1 Child or Youth suffers gunshot injury each day in Ontario

[Fox]

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.

[welsh]

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.

[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 .

[MikePal]

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.

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.

[Fox]

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?

[trimmer21]

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".

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.

[MikePal]

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.

[welsh]

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.

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.

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?

[JBen]

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.

[Fox]

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.