View Full Version : New figures in children hospitalized by GSWs
Last BS figure I had heard used by anti gun groups was "12 kids per day killed by guns" and of that number, approx 60% were gang members shooting each other, followed by suicides, and a small% was accidental. This recent press release is a mess. If anyone gets a chance to read the actual study, no doubt it will fall apart on real inspection:
NEW HAVEN, Conn., Jan. 27 (UPI) -- Each day, about 20 U.S. children are injured by firearms seriously enough to require hospitalization, and more than 6 percent die, researchers say.
Dr. John Leventhal and his team at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., studied children and adolescents age 20 and younger at the time of admission to the hospital in 2009.
In that year, 7,391 U.S. hospitalizations occurred in this age group because of firearm injuries, and 453 died while in the hospital.
Most of these hospitalizations were due to assaults -- 4,559 -- but in children age 10 and younger, 75 percent of the almost 400 hospitalizations were due to unintentional or accidental injuries.
The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found 52 percent of the gunshot injuries were due to open wounds, 50 percent were due to fractures and 4 percent were due to internal injuries of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis.
Traumatic brain injuries occurred most often in children age 5 and younger. These children often require extensive follow-up treatment including rehabilitation, home healthcare, hospital readmission from delayed effects of the injury and mental health or social services.
"These data highlight the toll of gun-related injuries that extends beyond high-profile cases, and those children and adolescents who die before being hospitalized," Leventhal said in a statement.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2014/01/27/About-20-US-children-a-day-hospitalized-for-gunshot-wounds/UPI-37651390803704/#ixzz2rbSUb4fX
Last BS figure I had heard used by anti gun groups was "12 kids per day killed by guns" and of that number, approx 60% were gang members shooting each other, followed by suicides, and a small% was accidental. This recent press release is a mess. If anyone gets a chance to read the actual study, no doubt it will fall apart on real inspection:
Young men engaged in violence and Felony activity should not be considered "kids" or "children".
Voodoo_Man
01-27-14, 08:15
Children 20 and under?
Hahaha
Straws, they are pulling at them.
Children 20 and under?
Hahaha
Straws, they are pulling at them.
Indeed. I believe the CDC defines a "child" as 14 and under, but been a while since i checked. If one uses the accepted definition, the numbers drop sharply. But, inflating numbers or simply inventing them, is par for the course. It's for the children!!!
More children are harmed by their parent's second hand smoke than by firearms. I didn't say killed, I said harmed.
The solution is obvious isn't it? Put more "gun free zone" signs in the homes and while we're at it, put them up all over the drug/gang-infested areas. There we go, problem solved.
Children 20 and under?
Hahaha
Straws, they are pulling at them.
I wonder how many "kids" in the military are in those figures.
Voodoo_Man
01-27-14, 09:39
This is just another bs stat.
I'd like to know how many of those "children" have ties to gangs and/or prior records. Show me the innocent child getting randomly killed by an evil firearm on the loose.
The concept itself defies logic.
I remember there was some flap a while back concerning the age groups. Some anti-gun statistics were manipulating what age defined a "child" versus an "adult" in order to provide the #s and %s they desired.
This is the new America... Remember, you can be a "child" on your parents insurance until 25. Shocked they didn't use that number to try and make the figures look even higher.
High Tower
01-27-14, 11:02
I'd be curious how the numbers are if they removed Chicago, LA, NYC, DC, and a few other liberal strongholds. Methinks more kids would be hospitalized for bicycle injuries.
I'd be curious how the numbers are if they removed Chicago, LA, NYC, DC, and a few other liberal strongholds. Methinks more kids are hospitalized for bicycle injuries.
I think that would be the correct statement. I really don't like being the one to say it, but in the scheme of things 7-8K injuries are not really that spectacular when you consider the total number of people in this country as well as the number of guns out there. I would like to know the injuries from children burning themselves on a stove, with baseball bats, falling down stairs, or god forbid injuries that they get in the school on the playground. Also, for the record what are the total number of deaths caused due to car crashes and how many of them are "Children?"
militarymoron
01-27-14, 11:44
The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found 52 percent of the gunshot injuries were due to open wounds, 50 percent were due to fractures and 4 percent were due to internal injuries of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis.
