signal tends to get lost in the noise. Witness the hoopla in the media and even here.
"Good job Drs"
I do not believe the Drs are unintelligent, or unqualified. So it begs many questions, questions like "how could they miss", "how/why didn't they ensure the data/paper, etc" was bullit proof. Can anyone imagine spending months studying this or that and then going to your boss, ( In my case head of trading North America), with conclusions and recomendations based on junk?....."I think we should invest millions, billions in this emerging market trend, or "build a new plant", or X, only to find out.........you screwed up? Used bad, faulty, full of holes data? And worse used data that 40% of it was unexplained......Seriously? When your boss ask, or the board or directors or whoever ask....Wow, what about this huge part of the data, what's causing that? What do you mean you don't know.
Fired!!!!!
Where did these people graduate? Or is it more likely...........
*****
Risk of firearm injuries in ABC.............
Is infistismal.Of 3,000 reported injuries they account for less than 9%..........
But what they did find, stumble on, is gosh gee golly wiz.
Boys will be boys.
They fool around with firecrackers but not explosives.
They fool around with matches, but not flame throwers
They fool around with non lethal airguns, paint ball guns, roman candles.....
But not Bows or guns.........
Gee, someone award me a pulitzer prize for figuring that out................
But rather than use their brains, be objective ( of coarse that would include having to show that with respect to controlled things, lethal things like bows......we, they are safe) narrow the scope and focus of their study, and do a proper study by comparing and contrasting such things.
And maybe producing a paper that supports the findings and conclusions. And maybe using a title such
Risk of injuries in young men from non lethal, uncontrolled air guns, paint ball guns.......
And supported that by showing and contrasting.
Neither air guns, nor highly lethal compound bows are controlled. Don't require liscencing or storage laws..
Not many kids being sent to ERs with arrows sticking out of them or going through them.
But yes, there are a fair degree of minor injuries and maybe some more serious injuries from air guns.
Maybe we should look some minor changes there. Might not have to because in the grand scheme of things these injuries and incidents pale in comparison to vehicular accidents and more
Boys will be boys after all. Nor can we, nor should we wrap them in bubble wrap or award the prizes for participating.......
but maybe, just maybe its worth discussing the ease of acquiring and storage surrounding them.