1 Child or Youth suffers gunshot injury each day in Ontario

Interesting study, I hadn't realized there were so many accidental (unintentional) injuries involving kids in Ontario.

Quote:

---

Firearms injure a child or youth almost every day in Ontario, say researchers, who analyzed hospital records to determine which groups of young people are most at risk for gun-related accidents or violent assault.

Their study, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found there were 355 firearm injuries an average each year among children and youth, about one quarter of which resulted in death.

"Three-quarters are unintentional, so these are accidents that happen, and about 25 per cent are intentional or assault," said senior author Dr. Astrid Guttmann, a pediatrician at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children.

When the researchers looked at provincial hospital emergency room records for gun-related injuries, they found Canadian-born youth, particularly males, had the highest rates of unintentional firearm injury -- 12 per 100,000 people versus about seven per 100,000 for immigrant males.

But when it came to firearm injuries due to assault, immigrants and refugees were at much higher risk than their non-immigrant counterparts.

Refugee children and youth were 1.4 times more likely to be shot than Canadian-born residents of the same age, while immigrant children and youth from Africa were almost three times as likely and those from Central America almost four times as likely to be a victim of a firearm assault, the study found.

Males in all three groups were at highest risk of suffering a gunshot injury, said Guttmann, chief science officer at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which collected the data.

---

Good article, worth the read...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/one-chi...tudy-1.3341954

I read it, this is a very weird written article. They say how many were hurt intentionally and un-intentionally including suicides, homicides and then broke up the ages without having the totals broken up as well.

They then stated that people who want to own guns need to be screened (They are) and that anyone who wants to have a gun needs to be taught how to store safely (They are and this is the law).

I don't know what they are trying to do with this law, I would like to see the breakdown of unintentional in a legally owned rural household.

I have not actually heard of any unintentional shootings outside of a hunting situation and most of those involve people who would be old enough to be grandfathered into the PAL and Hunter Safety Course system.

Agree Fox. Weird article for sure and it doesn't pass the smell test imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

Agree Fox. Weird article for sure and it doesn't pass the smell test imho.

---

I just expect people who have no idea to think we are the same for our laws as the US, they actually stated that there are "other (research) literature that children who live in homes where there are guns are more likely to have an accident with a gun", what research? Show your work. You say that in a house with a gun you are more likely to be hurt by that gun but why? Is it a loaded handgun in the drawer of the night stand? We cannot legally have that here but I do not doubt that many readers would assume the Hollywood rules are the same in Canada.

Just more skewed,anti-gun drivel. These "stats" don't even make sense.

What that article tells me is that my kids are more likely to be killed or injured by the chemicals under my kitchen sink, the meds in my bathroom or the tools in my garage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Just more skewed,anti-gun drivel. These "stats" don't even make sense.

---

It doesn't serve well for the firearms community to take a knee jerk defensive posture when articles like this are published.

If it wasn't for the fact that it was published in the CMA I'd question the motive....but its not an opinion piece or an 'anti' driven article, but a statement of facts gathered thru hospital ER visits it has credence.

Quote:

---

Their study, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found there were 355 firearm injuries an average each year among children and youth, about one quarter of which resulted in death.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I just expect people who have no idea to think we are the same for our laws as the US, they actually stated that there are "other (research) literature that children who live in homes where there are guns are more likely to have an accident with a gun", what research? Show your work.

---

Are you seriously suggesting this is made up?

I read the article in this mornings Hamilton Spectator. The title "ONE CHILD OR YOUTH SUFFERS GUNSHOT INJURY EACH DAY IN ONTARIO" is hard to accept. I flat out don't believe that statement to be true. Where is the reporting of these incidents? I understand the article intended to put a negative spin on gun ownership - but wish they could do a better jobs of accurately reporting the facts to back up the titles claim.

Here is a link to the full study:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/12/E452.full.pdf+html

The real aim of the study is to compare rates of firearms in immigrant and non-immigrant populations. Non-immigrant populations were found to have higher unintentional injury rates, with rural residence correlating to risk of injury.

No big surprises there, except that the rate of injuries seems high -- although the paper itself does note that our rate of injury is in fact low compared to other countries.

The number of firearms injuries is derived from the number of ER visits where the injury was coded as firearms related. Note that this may include pellet gun injuries and even kids hit in the eye with Airsoft pellets. It all depends how the physician coded a pellet gun injury. There is no way to know that without getting deep into the data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Are you seriously suggesting this is made up?

---

No, I do not deny that this is made up but you are citing research, where is that research? You are writing an article in Canada based on Canadian laws with a Canadian perspective, please show the statistics that show this in that Canadian context.

I do not know of any 3 year old children in Canada that have shot their sibling with a loaded handgun in the night stand but I do know of this from the US and nobody was considered criminally responsible, it was considered an accident.

Lock up your guns and do not leave the keys accessible and nobody can shoot anyone with them, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

No, I do not deny that this is made up but you are citing research, where is that research? You are writing an article in Canada based on Canadian laws with a Canadian perspective, please show the statistics that show this in that Canadian context.

---

Don't be silly. You're trying to argue that kids in homes with guns are no more likely to be injured by guns than kids in homes without guns.

You can't be injured by something that isn't there.

The body of research on this is clear, and it has been done across all kinds of jurisdictions with a variety of laws in place. Nobody needs a specifically Canadian research paper to back up the claim that research has shown that risk of firearms injury is higher in homes where there are firearms.

The risk of shark attack is higher in waters where sharks are present.

The majority of these incidents are most likely related to gang violence one would assume but I would like to see the stats for children under 16 that were involved in accidental shootings and the source of the firearms Legally owned VS illegally possessed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

The majority of these incidents are most likely related to gang violence one would assume but I would like to see the stats for children under 16 that were involved in accidental shootings

---

The article does include the demographics, so the conclusion can be drawn as to the relationship to Gang Violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

and the source of the firearms Legally owned VS illegally possessed .

---

That information wouldn't be available to the ER staff where the data was drawn from...a totally different discussion and one, you're right should be held.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Don't be silly. You're trying to argue that kids in homes with guns are no more likely to be injured by guns than kids in homes without guns.

You can't be injured by something that isn't there.

The body of research on this is clear, and it has been done across all kinds of jurisdictions with a variety of laws in place. Nobody needs a specifically Canadian research paper to back up the claim that research has shown that risk of firearms injury is higher in homes where there are firearms.

The risk of shark attack is higher in waters where sharks are present.

---

How many kids that are shot in Toronto with illegal handguns have guns in their home?

You see, what I wrote is not silly, this article is a broad article and has no specifics. You have a person between 15 and 24 being unintentionally shot, was it their gun or their friends? Was is in the home or outside the home? Was that firearm legally owned? Were they licensed for use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Don't be silly. You're trying to argue that kids in homes with guns are no more likely to be injured by guns than kids in homes without guns.

You can't be injured by something that isn't there.

The body of research on this is clear, and it has been done across all kinds of jurisdictions with a variety of laws in place. Nobody needs a specifically Canadian research paper to back up the claim that research has shown that risk of firearms injury is higher in homes where there are firearms.

The risk of shark attack is higher in waters where sharks are present.

---

Spin the daylights out of a bunch of lumped together data,then,state the obvious. Talk about a typical shotgun approach to facilitate an agenda.......LOL Publish the data in it's entirety and show how it was assembled to arrive at the conclusion so it can be examined instead of firing off more "fake news".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

The majority of these incidents are most likely related to gang violence one would assume but I would like to see the stats for children under 16 that were involved in accidental shootings and the source of the firearms Legally owned VS illegally possessed .

---

Every injury to a child,be it with a kids nerf gun,paintball gun,cap gun,BB gun,nail gun,is written up as a firearms incident on the ER report. All that does is "pad" the stats without clarification or specifics. If this article was the least bit factual,the media would have gone batshyte nuts with their typical anti-gun rhetoric 10X worse than they do,now. I don't buy this garbage one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You see, what I wrote is not silly, this article is a broad article and has no specifics. You have a person between 15 and 24 being unintentionally shot, was it their gun or their friends? Was is in the home or outside the home? Was that firearm legally owned? Were they licensed for use?

---

Again...the data collected was the result of firearm related incidents in ONT that involving children reporting to the ER....it gives a view into the demographics of the patients after the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

The majority of these incidents are most likely related to gang violence....

---

Not so. Go read the paper.

The majority of the incidents are actually accidents involving people who live in rural areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You have a person between 15 and 24 being unintentionally shot, was it their gun or their friends? Was is in the home or outside the home? Was that firearm legally owned? Were they licensed for use?

---

People who swim in waters where sharks are present are more likely to be bitten by sharks. This holds true regardless of who owns the bathing suit, whether they are bitten while doing the crawl or the doggy paddle, or whether they had a swimming licence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Publish the data in it's entirety and show how it was assembled to arrive at the conclusion so it can be examined instead of firing off more "fake news".

---

The first thing I did on seeing this report today was to track down and read the paper. Then I posted the link here.

Have you read it yet?

I have no trouble accepting the numbers, but as always stats can either be misleading ( don't tell the whole picture) or can be spun to fit the desired narrative. Lol I hope to god no-one disputes that last, it happens all the time.

Last year (2016) there was a very noticeable uptick in firearm related shootings in TO. I think by the time the fall came around there were 400+ reported incidents. Those stats came from TPS. So right there, thats more than 1 per day. And I think (hopefully) people can deduce where the majority of those were occurring, without the need to go and try to find them, copy them here. Which ignoring the societal element would mean what?
An over weighting in teens/young adults/children going to emergency rooms?

One thing I will call into question right away, is the intentional dismissal of suicides (successful and or not). Suicide and suicide attempts are a direct result of mental health, depression etc. What is one favourite way of coping for anyone dealing with depression and or acute anxiety?

Self medication
Drugs and drinking.

Gee, I wonder if those two things might skew the stats a little. Think kids that are self medicating might play around with a gun????Lol, good god....

Then to, we know that when suicides are removed from the stats both here and in the US, the stats paint very different pictures. I wonder wonder how many of those "accidents" were in fact not so accidental....