52% + 50% + 4% = 106%???
i'm assuming that the math doesn't add up due to some overlap in the categories.
52% + 50% + 4% = 106%???
i'm assuming that the math doesn't add up due to some overlap in the categories.
Since when did researchers with an agenda ever worry about accurate numbers? :stop:
You're at least 5,927,1823% more likely to die a violent death if your neighbors within 10 houses has ever owned a gun. It's kinda like that...
"Firearm injuries due to BB or air guns were included, whereas those due to paintballs were excluded." Leventhal, J.M., Gaither, J. R., & Sege, R. (2014). Hospitalizations Due to Firearm Injuries in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics, 133(2), 220.
84% of all firearm injuries to children (0-19 years old) occured to people falling in the group of 15-19 yrs old. Looked at from another perspective, 56% of all firearms injuries to children occured intentionally towards only those in the 15-19 yrs old group. Id. at 221 (Table 2).
Other interesting tidbits: white people make up half of all firearms suicides (making up roughly 1.4% of all firearm injuries to 0-19 yr olds), black people make up slightly more than half of assault-related injuries, and black people make up just under half of the total number of firearms injuries in the studied age group. Hispanic firearms related deaths make up between roughly 15-20% of every injury classification and "other" races make up 4-5% of every injury classification. Id. at 222 (Table 3).
"[A]mong all US children and adolescents, males, blacks, and those receiving Medicaid were at the highest risk of firearm related hospitalizations." Id. at 224.
"The rates of hospitalizations were highest in 15- to 19-year-olds and in black males." Id.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/01/22/peds.2013-1809.abstract
Full text is on the right side of the page in .pdf format.
Draw your own conclusions - I edited mine out. It's important to remember that this study is about injuries excluding deaths.
52% + 50% + 4% = 106%???
i'm assuming that the math doesn't add up due to some overlap in the categories.
The study actually says: "The most common injuries due to firearms were open wounds (52.0%), fractures (50.4%), and internal injuries of the
thorax, abdomen, or pelvis (34.2%)." Id. at 221. There's definitely overlap. What I'm trying to figure out is how you injure someone with a firearm without causing an open wound. Perhaps using it as a blunt force weapon or the aforementioned BB and airguns?
The confusion is further compounded with the statement: "Of the children and adolescents hospitalized for firearm injuries, 61.5% had a major procedure (conducted in an operating room)..." Id. at 222. Only ~62% were operated on? Are the other 38% grazing wounds, or is it as suspected, those include blunt force uses of a firearm and BB/airgun injuries that are treated with an alcohol wipe and a band-aid?
I can't believe they tucked in air guns. I can now think of three children I know of who have been "hospitalized due to a gunshot would." All of them gunshots from pump action plastic pellet pistols.
400 hospitalizations in the under 10 accidental shooting category? That's not a lot...
400 hospitalizations in the under 10 accidental shooting category? That's not a lot...
Again, the study doesn't include deaths. With just this study, you can't draw conclusions on the total effect on society besides a general trend of who the typical victims are and the cost in medical bills. You'd need to combine the injuries in this study with actual deaths for the real impact of firearms on American children.
PA PATRIOT
01-27-14, 14:31
It's the Yale School of Medicine which is nothing more than a far left self medicating group of bleeding hearts.
Who gives a shit what they spew.
It's the Yale School of Medicine which is nothing more than a far left self medicating group of bleeding hearts.
Who gives a shit what they spew.
Well I give a shit because other people may also read their article and draw the incorrect conclusions, thus hurting our cause. Studies like this are weapons in the fight for freedom. It pays to understand what the opposition will use and to get in front of a potential issue.
Again, the study doesn't include deaths. With just this study, you can't draw conclusions on the total effect on society besides a general trend of who the typical victims are and the cost in medical bills. You'd need to combine the injuries in this study with actual deaths for the real impact of firearms on American children.
