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.
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.)Originally Posted by NoBush
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
Last edited by welsh; March 28th, 2017 at 08:15 AM.
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
That's a very far cry from how it was reported,now,isn't it?
If a tree falls on your ex in the woods and nobody hears it,you should probably still get rid of your chainsaw. Just sayin'....
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.
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
Heard on the news last night that the report is being called in to question.
"This is about unenforceable registration of weapons that violates the rights of people to own firearms."—Premier Ralph Klein (Alberta)Calgary Herald, 1998 October 9 (November 1, 1942 – March 29, 2013) OFAH Member
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.
Last edited by JBen; March 28th, 2017 at 08:43 AM.
It was these demographics that captured my eye on the first read....
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.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.
Last edited by MikePal; March 28th, 2017 at 08:50 AM.
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/
"The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
-- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)
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.
Reply With Quote