Stats can be spun many ways, it's not hard. And often, one just has to have a predetermined outcome, to get what one wants to show.

The fact the author intentionally didn't go into mental health, depression, and more speaks volumes.
to me anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Again...the data collected was the result of firearm related incidents in ONT that involving children reporting to the ER....it gives a view into the demographics of the patients after the fact.

---

This is true but it still sounds like a spin on firearms owners in Ontario rather than a problem of firearms injuries. The quote stating that a house with a gun is more likely to result in a firearms injury based on "other literature" does not have anything to do with the statistics unless those statistics are able to take into account where, when and how the injury came to happen. The post goes to talk about connection to immigrants but if you are born in Canada you are not an immigrant, so first generation is in the non-immigrant section but does that actually change the dynamic of the data?

The fact that you have 1 kid who is shot is a problem but I find it difficult to digest articles where "other literature" is cited, it pulls from the credibility of the writer. It is also tough when you cannot actually correlate the data of injured with a firearm to having a firearm in the home, it is entirely possible for every single one of these incidents to have happened in a home with firearms but it could also shift entirely to that happening outside of the home without a single legal firearm. The article seems to be displayed with hunting guns in mind (note the hunting rifle in the picture) but yet the actual study does not distinguish and does not get enough data to distinguish these details.

Pretty sure I read that they weren't. Will go back.

The main point Im getting at with respect suicides is more the mental health issues that are underlying them.
Depression, self medicating, drinking and drugs....

Then to, it might be worthwhile gauging how that skews the rural/urban stats.
You and I both know that rural areas.....Drinking...depression. Basically economic/societal factors
Yeah the stats might show one thing but
underlying that.
***

Re suicides
I wonder how many "self inflicted" (or others) accidents are in fact not actually "accidents" as reported in ER rooms and thus spat out incorrectly in this. And I bet the author isn't so naive but then again, if you want the stats to show something....

garbage in, garbage out.
Safe bet there are probably a few young gang bangers going into ERS with a bullit wound and claiming "accident" to.

Stats can always be spun many ways.I have absolutely no trouble accepting them, where I begin to raise questions is why few dig deeper, for the whole picture.

Worded differently.
Why treat the disease when a bandaid will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

People who swim in waters where sharks are present are more likely to be bitten by sharks. This holds true regardless of who owns the bathing suit, whether they are bitten while doing the crawl or the doggy paddle, or whether they had a swimming licence.

---

Your statement has no validity, just because you have a car in your driveway does not mean you are more likely to get in a car accident. Maybe you have one but you do not drive, therefore the correlation does not match. They are citing "other literature" but will not list the data, where does that article come out of?

Look at Toronto, how many of the gang bangers who shoot themselves in the foot (would count as a youth with an unintentional gunshot wound) would be considered legal firearms owners in Ontario?

Lock up your guns and do not let your kids put the guns and ammo together without supervision and you will not have a shooting in your home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Not so. Go read the paper.

The majority of the incidents are actually accidents involving people who live in rural areas.



People who swim in waters where sharks are present are more likely to be bitten by sharks. This holds true regardless of who owns the bathing suit, whether they are bitten while doing the crawl or the doggy paddle, or whether they had a swimming licence.



The first thing I did on seeing this report today was to track down and read the paper. Then I posted the link here.

Have you read it yet?

---

I noticed particularly that they cited "15,856,459 person-years.....(?)" and then cited the use of a Poisson system generalized estimating equations,then,extrapolated their results from that. Yep,I read it and I still think it's self-serving,anti-firearm agenda-driven BS. I don't need to have someone piss on my leg then tell me it's raining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Pretty sure I read that they weren't.

---

Suicides? You were correct. They were excluded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Look at Toronto, how many of the gang bangers who shoot themselves in the foot (would count as a youth with an unintentional gunshot wound) would be considered legal firearms owners in Ontario?

---

Well that's an interesting question. But rates of unintentional injury were correlated with rural residence. Are you suggesting they're related to a large number of unlicensed, rural gang bangers?

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), which on Monday issued updated recommendations for preventing firearm injuries among young people, says 635 children and youth under age 24 died between 2008 and 2012 from accidental and intentional gunshots, including those that were self-inflicted. Ninety-four per cent of victims were male.

Among 15- to 19-year-olds, more than half were suicides, while among 20- to 24-year-old, about the same proportion were homicides. For children under age 15, there were 15 suicides, 10 homicides, seven unintentional deaths and two whose cause was undetermined.

Dr. Katherine Austin, who co-wrote the CPS document, said she was pleased to see the Toronto researchers went beyond firearm mortality statistics and looked at data on injuries.

Over the five-year period, Ontario hospitals treated almost 1,600 young people for gunshot wounds.

"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?"

The CPS position paper says doctors and other health practitioners can play a critical role in preventing firearm injuries and deaths by warning parents about the risks of guns being accessible to youth.

"Every family, rural and urban, should be screened for gun ownership," the document states. "Parents who decide to keep a gun in the home should be counselled to store firearms unloaded, with a trigger lock or in a locked container, and separate from ammunition."

The CPS also urged all levels of government to bring in stricter gun controls.

To reduce the availability of firearms to youth, the organization is calling for several measures, including strategies to curtail illegal importation of firearms into Canada, especially from the U.S., and tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms.

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 neig


The whole wording of the study seems to be to tell a story that then justifies more gun control and the facts are mixed up.

For the gang bangers and their age groups it would have been a lot simpler to give the number of homicides and wrote that most are by handgun.?
For the rural youth and their injuries the study seems to be indicating air guns?
There is no mention in the article I read about aboriginal youth and possible suicides?

When they talk about Canadian born youth,young men there the figures get really skewed as from personal experience a great deal of gang bangers be them Jamaican,Somalian, manage to get killed in gang violence again using handguns in urban centres.

I just finished listening to Dr.Katherin Austin from the Sick Kids Hospital on CBC she suggested air guns even when used lead to loss of limbs and eyes.

But she did not cite any figures for those losses.

The main thrust of the study is that "they want Doctors to question citizens in the emergency department about what types of guns they have in the home"
She also made reference to 12 year olds having access to firearms.

If the authors of this report had educated themselves on the existing Firearms laws,storage,hunting age limits,Provincial laws on reporting, they could probably have saved half the report being written as their questions,requests are already in place.

For example:


Over the five-year period, Ontario hospitals treated almost 1,600 young people for gunshot wounds.

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?"

A.Knives.

Most people won't read the article as they are too busy working, they will just hear/see the headline and speak to it....

Guns kill youths daily.................. is all that will register for many voters in big cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Well that's an interesting question. But rates of unintentional injury were correlated with rural residence. Are you suggesting they're related to a large number of unlicensed, rural gang bangers?

---

Are you aware of rural communities? If you think that gangs, drugs and criminal activity are absent in rural areas then you need to look into it a lot deeper. I am actually curious now as to what population density denotes rural, is a town like Listowel urban or rural? What about Elmira?

I do find it interesting that they have data for 2008-2012, 280 of the 1169 non-immigrant are unintentional rural injuries. So, 56 per year on average over the 5 year period listed, so, if rural residents are far more likely to have firearms should we not have significantly more than 56 injuries in any given year? The data shows 12.5 per 100 000 people in rural areas compared to 6.3 for urban centers but yet rural residents have far more firearms than urban residents, well over double.

Fake news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

If you think that gangs, drugs and criminal activity are absent in rural areas then you need to look into it a lot deeper.

---

I didn't say crime was absent from rural areas. I asked if you were suggesting that the higher rate of firearms accidents in rural areas was associated with illegal ownership. This would be unlikely for several reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So, 56 per year on average over the 5 year period listed, so, if rural residents are far more likely to have firearms should we not have significantly more than 56 injuries in any given year? The data shows 12.5 per 100 000 people in rural areas compared to 6.3 for urban centers....

---

So, to get your argument straight, the rate of firearms accidents in rural areas is double that in urban centers, and you think the study is wrong because it should be even higher?

What I see here is motivated reasoning.

How the heck can 75% of gun violence incidents be accidental. How can an accident be considered violence.?? The spin doctors should proof read their own spin.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3333517/ev...edium=Facebook

The docs dialogue apart from her study was very anti-gun slant and full of bias....

A response from the CCFR

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

Quote:

---

is a town like Listowel urban or rural? What about Elmira?

---

According to definition, both would be considered "urban ", Rural is " in general, a rural area or countryside is a geographic area that is located outside towns and cities.[1] The Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines the word "rural" as encompassing "...all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural."[2]

Typical rural areas have a low population density and small settlements. Agricultural areas are commonly rural, though so are others such as forests. Different countries have varying definitions of "rural" for statistical and administrative purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), which on Monday issued updated recommendations for preventing firearm injuries among young people, says 635 children and youth under age 24 died between 2008 and 2012 from accidental and intentional gunshots, including those that were self-inflicted. Ninety-four per cent of victims were male.

Among 15- to 19-year-olds, more than half were suicides, while among 20- to 24-year-old, about the same proportion were homicides. For children under age 15, there were 15 suicides, 10 homicides, seven unintentional deaths and two whose cause was undetermined.

Dr. Katherine Austin, who co-wrote the CPS document, said she was pleased to see the Toronto researchers went beyond firearm mortality statistics and looked at data on injuries.

Over the five-year period, Ontario hospitals treated almost 1,600 young people for gunshot wounds.

"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?"

The CPS position paper says doctors and other health practitioners can play a critical role in preventing firearm injuries and deaths by warning parents about the risks of guns being accessible to youth.

"Every family, rural and urban, should be screened for gun ownership," the document states. "Parents who decide to keep a gun in the home should be counselled to store firearms unloaded, with a trigger lock or in a locked container, and separate from ammunition."

The CPS also urged all levels of government to bring in stricter gun controls.

To reduce the availability of firearms to youth, the organization is calling for several measures, including strategies to curtail illegal importation of firearms into Canada, especially from the U.S., and tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms.

