1 Child or Youth suffers gunshot injury each day in Ontario

Fair enough. But as a Dr (medical I'm assuming) she would know that a certain percentage of "self inflicted" or accidents even if reported as one, aren't.

I personally don't know why someone who is crying for help would shoot themselves in a non vital area. But lots of people hurt themselves intionally, and the shame of suicidal thoughts.......lots of people hurt themselves, then tell the Drs "accident".

Or as mentioned.
Let's say some 17 year old gang bangers fire a few shots for a lark. Think I recall from the TPS stats last year there were quite a number of shooting incidents, but no injuries.

But some kid in the project gets grazed/hit in the leg.

If it's not clearly tied to "a shooting" (say a body in the street)

Accident
Or
Gang violence
?

If a child is injured by a firearm everyday how does that compare to other injuries? What percentage of injuries are gun related? What percentage of gun related were from legally owned and stored firearms?

http://globalnews.ca/news/3337217/re...own-every-day/

This really puts the whole thing in perspective. Good job,Matt Gurney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

http://globalnews.ca/news/3337217/re...own-every-day/

This really puts the whole thing in perspective. Good job,Matt Gurney.

---

Yes indeed...he capsulized it nicley.

Yep, So in reality there are few things going on. While I don't have any trouble with the stats, and to a degree some of the conclusions, they simply aren't digging deep enough (imo). Would be akin (note that word) to doing a study on "death by car" without factoring in drinking and driving or even the fact that the 16-24 yr males who think they are immortal do stupid things. Or some of the underlying mental health reasons ( and lets not forget small town Ontario, in some areas has huge issues with such things).

The reference to the most dangerous commercially bought..... sealed it for me. Knives, cars and booze came to my mind long before guns.

Not sure if this is worth mentioning as it might open a can of worms.
/looks towards JTs new firearms Advisory Committee and its new make up.
isn't this to, timely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Yep, So in reality there are few things going on. While I don't have any trouble with the stats, and to a degree some of the conclusions, they simply aren't digging deep enough (imo). Would be akin (note that word) to doing a study on "death by car" without factoring in drinking and driving or even the fact that the 16-24 yr males who think they are immortal do stupid things. Or some of the underlying mental health reasons ( and lets not forget small town Ontario, in some areas has huge issues with such things).

The reference to the most dangerous commercially bought..... sealed it for me. Knives, cars and booze came to my mind long before guns.

Not sure if this is worth mentioning as it might open a can of worms.
/looks towards JTs new firearms Advisory Committee and its new make up.
isn't this to, timely.

---

Gee,do ya think? LOL Without a shred of doubt,we'll see more of this fake news crap down the road.

Homer simpson: "Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything Kent, forfty per cent of all people know that."

Q. "That's a lot," said Austin. "Can you imagine any other consumer product that caused one serious injury a day over a period of five years?"

Um, vehicles? Medication. Cleaning products...

Gurney misses the obvious point that a substantial proportion of non-intentional injuries likely involve various BB guns, pellet guns, Airsoft guns, and so on. How many, we can't tell, because these statistics are not kept; they're lumped in with "unknown firearm." But the fact that accidental death rates are low, while the accidental injury rates in ERs are high, suggests that these may include many non-life-threatening injuries caused by less lethal guns.

The Canadian Paediatric Society statement issued today specifically calls for stricter rules for air guns, so the CPS clearly sees that category as non-trivial.

https://firearmrights.ca/en/misleadi...blic-confused/

A study released by the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) shows a wide range of issues placing Canadian youth, both new Canadians and soil-born, at risk. Legal gun owners are left frustrated as headlines across the country imply a “child a day” is shot in Ontario. A brief review of the study itself reveals that the scope may be too broad to provide an actual foundation for the headline’s implication. Everything from Nerf guns to youth gang members shot by police, and beyond are included.

Fom Dr. Caillan Langmann;

The major flaw with this study is the type of injuries is not specified in the paper. The ICD codes (disease codes) include pellet guns and other air gun injuries which would involve airsoft and paintball.
As well “accidental injury” includes a legal intervention such as police shooting or discharge. I would not include this as an accidental injury necessarily.
The age group cohorts are less than 15 and 15-24. The injuries and assaults in the less than 15 are very small numbers and obviously the majority of data comes from the more adult age group. Many of these may not be children as we define them (<18) at all. In medicine a pediatric patient is <18 years old. Hence no real valid data on pediatric patients can be obtained from this study.
Rural can be an area like Brampton. The major real numbers of assaults and injuries come from the Urban areas. More specifically associated with a demographic that is involved in criminal activity. This cannot be applied to your average rural gun owner.
Any recommendation, if any can be made from this study, would be that to reduce harm, we should be targeting at risk youth involved in pre-crime or low risk crime to reduce their entry into criminal risk behaviour.

Dr. Langmann, MD PhD FRCPS ABEM, Assistant Professor Medicine McMaster University, author of Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008.