In the under 10 bracket gun deaths aren't common.
not sure who did the math to get 12 ?
if 20 are hospitalized and its more than %6 die ? I would assume that means about %6 die because if it was more they would be giving a solid number like %80 but they said %6
I might ask them to redo there math and tell me what %6 of 20 is :) should be 1.2 not 12 and the total of 453 confirms that its that low ? and tell them gang members are criminals so take away a bit over half and you end up with about .5 or maybe 3-4 a week compare that to teens dying texting in that week would be about 77 deaths and I bet close to that from drinking and driving ?
maybe we just need to outlaw teens ! or teens driving by the way they want to outlaw guns you outlaw and ban the metal object not the person !
again bring in the stats our gov hwy transportation safety says about teens and texting and we have 11 deaths a day ! we have bigger problems
Last BS figure I had heard used by anti gun groups was "12 kids per day killed by guns" and of that number, approx 60% were gang members shooting each other, followed by suicides, and a small% was accidental. This recent press release is a mess. If anyone gets a chance to read the actual study, no doubt it will fall apart on real inspection:
NEW HAVEN, Conn., Jan. 27 (UPI) -- Each day, about 20 U.S. children are injured by firearms seriously enough to require hospitalization,and more than 6 percent die, researchers say.
Dr. John Leventhal and his team at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., studied children and adolescents age 20 and younger at the time of admission to the hospital in 2009.
In that year, 7,391 U.S. hospitalizations occurred in this age group because of firearm injuries, and 453 died while in the hospital.
Most of these hospitalizations were due to assaults -- 4,559 -- but in children age 10 and younger, 75 percent of the almost 400 hospitalizations were due to unintentional or accidental injuries.
The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, found 52 percent of the gunshot injuries were due to open wounds, 50 percent were due to fractures and 4 percent were due to internal injuries of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis.
Traumatic brain injuries occurred most often in children age 5 and younger. These children often require extensive follow-up treatment including rehabilitation, home healthcare, hospital readmission from delayed effects of the injury and mental health or social services.
"These data highlight the toll of gun-related injuries that extends beyond high-profile cases, and those children and adolescents who die before being hospitalized," Leventhal said in a statement.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2014/01/27/About-20-US-children-a-day-hospitalized-for-gunshot-wounds/UPI-37651390803704/#ixzz2rbSUb4fX
not sure who did the math to get 12 ?
It's an older figure used by anti gun groups not related to this recent paper that was also debunked as nonsense. As mentioned, 60% of that number were not "children" at all (defined the CDC) and were mostly teen gang members offing each other.
gunrunner505
01-27-14, 18:45
Remember, this is the same crew that still uses 1994 numbers, rounded up, to claim that 40% of gun sales occur without a background check. You know, from a time before NICS even existed. All these studies are not all their cracked up to be but how many regular people look at them with a critical eye?
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Remember, this is the same crew that still uses 1994 numbers, rounded up, to claim that 40% of gun sales occur without a background check. You know, from a time before NICS even existed. All these studies are not all their cracked up to be but most regular people are too brain dead, busy shopping at the mall, texting/sexting, and easily swayed by mention of children involved in any way, to look at them with a critical eye if Dancing With The Stars happens to be on that day.
Fixed it for ya. :cool:
gunrunner505
01-28-14, 09:16
Fixed it for ya. :cool:
Yeah, I guess you did. That is all very true.
Who cares what's going on in our word. The Voice is on!!!!!
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
"Firearm injuries due to BB or air guns were included, whereas those due to paintballs were excluded."
The level of intellectual dishonesty boggles the mind. However, I doubt it's intentional (conscious) on their part per se, but internal bias + zero knowledge of guns + "it's for the children" = garbage like that. When the peer review likely includes a group who also has zero knowledge of guns and a typical bias of the medical community (with exceptions to be sure) that only bad things come from guns, you get a paper like that. Members of a peer review list (of which I have been) for a journal are supposed to have specific expertise in the area they are asked to review/referee. I'd best $1000 not one person on that reviewer list would know an AR from an AK, much less the objectivity on the topic itself to critically analyze such a paper and raise a question regarding the inclusion of BB guns under fire arms related injuries!