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 neig


The whole wording of the study seems to be to tell a story that then justifies more gun control and the facts are mixed up.

For the gang bangers and their age groups it would have been a lot simpler to give the number of homicides and wrote that most are by handgun.?
For the rural youth and their injuries the study seems to be indicating air guns?
There is no mention in the article I read about aboriginal youth and possible suicides?

When they talk about Canadian born youth,young men there the figures get really skewed as from personal experience a great deal of gang bangers be them Jamaican,Somalian, manage to get killed in gang violence again using handguns in urban centres.

I just finished listening to Dr.Katherin Austin from the Sick Kids Hospital on CBC she suggested air guns even when used lead to loss of limbs and eyes.

But she did not cite any figures for those losses.

The main thrust of the study is that "they want Doctors to question citizens in the emergency department about what types of guns they have in the home"
She also made reference to 12 year olds having access to firearms.

If the authors of this report had educated themselves on the existing Firearms laws,storage,hunting age limits,Provincial laws on reporting, they could probably have saved half the report being written as their questions,requests are already in place.

For example:


Over the five-year period, Ontario hospitals treated almost 1,600 young people for gunshot wounds.

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?"

A.Knives.

---

Swings,slides,skates,hockey sticks,bicycles,trampolines do a heck of a lot more damage than guns,not matter which way you slice it.

Quote:

---

Are you aware of rural communities? If you think that gangs, drugs and criminal activity are absent in rural areas then you need to look into it a lot deeper.

---

true that Fox
AFAIK (could be mistaken, but don't think I am), one only need look at insurance rates for different area's. Pound for pound, penny for penny, and all else equal, home owners insurance is often more expensive in what might be considered rural area's. Reason being?
Crime
property loss/damage
aka claims
And the different carriers base those rates based on stats and percentages.

As noted before, to me it's not enough to simply say.
More homes with guns outside urban areas. Ok, fine
More "accidents" outside urban area's. Ok, fine

But then not bothering to dig deeper and look at reasons why that might be.
Drinking, domestic violence, depression (mental health issues), economic issues, such as economically depressed area's, drugs and more.......

Would seem pretty clear to me, someone is spinning, aiming for a conclusion that fits a narrative over and beyond garbage in/garbage out.
Honestly Doc, I did this to myself says the 14 year old mule where there are gang problems. And given this author is a Dr I assume she knows that those with loose lips in such areas often end up worse off................
Its well known many unsuccessful suicide attempts don't get reported........At least not as such...To.

"911 theres been some shots fired in the hood, some kid has been grazed and needs an ambulance".
Accident or gang related?
Am willing to bet good money this author counts that as an "accident".

etc,
etc

I really don't have a problem with the stats, and even to some small degree some of the conclusions, but its so obvious she didn't spend much energy looking any deeper than she wanted.

Why treat the disease when a bandaid will do.

More fake news !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

According to definition, both would be considered "urban ", Rural is " in general, a rural area or countryside is a geographic area that is located outside towns and cities.[1] The Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines the word "rural" as encompassing "...all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural."[2]

Typical rural areas have a low population density and small settlements. Agricultural areas are commonly rural, though so are others such as forests. Different countries have varying definitions of "rural" for statistical and administrative purposes.

---

Ok, so my home has a street with houses on it, they are all 1+ acre properties, we are just down the road from a village, do we associate with that village and are considered Urban or would we be considered rural? How large is the village to be considered urban?

It is great that you pulled out a definition from the web but "what is not urban is rural" does not really help much in this situation. Within city limits cannot define urban vs rural either, the city of Ottawa is a massive expanse that has both urban and rural and all served under the same EMT, Fire and Policing systems as the urban area, that does not define them.

A small town is generally considered rural, a farming town is generally considered rural and I know full well that a lot of bad things can go down in such communities, in many cases more than the next closest big city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

"911 theres been some shots fired in the hood, some kid has been grazed and needs an ambulance".
Accident or gang related?
Am willing to bet good money this author counts that as an "accident".

---

The authors of the study didn't choose what to count as an accident. That decision would have been made by the ER doctor who handled the case. The study used the coding assigned in the ER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Ok, so my home has a street with houses on it, they are all 1+ acre properties, we are just down the road from a village, do we associate with that village and are considered Urban or would we be considered rural? How large is the village to be considered urban?

---

The study used an established method, the Rurality Index of Ontario.

Kralj B. Measuring rurality — RIO2008_BASIC: methodology and results. Toronto: Ontario Medical Association; 2009.
http://deslibris.ca/ID/237943

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.

the first salvo has been fired by the left leaning media and government. this is only to pave the way for tougher gun laws and a return to some sort of registry. Really it doesn't matter if this story is based in fact or is incredibly vague, the general population will only see the headline.

I just heard the news on the way home, 1310 Ottawa. The pediatricians wants to push for better training for gun storage (we have this) and increase the gun control laws to stop kids from getting guns.

In my opinion if your kid takes your gun and shoots someone because of improper storage you should be charged alongside them. Our laws are tough but the media is not making it seem like we live in the US, as I stated at the start.

maybe an over simplification. if you have knives in the house chances are you will be cut, if you play hockey chances are you will be hurt.
I read the report but didn't see what are the instances of catastrophic injury are? not an air soft to the eye but a serious gun shot. I live as rural as rural can be for over 50 years and I have never heard of any child being injured by a firearm. could it be as far reaching as a gun kicking and leaving a scope eye brow. if so I have seen that stitched up once.

Langmann makes a couple of questionable statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

As well “accidental injury” includes a legal intervention such as police shooting or discharge.

---

This is true, but every such incident will lead to SIU involvement. These are clearly not an important contributor to the overall numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Rural can be an area like Brampton.

---

I see no indication that the method used to define rurality in this study would consider Brampton rural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

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.

---

The study does not make such an association. Indeed, it finds that assaults and injuries are associated with low income urban neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

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.

---

This doesn't address the fact that 75% of the incidents are accidents and have no clear relation to criminal risk behavior. The obvious conclusion is that further work is required to better understand those accidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I just heard the news on the way home, 1310 Ottawa. The pediatricians wants to push for better training for gun storage (we have this) and increase the gun control laws to stop kids from getting guns.

---

These are the actual recommendations of the Canadian Paediatric Society.

http://www.cps.ca/en/media/release-c...rearms-at-home

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

I read the report but didn't see what are the instances of catastrophic injury are? not an air soft to the eye but a serious gun shot.

---

You didn't see it because it isn't there ... my feeling is that most of the accidental injuries are in the vein of Airsoft to the eye.

When it comes to fatal shootings, homicides far outstrip accidents. In this paper, accidents far outstrip assaults. This strongly suggests that these are non-life-threatening, relatively minor accidents.

Remember, the numbers here tell us we have 5 accidents each week. If even one fifth of these were true firearms, we'd be burying a lot of bodies.

Funny... after this winter I don't see anyone calling for increased training in the safe use of snowmobiles. But then agian I suppose they're not as evil or scary as guns are.

I heard some of it on radio at work , along the lines of recording stats since 1990,s ????. If this kind of situation ie high incidence of high rate of injury by fire arms . Why was it not looked into after say ... the first year or two into the study ???? And why are so many ( in at least my little circle of hunters shooters owners etc ) saying they,ve never heard of a kid getting shot , accidentally or what ever .

Studies take years (or seem to) NoBush because in order to carry any "validity" at all, you need a large data set, over a long period of time.
Anything else could be and should be "written off". It could be an aberration, it could be some other factor.

just for illustrative example.
If during the years 2008-2010 someone studied alcoholism and spousal abuse, and saw an alarming spike in the data. Should we immediately think that society is reversing coarse and husbands are coming home, pounding the Crown Royal and smacking their wives around?

Or is it possible, that with so many people, especially men in rural Ontario, small town Ontario losing good jobs in manufacturing......funny, theres no mention of those kinds of things in this study, but the author could argue "well that wasn't purpose" this study just want to establish that there are a lot of "accidents"
*****

The timing to me isn't so hard to figure out.
Theres a new regime in power, one that is sympathetic to some groups ( one of which is medical "gun related experts"). Political winds.......
*******

No matter how it's sliced and diced, the study I think obviously didn't even remotely try to "look" beyond the superficial layers. That one statement about "are there any other commercial available products creating as much carnage as guns"....Says everything that really needs to be said about the authors agenda.

And for what it's worth, that one statement utterly discredits the entire study, no way around that. Which possibly in some ways is a bit of a shame because maybe there is something worth looking at........looking into deeper.

I am almost always somewhere in the middle when it comes to GC. Again for simple illustrative example and word. I don't want Canada to resemble the US. The stats are clear A) GC works and its a good thing, B) The states are off their rockers not willing to change some things.

But there are many reasons why statistically the US is dirty bath water when compared to us and some others. Reasons that go beyond the plethora of firearms, the gun culture there and more, that speak to people going ballistic and shooting 30 kids in a schoo, that speak to crime, that speak to cops being executed and more. Things like
Racial problems
Socio economic problems
Access to healthcare and education
and more

I don't in theory have a problem with some "new" measures here. If and thats a big IF!
First it can be established that we do in fact have a problem or big enough weakness inn the existing measures.

Secondly. It can reasonably without much question be argued that the the new measure will actually do something about the real problem, identified in step one, whatever it may be.

Thirdly: Once we strip out suicides from our gun deaths per capita......its pretty clear we don't have problems.

In my mind, this author has totally discredited herself and the motive behind the study as a result. It is dirty bathwater. Cannot be used, it is clearly, questionable. Toss it like the dirty bath water ( muddied) it is.

Which is kind of a shame.

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.

---

I read that as well Trimmer. Gurney is usually pretty good at shedding some light and common sense on things.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j1...g?t=1490615739

Lol HJ.
I love quotes and cliches. At times they come across as trite or flippant, but there are reasons they stick around, stay with us for ages. One of my favourites is "follow the money". When in question or trying to figure something out, that is almost always sound advice.

That is another of my favourites.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBush

I heard some of it on radio at work , along the lines of recording stats since 1990,s ????. If this kind of situation ie high incidence of high rate of injury by fire arms . Why was it not looked into after say ... the first year or two into the study ???? And why are so many ( in at least my little circle of hunters shooters owners etc ) saying they,ve never heard of a kid getting shot , accidentally or what ever .

---

It's not that the study authors were sitting around collecting stats since the 1990s. They pulled out ER records from the 1990s to today. (Actually, on checking, the ER records used were 2008 - 2012, so the report you heard was wrong.)

The reason you don't hear of kids getting shot at the rate the headlines suggest is that the study included injuries from BB guns, pellet guns, Airsoft guns, paintball guns, and so on. These data are included because you can't separate them from other shootings. The cause of the ER visit is coded as handgun, rifle/shotgun, or other/unspecified. The last category includes both air rifles, etc., and "unspecified," and since it may include true firearms injuries, it is added to the mix. For reasons already posted, I think it's likely that many of the accidental injuries here involve things like Airsoft guns. Thus, few shootings in the usual sense.

Gun owners suggesting that this study had nefarious purposes and trying to invalidate it are playing the ostrich head-in-the-sand game. The aim of the study is clearly described: to establish if the "immigrant paradox" (the tendency for immigrant populations to have better health outcomes than non-immigrant populations) applies to firearms injury. This is why the study compares immigrant and non-immigrant populations. The data set includes youths up to 24 years old because the possibility you get shot because you become involved in a gang lifestyle (for example) is part of that longer term health outcome. The study is designed to capture this.

The goal was not simply to count up injuries. But thanks to bad science reporting, this is what we get from the media: the splashy news hook provided by the suggestion that almost one "child" per day is being "shot."

It may be helpful to look at how this study is reported to its primary audience, doctors, and contrast that with mass media headlines:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-cyb032117.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

It's not that the study authors were sitting around collecting stats since the 1990s. They pulled out ER records from the 1990s to today.



It may be helpful to look at how this study is reported to its primary audience, doctors, and contrast that with mass media headlines:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-cyb032117.php

---

That's a very far cry from how it was reported,now,isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's a very far cry from how it was reported,now,isn't it?

---

Yup.

Science reporting is bad, whether the science has to do with guns or distant galaxies or whatever. The gist of most scientific papers is, "We found out something interesting but there are all these caveats and here's a bunch of stuff we still don't know." News media on the other hand want a splashy headline and a solid news hook. When you deal with guns or any other hot-button topic, then you are also dragging in the prejudices of whoever writes the story and whoever puts the headline on it. In this case you have the Canadian Paediatric Society releasing a statement at the same time, and using this study as a surfboard. The CPS position has about 6 recommendations, only one of which really affects licensed gun owners, but to promote that position they encourage reporters to misinterpret the study, so it's even worse.

Heard on the news last night that the report is being called in to question.

As I said, a bit of a shame. Some might not like the sounds of this, but would seem to me, theres enough there to look deeper.

That one statement though, calls it all into question. And even within the body itself there are kernels of the same that I've bolded.

One thing I noted
~Canadian-born youth, particularly males, have the highest rates of unintentional firearm injury compared with immigrant youth. (Canadian-born males have 12.4 unintentional injuries per 100 000 people versus immigrant males with 7.2 unintentional injuries per 100 000 people).

Really, we need a scientific study to state what should be obvious?
While some places outside Canada, gun ownership is fairly common, and in many homes many, many more, don't. So, should be some kind of revelation that when once here, especially if in a City like Toronto, only a small percentage are around firearms?

~The risk of being a victim of firearm assault for refugees is 43% higher than for Canadian-born youth.
Immigrant children and youth from Africa are almost 3 times as likely, and those from Central America are more than 4 times as likely, to be a victim of firearm assault compared with Canadian-born youth.

Again, earth shattering revelation?
Somali gangs, Central America.

~Young people living in rural settings are twice as likely to experience unintentional firearm injury compared to those living in cities, who are more likely to be victims of gun violence.

So is anyone shocked?
Really?
heres a pulitzer prize for stating the obvious.
*******

"Most paediatricians in Ontario probably have not seen families who have been impacted by the effects of guns, but I think we would all agree than 1 child or youth injured by a gun is too many," says senior author Dr. Astrid Guttmann, chief science officer at ICES and staff pediatrician and senior associate scientist at SickKids. "The majority of these injuries are unintentional and entirely preventable, making this an important public health problem that needs to be addressed with targeted prevention programs."

Dirty bath water imo.

leading causes of injury and death in children. Firearms don't make the list
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position...ury-prevention

Lets call spades spades. Almarist and an obvious agenda.

It was these demographics that captured my eye on the first read....

Quote:

---

The risk of being a victim of firearm assault for refugees is 43% higher than for Canadian-born youth.

Immigrant children and youth from Africa are almost 3 times as likely, and those from Central America are more than 4 times as likely, to be a victim of firearm assault compared with Canadian-born youth.

Young people living in rural settings are twice as likely to experience unintentional firearm injury compared to those living in cities, who are more likely to be victims of gun violence.

---

Ironically the results of this report actually work in favour of the firearm community in their battle against gun control because it proves out that the majority of the violence being reported is associated to the urban (Gang) segment of the population in this province.

Sort of agree Mike. It make the argument that um, deal with crime and gangs first as we have maintained for years....Then lets see what stats start showing.

If viewed in a vacuum, the 12.4 per capita "Canadian" male does I feel warrant further study. But to call for "targeted prevention programs" when they can't answer why? Or identify any factors what so ever leading to it? Like seriously.......

Dirty very dirty bathwater.
Especially in light of the fact! firearms don't make the list and there are certainly far more commercially available products that do send kids to ERs

An interview with the lead author of the study, talking about the study itself.
https://thegunblog.ca/2017/03/28/qa-...asha-saunders/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

As I said, a bit of a shame. Some might not like the sounds of this, but would seem to me, theres enough there to look deeper.

That one statement though, calls it all into question. And even within the body itself there are kernels of the same that I've bolded.

One thing I noted
~Canadian-born youth, particularly males, have the highest rates of unintentional firearm injury compared with immigrant youth. (Canadian-born males have 12.4 unintentional injuries per 100 000 people versus immigrant males with 7.2 unintentional injuries per 100 000 people).

Really, we need a scientific study to state what should be obvious?
While some places outside Canada, gun ownership is fairly common, and in many homes many, many more, don't. So, should be some kind of revelation that when once here, especially if in a City like Toronto, only a small percentage are around firearms?

~The risk of being a victim of firearm assault for refugees is 43% higher than for Canadian-born youth.
Immigrant children and youth from Africa are almost 3 times as likely, and those from Central America are more than 4 times as likely, to be a victim of firearm assault compared with Canadian-born youth.

Again, earth shattering revelation?
Somali gangs, Central America.

~Young people living in rural settings are twice as likely to experience unintentional firearm injury compared to those living in cities, who are more likely to be victims of gun violence.

So is anyone shocked?
Really?
heres a pulitzer prize for stating the obvious.
*******

"Most paediatricians in Ontario probably have not seen families who have been impacted by the effects of guns, but I think we would all agree than 1 child or youth injured by a gun is too many," says senior author Dr. Astrid Guttmann, chief science officer at ICES and staff pediatrician and senior associate scientist at SickKids. "The majority of these injuries are unintentional and entirely preventable, making this an important public health problem that needs to be addressed with targeted prevention programs."

Dirty bath water imo.

leading causes of injury and death in children. Firearms don't make the list
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position...ury-prevention

Lets call spades spades. Almarist and an obvious agenda.

---

Canadian born means 1 generation, your parents come over and you are born here, you are not an immigrant.

It does not take much to go from an Immigrant male to a Canadian born with no discernible difference in connection to the past. You have 1 brother born in another country and come to Canada, he is an immigrant and a year later another boy is born a non-immigrant, the numbers will not take that into account.

More BS from media and yes the "scientific community". Look these scientists need to earn a living and being highly educated they tend to feel entitled to a good one. Doing research that nobody is prepared to pay for isn't a good way to earn a living so I would guess many "scientists" eventually learn to pick projects that will provide them with good money. They then might be inclined to let's say find groups of people who would have an agenda ya think? The media will gobble up anything anti gun which will please groups bent on attacking gun ownership. These antigun groups aren't as good a source of money as the climate chance freaks but not a bad second choice.
As Jben always says. Follow the money.

slippery slope here on many fronts. any contact sport, go carts, swimming etc all have much higher rates of child injury than seen in the study. I can envision the government becoming more and more involved in how we raise our kids. I can only imagine what the injury rate is for kids involved in snowboarding or motocross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

slippery slope here on many fronts. any contact sport, go carts, swimming etc all have much higher rates of child injury than seen in the study. I can envision the government becoming more and more involved in how we raise our kids. I can only imagine what the injury rate is for kids involved in snowboarding or motocross

---

I used to race motocross when I was a kid and I bet hockey ( which is the holy grail here in Canada) is much worse but your point is bang on. If a kid is killed snowboarding it is treated very differently and the parents are not labeled the same as a family who loses a kid to a firearm incident. But then again the message is controlled by the media which is why people like Trump use Facebook to control the message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

More BS from media and yes the "scientific community". Look these scientists need to earn a living and being highly educated they tend to feel entitled to a good one.

---

She is neither...her research is work/ career related. So her only vested interest is to make is safer for children and young adults...

Quote:

---

I am a paediatrician, and wearing a paediatrician hat, I have a vested interest in keeping children and youth healthy and safe. That is where that comes from. All of my research looks at children and youth primarily. That’s the true way that this all started.

---

did a quick check, thanks Mr Google

there are 21 hockey related requiring medical attention in Ontario every day. 21x more than childhood "firearm" injuries. 8000 per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

did a quick check, thanks Mr Google

there are 21 hockey related requiring medical attention in Ontario every day. 21x more than childhood "firearm" injuries. 8000 per year.

---

and as a result, the league was forced to implement non contact hockey until they were older....so what's your point exactly ?

the point being Mike is that risk is inherent in any activity. the view that one injury is too many while admirable leaves us raising our kids in a bubble. 21 injuries per day as opposed to 1 shows how sensational the reporting of this study is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

and as a result, the league was forced to implement non contact hockey until they were older....so what's your point exactly ?

---

Thank goodness the anti knife league has not implemented anything to date.

But kids being unintentionally 'shot' is not a voluntary activity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

the point being Mike is that risk is inherent in any activity. the view that one injury is too many while admirable leaves us raising our kids in a bubble. 21 injuries per day as opposed to 1 shows how sensational the reporting of this study is.

---

Agreed that the media has sensationalized the study. And risk is inherent in any activity.

But there's nothing wrong with raising the flag and asking how we can prevent unnecessary injuries. We don't put our kids in full contact leagues without helmets, and tell them that high-sticking builds character. :)

I'm betting that when the dust clears and all the work is done, we'll have found that these accidental injury numbers come from people doing stupid things.

Perspective.
12.4 per capita means 0.000012% per 100,000 of the male youth population is injured by some kind of firearm. Read something today those numbers included both air guns and paint ball. Something these Drs are lacking given a few comments by them.

Can anyone imagine a mechanic saying...your cars making a funny noise, we are going to do some targetted preventive measure, replace the transmission....

Badern.
If I listed the mile long list of injuries my daughter incurred from gymnastics, From fracture and concussions to spinal. This Dr would have apoplectic fits and be screaming for immediate, targetted preventive measures rather than what all those quoted should have said. Our findings are inconclusive and we feel warrant further research.....Done. Instead they said some other things and yes Terry. FtM, I would think/suspect

An uncle in law works at St Mikes. He has made quite the living reasearching somethings, travelling the world to this and that conference etc......

Slippery slope Mike.
Playing hockey, being a gymnast is a voluntary action. Being cross checked into the boards. Not so much.

I did a lot of stupid things when I was immortal, some I wont repeat. But played chicken with trains, chicken with knives (one friend is still missing a chunk of his calf), tried making things that good boom with different gasses and shot gun shells.....More

My 12 year old cousin, son of an OPP detective ate a .22 or it might have been a .38 in the arm, many many years ago. The family was never quite sure about the calibre, because it was sort of a taboo subject, which in my family of cops and fire fighters was...well nothing was taboo.

His story?
They (he and a couple friends) had thrown some shells in a fire.

Voluntary?
Accident?
Boys being boys?
Who knows.

For many years I wondered about the story and what they would have told the Docs in the ER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I'm betting that when the dust clears and all the work is done, we'll have found that these accidental injury numbers come from people doing stupid things.

---

I agree. In fact if one follows the safe storage laws already in place and follows the safe gun handling taught in PAL courses then every shooting is either intended which is a crime or negligence. Now, what are the odds that Trudough's hand picked antigun members of his gun advisory panel won't use this spin as a tool to remove more guns from those who aren't the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Perspective.
12.4 per capita means 0.000012% per 100,000 of the male youth population is injured by some kind of firearm.

---

The rate is 12.4 per 100,000, or 0.0124 percent of the population. (See p. 455.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

But kids being unintentionally 'shot' is not a voluntary activity...

---

the study doesn't break down what "firearm" they were shot with. Turns out the researchers didn't use the same distinction of firearm as the government. by lumping paint ball guns et la in with legit firearms the study has invalidated itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

by lumping paint ball guns et la in with legit firearms the study has invalidated itself.

---

I don't think you've read the link in Welsh's post #69...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I don't think you've read the link in Welsh's post #69...

---

I did and while I agree with some, some things jumped out, fast and quick.
The interview basically read as a "don't be angry, the study had nothing to do with the new committee, even though we intentionally timed the release, we know we didn't dig deep enough ( as Ive been saying), we know we don't have the data we actually need, everyone else is blowing it out of context" damage control spin...

Oh and Mike, if you read the interview and Im sure you did. Notice that she admits and is hopeful....this unfunded study.......leads to more
wink wink.

Quote:

---

My study just looks at sheer numbers, it doesn’t talk about causation, it doesn’t talk about prevention strategies. It just says, “Hey, here are the groups we need to look at for prevention strategies. These are the injuries that are occurring, and we need to really contextualize them and understand them.”

---

Cant suck and blow at the same time. Which is it

Quote:

---

The numbers are really high, so it’s definitely a problem that we have to take seriously,” said Astrid Gutmann, one of the study’s authors

---

Quote:

---

On Monday, the Canadian Paediatric Society also issued a new statement urging doctors to warn families against keeping firearms in homes where children live as a way of preventing injury and death.

---

Quote:

---

We definitely have a problem,” she said. “These are preventable injuries.”

---

Perhaps but they don't even make the list of what does send kids to the ERs.....Not sure how a person can make that bold a statement when....and sorry 12.4 per 100,000 (do the math) while it certainly bears looking at ( I know how stupid I was as a teen)......thats not a problem, its not some epidemic.

Quote:

---

Dr. Natasha Saunders, the study’s lead author and a paediatrician and associate scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, said the findings are astonishing.

---

Seriously, both Welsh and I were quick to put 2 and 2 together and point out all they are really doing is stating the obvious.

Quote:

---

“A child or youth injured by a gun each day in this province is staggering,” Saunders said

---

Gee sensationalist much Ms co Author..........

Quote:

---

“The majority of these injuries are unintentional and are entirely preventable, making this an important public health problem that needs to be addressed with targeted prevention programs,” Gutmann said.

---

Quote:

---

no other commercial product

---

Now to be fair, in the articles that the media in turn sensationalized they (the authors) said others things, things we shouldn't be concerned about and were more than fair. Im not quoting them in the interest of fairness, simply because its to save space. So instead just saying "to be fair" and balanced they do say other things...

But it they can't make up their minds ( see their quotes, the interview), if they depending on who they are talking to can't keep their recommendations straight, if they (the authors) talk out of one side of their mouth and admit that really, what they have are pink flags that warrant further deeper studies, acknowledge the data was lacking, acknowledge this and that.

Then out of the other side of their mouths...call for immediate targeted preventative measures etc. I get it, by hyping it, sensationalizing it themselves.....maybe theres grant money down the road for....um........more studies.

Bottom line depending on who they talking to they are "sucking and blowing"

"dirty bath water"

Oh and for the record.
I'm perfectly fine with them getting some grant money, to do what at this point should be done. In no way shape or form though does it mean they, or we ( the populace) or them ( the friendly regime that will decide to open the purse strings or not) should be diving off the deep end.......calling for immediate targeted measures, calling the finding astonishing etc, etc, etc, etc...

"We think we have something here worth looking into further" Done!
But that might not win grant money either
:)

Sometimes context and perspective are oh so critical. Something these authors are lacking ( though if they are really just gunning for grant money, which I suspect I get it. And as stated I think theres enough there ) but especially the "pro GC crowd".

I can't be bothered to go dig up all the necessary stats. So am going to paraphrase, etc. Hope attitude is granted ( /wink).

We all know, that young guys do stupid things, all of us can likely think back to our own full of testerone, full of life and empty on grey matter teen and early 20 years. Did I fool around with guns? yes I did. Have I shot a friend with a BB gun? yes I did. Did I do far more than that, risking my life? yes I did. Did my friends? yes they did, and some died for it.

Does it mean much? Not in my mind, boys will be boys and there is no way we can stop that. We and this "Dr" who should be smarter should know that. Might as well tell parents that if you have young kids, you shouldn't have alcohol in the house and car keys should be locked up as soon as you return home.

Not long ago, everyone here had thoughts and comments about the case where a couple young guys, stole a car from some car shops yard, then went on to kill someone, or a couple people ( I forget details). The shop owner is being sued by the boys mother (who supplied the boys with alcohol) for leaving the keys in the car, in his shop yard........

How many young men hop in cars and go tearing down the roads doing 140km, 160km alcohol involved or not.....
What about the rich 30 something guy who after drinking all night in Miami, flew home, hopped in his Ferrari, and then killed 4 or 5 people.....

There are reasons why car insurance is so high for young male drivers.
If these authors want to be apologetic about youth being sent to ERs..........every single day.

Quote:

---

Twice as many men have died as women, and young men accounted for the highest rate of road deaths, despite years of warnings and prevention campaigns. Almost 700 people were killed in collisions between transport trucks and other vehicles, and almost 86% of those dead were in the other vehicles.

---

And that/this is just funerals, not the broken bodies, broken lives that survive. Every single day.
http://www.lfpress.com/2015/03/23/on...ths-since-2005

10 years, 1 death a day.

please, "get a grip".

And what happens when a guy hops in a car and gos for a joy ride and wrecks other peoples lives, most certainly aren't voluntary participants.............What happens when some 20 year old steals someones car, or lifts moms car keys out of her purse at 2am and then wrecks 4-8 other peoples lives. How do we react, what do we do?


While I have nothing against GC, it works and if an actual, quantifiable, weakness can be identified. I'll listen.

but please, the left and pro crowd.
"get a grip"

The suicide rate for men in Canada.
22 per 100,000
Gun deaths 2.6 per 100,000

and on
and on
and on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I don't think you've read the link in Welsh's post #69...

---

Brian Lilly spoke with the authors and they as much said that they have no idea on the percentage of actual firearm related injuries. Sorry I cant get the link to open

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

Brian Lilly spoke with the authors and they as much said that they have no idea on the percentage of actual firearm related injuries. Sorry I cant get the link to open

---

One of the things they discuss in that link is that this study is preliminary, and they are planning follow-on studies to understand what kinds of firearms are involved, what types of injuries, and so on.

Right, and they also said other things, which begs the question.
if they know the data is lacking, if they know there are gaping holes, if they know more studies need to be done. If they are or were indeed and I quote

"Hey, here are the groups we need to look at for prevention strategies. These are the injuries that are occurring, and we need to really contextualize them and understand them"

1) No, your studies haven't shown anything, that anyone who knows just the slightest little bit about 16-24 year old guys and criminal elements don't already know...But they certainly by your own words and admission, need to be understood.......that does not mean any intervention, or targeted measures are needed. Not remotely. They haven't shown "squat", let alone do they understand what or why or anything......

and other things they had to say.
*****

No wonder gun owners are reacting..........

Any Dr worth their degrees knows you don't cut a patient open without first knowing and understanding what the problem is. Any scientist knows you don't take action, without first....A) Establishing there is a problem and B) knowing what it is, understanding what it is
Cant fix it without first....

Its not "rocket science"
/grin, wink etc

Very simply, on what grounds are they calling for targeted preventative measures....
Hey I have any idea, Im a Dr, theres maybe something, we don't if theres a problem, we don't know if there is what it is, or why it is.

Lets give everyone Rabbies Vaccines just incase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bardern

Brian Lilly spoke with the authors and they as much said that they have no idea on the percentage of actual firearm related injuries. Sorry I cant get the link to open

---

These are links to Brian Lilley's analysis of the study. I always enjoy hearing his point of view on controversial subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaotT3nHhyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDQND5UVAoU

The first line spoken on the CBC on this "Doctors need to ask questions about the type of guns that injure children when they are treated in the emergency department".

The answer to that is NO, they are not police officers/detectives and frankly my medical information and especially my children,s/grandchildrens is private and protected by privacy laws. My only reply would be there was an accidental discharge of a device that fired a shot.

Should there be a law enacted that required the public and youth of tender age to answer questions by a Doctor, then the Doctors would have to be trained in taking statements and giving cautions and rights to counsel.Should they then get answers they would be compelled to attend court,how would all that go down with them.

Leave well this alone, the Police, CO,S ,Doctors all have their roles in society and the Fed,s have their roles in gun legislation.

Gilroy, I don't mind mandatory reporting or whatever we want to call it. It's done a lot of good for victims of child abuse. "Just saying".

Often (most often?) society agrees that we should do X for the "greater good", even if it means some inconvenience or whatever label one chooses to use (seat belts an obvious one), child safety restraints another...

At "what point" is X a problem that warrants change?

How about the medical professionals and politicians and yes even the far right gun owners decide that first???

Take the omg it's so astonishing the boys will be boys epidemic, that has the streets running red revelations.

Targeted measures.
On the surface sounds like storage and access might (note that word) be the root.

Is there an obvious weakness or hole in our current laws? More that can or needs to be done?
Um no, because the same people will crow about how safe Canada is. And the stats back that up. 2.6 per capita and that includes suicides...and if they would focus on gangs/guns.
So how much of a problem do we have?
Please

Is reducing that (what ever minuscule number is left) worthwhile?
Sure, why not. But first......

But if we to run around screaming the sky is falling, we have bigger problems we can do something about. Like roads running red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Should there be a law enacted that required the public and youth of tender age to answer questions by a Doctor, then the Doctors would have to be trained in taking statements and giving cautions and rights to counsel.Should they then get answers they would be compelled to attend court,how would all that go down with them.

---

1. Nobody is proposing a law that would force anyone to answer such questions.
2. Asking questions as to how an accident occurred is universally acknowledged to be a doctor's job. It's simply taking a history.
3. That history is protected by doctor-patient confidentiality.

And, before you talk about privacy....
4. Confidentiality is not violated by the use of aggregate data in statistical analysis.

I'm coming late to this subject, but at first glance it seems to me that the headline - children and youths - isn't a good descriptor for the scope of the study: 24 years of age and under. When you consider that most of the dead or wounded gangbangers/druggies in our major cities fall into this category, and that a good chunk of them are members of what could be called immigrant gangs, then the headlines and the other claims can be seen in a different light.

Ottawa is a pretty small city as far as urban centers are concerned, but it had a heck of a lot of shootings, and as you can see from this story, none of them appeared to be "accidents", and most involved victims (and accused persons) from immigrant communities. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...view-1.3870975

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbear

. When you consider that most of the dead or wounded gangbangers/druggies in our major cities fall into this category, and that a good chunk of them are members of what could be called immigrant gangs, then the headlines and the other claims can be seen in a different light.

---

Your right on topic...I find it interesting that the demographic findings of the report have not garnered any attention..nary a word by the Liberal media.

Which explains why people get their backs up. Immediately "think the worst" etc.

But hey, when you have click bait headlines, and juicy quotes like " 1 child every day being shot", "no other commercially available product" etc. It raises questions, more than a few. No argument the media took it and did its thing, but the authors certainly gave them plenty of good sound bytes, and for that, theres only a couple reasons why. Surely the good Drs are in fact smart to know......a couple of things.

And it's a bit of shame because there just might be something worth looking into deeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Your right on topic...I find it interesting that the demographic findings of the report have not garnered any attention..nary a word by the Liberal media.

---

Heaven forbid the media actually calls a spade a spade,especially,the liberal dopes we deal with,now. Political correctness,dontchaknow.

As is often the case the Sun ( Lilley) calls a spade a spade.
Not much that different from the you tube vid, other than perhaps he is rightfully calling for the report to be retracted. Its flawed, badly so.

And for a group of "so called" scientist, Drs, who should A) Know how to do research and B) Know you can't "operate on a patient without proper diagnosis and more.......

C) Thats Astonishing.

No doubt, many that lean left or lean towards GC will think its the right spinning, write it and him off as rhetorical hyperbole. Gee pot calling the kettle black?

When gun owners who are without question "under seige", and without question theres well established history of well "things"...react...."just over reacting, or spins or A-Z"....And of coarse everything that's said or done by the left, or politicians or leo themselves is gospel, or altruistic...
lol, people, human nature.....Its the same no mater which way you lean. But one thing isn't.
Certain groups, certain people, certain "professionals". Once the trust is broken........

What are the take aways here? Well forest for the trees.
Even now, people (here and online in social media) are focusing on the media and how they've blown it out of porportion.
When we have DOCTORS who pretty obviously have agendas, and using very flawed "SCIENTIFIC" studies as the basis.
Almost sounds like global warming......

So what is the greater concern, greater problem?
That the media is engaged in selling the news, and oh my gosh sensationalizing something?
Or that Doctors are A) using flawed and muddied (dirty bath water) research or is it B) they wasted their money on their degrees and should go back to high school to learn how to conduct research?

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/29...earms-injuries

One of the major flaws in the "study". Was the fact that many of the injuries reported, were in fact classed as W34, and X95 ( Other and unspecified firearm - includes BB guns, airguns and flare guns), however, this is classed in the study as "firearms".

There are a number of thing S. Some are sort of "no big deal", some like that very big deals when taken within the context that's it supposed to be "best evidence" that will be used and presented to the feds for decisions/changes.

What happens during a trial when a cop is caught fudging, or lying or planting evidence.
It calls everything into question. Present, past and future.

Cant be trusted.

I personally am not convinced that largely the researchers agenda isn't much more than hoping for research grants to do more. Are they a little biased, sure I can agree with that. The "scary" thing here ( hows that for irony) is that, as "easily as we've blown holes in it", as easily as we've seen some of them um.....shortcomings and that more is needed"

How did they not, or why didn't they?

Not sure I'm phrasing all of this succinctly and clearly.
Previously, if the medical association published findings with conclusions and or recommendations. While I might feel they are somewhat biased, or worded differently, I know they aren't fans of guns, but that study and their conclusions, yeah you know what, its hard to argue with that.....................

And the fact they won't retract, issue an apology that to speaks volumes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

One of the major flaws in the "study". Was the fact that many of the injuries reported, were in fact classed as W34, and X95 ( Other and unspecified firearm - includes BB guns, airguns and flare guns), however, this is classed in the study as "firearms".

---

Because those injuries aren't separable from actual firearms injuries. This is a flaw in the reporting, not in the study itself.

Those injuries are classified for medical purposes as firearms injuries, so the study includes them.

I pointed this out three days ago, yet Brian Lilley acts as if he's discovered a nefarious secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Because those injuries aren't separable from actual firearms injuries. This is a flaw in the reporting, not in the study itself.

Those injuries are classified for medical purposes as firearms injuries, so the study includes them.

I pointed this out three days ago, yet Brian Lilley acts as if he's discovered a nefarious secret.

---

Thanks Welsh,

Yes, you can't actually flaw a study if the data presents itself without parsing out the details.

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts between page one and 10. I was discussing it on various pages on FB, but not on here.

lol oh please.
Secret or not, it's no different than using "faulty" ( even though it's not the stats, but rather is the way the data is collated) research for anything thats published. "forest for the tree's". And surely, without question they knew/know that.

garbage in......garbage out

And yet conclusions are being made as are recommendations. This to is utterly without question. While the media is certainly doing it's thing. Theres an inconvenient matter of many quotes.

Could just as easily say.
Fast to discredit "lilley" but when the shoe is on the other foot and it's proponents being discredited "circle the wagons".

There is literally no excuse for it.
My gawd, I'm thinking about work we do/did.....If we know theres a problem or shortcoming or whatever we want to label it, with the data...............

garbage in......................garbage out

And yet they still published, and more than that.

edit. using hyperbole
We've run the data, crunched the numbers, we know theres "problems" with the data. Were going to invest billions of the publics money in

Bre-X

Just back to this for a moment, having had a thought. A somewhat different way to highlight what the actual problem is.

Is it the stats? Aka "findings" and that is literally all they are at this point and thats being generous. What they have is nothing more thats closer to suspicions.......theory.....conjecture....
No. and the shame is, I feel there is enough there to warrant looking under the surface see if there just might be something....

Is it the holes or shortcomings (choose a label).
No. Most of them are things we "know"already.

Is it the media?
No. Thats what media does whether it's the Sun or CBC or any of the others

Is it the CMA.
Yes. There is literally no excuse for it, "garbage in, garbage out" is one of the most basic concepts. The "data" should be bullit proof. What conclusions people come to, what recommendations etc. Always open to interpretation and more, even "disagreement". Aka " we have found this and think we should do "that". Ok, some might say, well I agree, but do we really to do "that". Is the problem really all that the bad. or other.

But instead, despite knowing garbage in is garbage out, despite knowing this or that, that the study wasn't even close to complete and there are shortcomings....They...published....and they....and they "fear mongered"

Orson Wells (war of the worlds) did something similar to, pulled a fast one. But theres a world of difference between what he does, and what "they" do.
Yes that is extreme and not the best example.

Mission statement
"Best Evidence"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigbear

I'm coming late to this subject, but at first glance it seems to me that the headline - children and youths - isn't a good descriptor for the scope of the study: 24 years of age and under. When you consider that most of the dead or wounded gangbangers/druggies in our major cities fall into this category, and that a good chunk of them are members of what could be called immigrant gangs, then the headlines and the other claims can be seen in a different light.

Ottawa is a pretty small city as far as urban centers are concerned, but it had a heck of a lot of shootings, and as you can see from this story, none of them appeared to be "accidents", and most involved victims (and accused persons) from immigrant communities. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...view-1.3870975

---

Would they be called 'immigrant gangs', when the members where born, (many third generation) and raised in Canada? What about he 'mafia' is it Italian , Sicilian or can the members born here be called 'mafia'? Any 'wise guys' out there... or fans of Goodfellas?

Regarding Lilley attacking the study as flawed: he accuses the study authors of describing 24 year olds as children.

The study does not do this, anywhere. A couple of news reports did.

Not so good on the basic accuracy, Brian.

Well agree with that.
Just as they should have stuck to..."there might be something here that warrants more study"
He to is selling news. Should have just stuck with why data needs to be bullit proof, stand up to peer reviews and being torn apart before "publishing"...He could have made his case without grandstanding,

Their mission statement really underscores it all.

Re youth.
Kind of agree, kind of disagree.
Forget for the moment all the possible shortcomings with the data or well known (and credit to the one author she does admit all that stuff) dynamics.

Its scientifically proven (pardon the word play) that the human brain and personality doesn't stop developing until the age of 24. So are they really adults?????

But on the other hand. That same 18-22 yr old male that does stupid things and Im sure we all have.
Is adult enough to drive
Adult enough to vote
Adult enough to drink
Adult enough to go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Would they be called 'immigrant gangs', when the members where born, (many third generation) and raised in Canada? What about he 'mafia' is it Italian , Sicilian or can the members born here be called 'mafia'? Any 'wise guys' out there... or fans of Goodfellas?

---

This study is very flawed as some of our first and second generation JAMAICAN gang banger,s who are over 24 years old don,t even get an honorable mention for all the shootings and mayhem they cause on the street.In fact Caribbean is not even in the break down of sub categories named and are labelled "others".

I,am not concerned if farmer Browns 12 year old accidentally gets whacked by an air rifle in the barn while shooting pigeons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

This study is very flawed as some of our first and second generation JAMAICAN gang banger,s who are over 24 years old don,t even get an honorable mention for all the shootings and mayhem they cause on the street.In fact Caribbean is not even in the break down of sub categories named and are labelled "others".

I,am not concerned if farmer Browns 12 year old accidentally gets whacked by an air rifle in the barn while shooting pigeons.

---

They do touch on this, and Jamaican immigrants are in the Central America region of origin group.

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Would they be called 'immigrant gangs', when the members where born, (many third generation) and raised in Canada? What about he 'mafia' is it Italian , Sicilian or can the members born here be called 'mafia'? Any 'wise guys' out there... or fans of Goodfellas?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larson

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 fishermccann

Would they be called 'immigrant gangs', when the members where born, (many third generation) and raised in Canada? What about he 'mafia' is it Italian , Sicilian or can the members born here be called 'mafia'? Any 'wise guys' out there... or fans of Goodfellas?

---

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 trimmer21

Right on! No matter which way the liberal folks among us try to "spin" this,it's a classic example of "fake news." ;)

---

Well I guess you have not been reading any of the posts placed on this topic by this Liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

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....

---

Well, you have two problems there.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

85 or likely closer to 91% BB Guns, paintball guns....aka toys.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larson

This way this story is presented is complete sensationalism.

---

The media reports were indeed sensationalized.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larson

The figures are presented as "children and youth" to dramatize the results. They actually pertain to children, youths and adults under 24.

---

The rationale for the age groups is given in a response mooboy76 posted:
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larson

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.

---

This was a study of non-fatal injuries.

Good post Welsh.......

[QUOTE=welsh;1022604]Well, you have two problems there.







"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."












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.
This was reported to have been said by Dr Katherine Austin, Sick Kids to CTV News.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

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?

---

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).

And by the way, Dr. Katherine Austin is (a) not one of the study authors, and (b) not working at Sick Kids. She works at the Morris Heights Health Center in New York City. ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/katherin...d-mph-29651b64 )

[QUOTE=welsh;1022604

This was a study of non-fatal injuries.[/QUOTE]

Glad to have some common ground on this, Welsh. But the Ottawa Citizen was one of the few media outlets that offered somewhat of a breakdown of the numbers. And that included numbers pertaining to fatalities.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...509/story.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larson

Glad to have some common ground on this, Welsh. But the Ottawa Citizen was one of the few media outlets that offered somewhat of a breakdown of the numbers. And that included numbers pertaining to fatalities.

---

Obtained from a policy position published by the Canadian Paediatric Society, not from the study published in the CMAJ.

Go read the study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

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).

And by the way, Dr. Katherine Austin is (a) not one of the study authors, and (b) not working at Sick Kids. She works at the Morris Heights Health Center in New York City. ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/katherin...d-mph-29651b64 )

---

Maybe you need better reading glasses because that link clearly states Hospital for Sick Children. I an pretty sure she was the one who spoke on CBC on the morning of the report being out and was introduced as working at the same hospital.

She also co wrote the Canadian Paediatric Society DOCUMENT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Maybe you need better reading glasses because that link clearly states Hospital for Sick Children.

---

Uh....

Katherine Austin, MD, MPH
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine
Morris Heights Health Center Brown University

She worked at Sick Kids over 20 years ago. Since August 2013, she has been Medical Director, Community Based Health Services at the Morris Heights Health Center in New York. This is her current employment, according to her ... I think that may be more reliable than what you are "pretty sure" you remember.

Yes, she did write the CPS position statement. This is how I know I have the right Katherine Austin: she lists that among her publications.

But the CPS position statement is not the same document as the study published in the CMAJ. She is not one of the study authors.

No problem with my reading glasses. Perhaps a problem with your ability to read and comprehend a CV.

Would you like me to fill you in on how she is connected to the study authors?

Quote:

---

No problem with my reading glasses. Perhaps a problem with your ability to read and comprehend a CV.

Would you like me to fill you in on how she is connected to the study authors?

---

That's a great comeback! I like it . :D :thumbup:

Really Welsh.
You should know better but if you insist.

1) Please don't lecture on the media twisting words, quoting people out of context. You are brutal for that. Highly ironic for someone insulting people just because they disagree with god. Perhaps you should pay closer attention? And perhaps be a little more astute with respect to your own renowned ability to take things out of context, (insert "insult" about failing memory) misquote, and flat out accuse people of saying things they haven't said.

Quote:

---

"Death is clearly a devastating outcome, but near-misses are also a devastatingly significant issue," said Saunders, noting the study looks at both gun deaths and injuries, which in some cases can lead to severe disabilities."It is our hope that understanding the numbers will contribute to efforts that are already being made to reduce the number of victims of both unintentional firearm injuries in Canadian-born children and youth, as well as firearm assault in subgroups of immigrant children and youth."

---

Toys, these are god damn toys. And reminds us please just how many incidents spanning the period?

"get a grip"

Now I did say authors, (what were you saying about journalistic hacks that will take one sentence and........) at that point, is a catch all, for them and the CMAJ to whom much has been attributed, including the very basic understanding of how to conduct "scientific research", about the importance of data, (garbage in=garbage out) the need for it to be bullit proof.But I suppose if one has an agenda, taking the time to parse those numbers from the get go......which obviously, very obviously was easy given how fast they did it retroactively , when the proverbial hit the fan.....all that needs to be said.

and when to publish and when not to, etc.

Quote:

---

The numbers are really high, so it’s definitely a problem that we have to take seriously,” said Astrid Gutmann, one of the study’s authors

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Natasha Saunders, the study’s lead author and a paediatrician and associate scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children, said the findings are astonishing.

---

Quote:

---

A child or youth injured by a gun each day in this province is staggering,” Saunders said

---

Theres more, by the CPS and CMAJ.

Perhaps its you thats having trouble coming to terms with reality.

Don't do it Welsh, take your very minor lumps and let it go. Now, before it starts

And just incase, in an attempt to stop it cold.

This Neurologist, who wrote the to the CMAJ, "get its". Unlike them and apparently you. Has a better grip on reality and scientific research, than them as well. There is utterly no excuse, He, makes pretty much the same argument I have from the beginning, its dirty bath water and more.

http://www.cmaj.ca/letters/#733042
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. By comparison only 5.6% came from long guns, and 2.5% from handguns. Of the 36% Not Specified, we have no way of knowing whether they represented a similar breakdown, but if they did, then extrapolating to the full group it would mean that perhaps 86% of the unintentional injuries came from BB guns and airguns.

While you correctly quoted the definition of a firearm as "a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm", a perusal of these same regulations will also show that the Firearms Act states (section 84.3.d) that devices that do not produce projectiles with "a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules" are "deemed not to be firearms", and this impacts tremendously on the laws regarding purchase, storage, transportation and use of the devices.

The importance of the distinction is that devices in the latter group (which I will call pseudo-firearms) do not require licensing or registration, have no storage regulations, and in general are purchased as a toy, not as a firearm in the sense that the public generally understands this word to imply.

Do you feel that it is reasonable to take data that overwhelmingly reported injuries by pseudo-firearms and use it to draw conclusions about and suggest national public policy on "real" firearms, when completely different laws regarding purchase, licensing, storage, and transportation govern these two different classes of items.

Furthermore, from the paper, the rate of unintentional injury in individuals <15 years of age was roughly 25% of that in individuals 15- 25 years. Given this, and given that pseudo-firearms represented the large majority of the unintentional injuries in this study, do you still feel that naming this paper "Risk of firearm injuries among children and youth of immigrant families" truly represents the nature of what this report measured and documented? Do you feel that the media in Canada used your paper in a manner that reflected the data you gathered with headlines that typically stated "one child is accidentally injured every day in Canada by gun violence " (Global News, March 27).

Conflict of Interest:
I am a member of the OMA. I am a sports shooter and member of the CSSA (Canadian Shooting Sports Association) and CCFR (Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights).



Submit response
Published April 7, 2017
Re:Author reply
Dave Benn, Retired Millwright
Re: "Risk of firearm injuries among children and youth of immigrant families" Saunders, et al., 189:E452-E458doi:10.1503/cmaj.160850

I too have been puzzled by this report and wondered why there is such a large number under "unknowns". Why was this even used if you know nothing about it? Thank you, Dave

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Uh....

Katherine Austin, MD, MPH
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine
Morris Heights Health Center Brown University

She worked at Sick Kids over 20 years ago. Since August 2013, she has been Medical Director, Community Based Health Services at the Morris Heights Health Center in New York. This is her current employment, according to her ... I think that may be more reliable than what you are "pretty sure" you remember.

Yes, she did write the CPS position statement. This is how I know I have the right Katherine Austin: she lists that among her publications.

But the CPS position statement is not the same document as the study published in the CMAJ. She is not one of the study authors.

No problem with my reading glasses. Perhaps a problem with your ability to read and comprehend a CV.

Would you like me to fill you in on how she is connected to the study authors?

---

Do you get out of the house much? I have better things to do that ruminate over such studies.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I think there is always an agenda when research is involved.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

It seemed to die a fast death in the media so that tells a story.

---

Classic example of motivated reasoning at work.

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

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.

---

Yep, considered that many times. It's not some revelation. Just as I'm sure some Drs did many years ago with firecrackers.......
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

... but maybe, just maybe its worth discussing the ease of acquiring and storage surrounding them.

---

That's one of the key CPS recommendations in the policy position co-authored by Dr. Austin.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read it.

And by the way, I suggested this "change in direction" about three pages back.

In general you can't trust the media and the libs on firearms to give you the facts and not spin. With the libs joke of an advisory council and material like this only a blind man can't see there are plans in the works. TheRebel is probably one of the few places left where facts and firearms can be found with the liebrals in power.

https://www.therebel.media/calling_b...its_a_bullseye

The problem is with an organization like this against us and on the side of the liberals,
We are pretty much defeated. People will believe lies about gun owners before they will believe the gun community.

Don't forget there are many supposed gun owners even on here who voted for the liberals and in affect voted to help ban guns and they did this knowingly and willing
Knowing the liberals will try and ban any guns they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

In general you can't trust the media and the libs on firearms to give you the facts and not spin. With the libs joke of an advisory council and material like this only a blind man can't see there are plans in the works. TheRebel is probably one of the few places left where facts and firearms can be found with the liebrals in power.

https://www.therebel.media/calling_b...its_a_bullseye

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

The problem is with an organization like this against us and on the side of the liberals,
We are pretty much defeated. People will believe lies about gun owners before they will believe the gun community.

Don't forget there are many supposed gun owners even on here who voted for the liberals and in affect voted to help ban guns and they did this knowingly and willing
Knowing the liberals will try and ban any guns they can.

---

You are simply projecting your own bias on here with little to no proof of what you are talking about.#1 I hope by now you realize that Liberals vote that way for a whole lot more reasons than gun issues/rights.This is a wedge issue only and was used by Mr Harper to his advantage over two elections.Liberals are voted in
to power for their stance on numerous issues from immigration,social policy,women,s rights,defense. I know you believe firmly that you are in the right and the other "people" are wrong,but surely with Liberals in power both Provincially and Federally this must tell you something.I have all my guns from 30 years ago and more in fact so I don,t have the same paranoia you so often display.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

You are simply projecting your own bias on here with little to no proof of what you are talking about.#1 I hope by now you realize that Liberals vote that way for a whole lot more reasons than gun issues/rights.This is a wedge issue only and was used by Mr Harper to his advantage over two elections.Liberals are voted in
to power for their stance on numerous issues from immigration,social policy,women,s rights,defense. I know you believe firmly that you are in the right and the other "people" are wrong,but surely with Liberals in power both Provincially and Federally this must tell you something.I have all my guns from 30 years ago and more in fact so I don,t have the same paranoia you so often display.

---

Hmmm.... must be a single shot.

On the other hand .... my Dad's 32 that would be over 100 years old and hadn't been shot in atleast half that ... gone. The magazine for my Ruger 22 .... gone (cheaper to buy a new 10 round). People's AK-47, AR-15, handguns in 25 and 32 calibres, there was a guy that had a Galil for fox hunting ... and I can go on and on. Sadly I doubt the Liebral supporters are listening and the rest already can see the comments by Liberal's like Rock ($2m gun registry that turned in to $2B, "only police should have guns" etc.) , bills like S-223...
Clueless Libs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libe...-ban-1.1228904
Clueless Liebs. I love how she substitutes weapon for firearm.... leading and misrepresentation of facts.
http://liberalsenateforum.ca/hansard...-changes-acts/
Lies
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/guns/


When a group demonstrates a hostility toward an inanimate object, declares over and over they want bans etc. (Proposal 151 - Australia model etc.), had unilaterally made changes and laws that had no effect on crime but were if anything punitive efforts aimed at honest Canadians it isn't paranoia. Liebrals seem to like the word paranoia or phobia when the evidence is contrary to their ideology it seems more and more....

When an organization is run by a compulsive lying ideologue and someone says "don't worry" the evidence would suggest ... worry and that isn't paranoia.

How about using some EDUCATION and maybe if we introduced a gun handling and safety classes into schools there would be less accidents and maybe even less crimes .... but that isn't acceptable to the ideologues too I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Interesting study, I hadn't realized there were so many accidental (unintentional) injuries involving kids in Ontario.



Good article, worth the read...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/one-chi...tudy-1.3341954

---

I thought I just chime in here, I read the article when it first came out about a month back. I felt it was an insightful and well written, what disturbed me most was the posturing it took with respect that we need more gun control. Guaranteed to put the backs up of any gun enthusiasts. It’s not clear to me how further gun control is liable to improve the situation, but its seems that is the general default, when you can think of anything else to concluded. Living in a head space where the best you can come up with is the repression of an item, is a sure guarantee that it is going to continue to circle about and to bit you in the backside. Clearly from the article, some doctors are taking a more progressive approach in attempting to educate parents on safe storage of firearms, exercising proper safe handling and teaching their children a proper respect for firearms. Regrettably, some broader educational initiatives are not being exercised through the public education system. This should be as much of viable alternative for firearms as it was for sex.


You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Well written? Yes.
Insightful? Maybe, more research is needed. There really wasn't, nor is there anything that comes as some "shock"
Guaranteed to get backs up? That is what a few here don't understand or want to understand (on this specific topic, or some others relating to "GC"). And instead start ridiculing people (Gun owners) for wearing tin foil hats, or gun cultures. The heart of this bullit is once again "The public trust". It's no different than society having lost all faith in politicians these days, have lost a lot of faith in Law Enforcement, Banking/Wall Street, Seems to be losing faith in science ("global warming", the FDA and big pharma) and sadly physicians................

We see signs of anarchy in the US these days, whether thats race riots, cops being executed, or political rallies and violence/lawlessness. Politically we have the wave of populism and anti establishment that's weeping countries, ( Brexit, Trump, O'Leary running for office here). "The Public Trust" is the be all and end all, and sadly too many still don't understand how important it is, nor the prices paid when it's lost.

But rather than come to grips with this, understand it for what it is. Well just as the Left wing ridiculed Trump supporters last summer/Fall as being Red neck, and uneducated dim witted racist, and not seeing the forest for the trees. Then crying crocodile tears post Trump win, blaming anyone and everyone but themselves..............

Quote:

---

This should be as much of viable alternative for firearms as it was for sex.

---

I was taught how to handle firearms at a young age, I was taught the inherent dangers, and still recall the day my father caught me using Frogs as targets with my pellet gun....But I suppose, that might explain why despite boys being boys, I played with "toys" and not things that could seriously injure someone, or kill them.
Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

And the only people the Drs have to blame, are themselves for using "garbage", and then worse, publishing, because the reality is, they to are smart enough, or one would hope, that they would have known what the media would do, and what their own hyperbole, grandstanding and rhetoric adding fuel to fan the flame............. Begs questions........

Case in point. :)

Quote:

---

That's one of the key CPS recommendations in the policy position co-authored by Dr. Austin.
Maybe, just maybe, you should read it.

---

I did, a few times.
Signal for the noise
1) But when you use garbage, you produce garbage. Theres no escaping this. No side stepping this. The data was um........lets be kind and say incomplete...

2) When you fan the flames (various quotes, by the Drs, CPS and CMAJ) They had a lot to say, (referring to both firearms and guns), and further, by lumping it in, with gang violence/guns on top of that, they most certainly did and there is no escaping that.

3) When your less than objective. The data also shows that what we have in place is working.
The number of incidents involving actual firearms (controlled) is low. Acceptably low.
The data also shows that boys don't play "cowboys and Indians" with firearms......or Bows..Not many kids going into ERs with arrow wounds....One could, as MikePal pointed out, take the same data and make very strong arguments, that no more controls are needed...........Of coarse doing so means being objective they would have talked about that to....however that wouldn't suit the narrative, would it?

In anyone's book, including good ole Abner Doubleday's and his game. 3 strikes and your out...
********************

What it does show, just maybe, is that lost in all noise is a wee little signal.
That it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, and thats all it might show.

They aren't dumb people, and one does in fact suspect they know how to do studies, conduct research, they know that "garbage in=garbage out". They know what the media will do.
etc,
etc
etc

Maybe "you" should read what others "say" because I too keep coming back to the one tiny wee kernel of what might have been a "signal" and have from the beginning. That does not excuse shoddy research, pretty obvious agendas, etc, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive.

"funny all that"

..........................

............................