Hence, peer review VERY is important, it's an essential part of the process to publishing quality papers, etc, but it's far from infallible (because human beings are involved!) and I see studies all the time that I wonder how on earth they got through peer review, and it's no just B levels journals, but high impact tier 1 journals like JAMA, NEJM, etc.
The real shame here is, such a paper could have had real utility to medical professionals, public health professionals, policy makers, etc, etc,
If people have not seen this, the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (http://www.drgo.us/) is geared toward medical professionals who are not brain washed and biased by the flawed, faulty, and flat out crappy, stuff that passes for research on this topic.
Belmont31R
01-28-14, 15:52
Does it really matter how many died? Freedom isn't free. I can't stand this public safety argument being used to take away our rights. People die everyday from various causes. Trying to engineer a risk free society is going to turn us poor and with a boot on our necks.
Trying to engineer a risk free society is going to turn us poor and with a boot on our necks.
So I see you've figured out their actual goal...
Moose-Knuckle
01-28-14, 17:16
The book How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff was first published in 1954.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Anyone else remember when you became an adult at 18?
Most studies are bullshit slanted statistics designed to support an agenda. Objectivity is out of fashion.
gunrunner505
01-28-14, 19:20
Anyone else remember when you became an adult at 18?
Most studies are bullshit slanted statistics designed to support an agenda. Objectivity is out of fashion.
I remember being considered an adult at 18. But with the constant pussyfication of our politically correct world, nobody grows up anymore.
You have to be conscious of this and that while simultaneously shouldering every insult to your values hurled at you by some muppet in an office somewhere who couldn't carry your jock. What a great progressive world we have.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
brushy bill
01-28-14, 20:51
Gary Kleck and John Lott debunked the 'children killed by guns' myth long ago. Primarily sagecraft (believe this was a Kleck term) promulgated by JAMA and other leftist medical types (google Arthur Kellermann). At any rate, suffice it to say that 5 gallon buckets are a greater threat to children due to drowning (believe Lott demonstrated this in 'Bias Against Guns', but can't recall as I gave my copy away to someone who needed the education) and "child" is generously defined to include gangsters and those well beyond childhood. Nothing to see here folks. Anyone who doesn't read Kleck and Lott is at a disadvantage when defending our cause.
For those interested, full study can be downloaded here:
http://news.yale.edu/2014/01/27/after-gunshot-hospitalizations-firearm-injuries-prevalent-among-children
Indeed. I believe the CDC defines a "child" as 14 and under, but been a while since i checked. If one uses the accepted definition, the numbers drop sharply. But, inflating numbers or simply inventing them, is par for the course. It's for the children!!!
Hospitals can define what is "a child" for treatment, and that will affect reporting data. Where I work those 16 and over (with regard to trauma) are considered adults; 15 and under are pediatrics (or "children").
Hospitals can define what is "a child" for treatment, and that will affect reporting data. Where I work those 16 and over (with regard to trauma) are considered adults; 15 and under are pediatrics (or "children").
They don't use a standardized age for "child" at least within your state? Does it range state to state? I would have expected a national def (say via CDC or other) so everyone on the same page. I think if different locations were using different cut off for "child" that could lead to a number of problems with continuity of treatment no?
Dr Lott has a good write up on this here:
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/01/abc-news-extremely-misleading-report-on-dangers-of-guns-in-homes/
They don't use a standardized age for "child" at least within your state? Does it range state to state? I would have expected a national def (say via CDC or other) so everyone on the same page. I think if different locations were using different cut off for "child" that could lead to a number of problems with continuity of treatment no?
Dr Lott has a good write up on this here:
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/01/abc-news-extremely-misleading-report-on-dangers-of-guns-in-homes/
It's been a good while since I worked in management of the trauma program, but the definition can change based on treatment modalities. We had more adult trauma surgeons than peds trauma surgeons, so to lighten their burden the adult trauma team accepted patience at 16 years old, and the peds guys would act as "consulting physicians." When agencies or academics came a'calling for data, that is how we reported the data: adults 16 and over, peds 15 and under. I have no clue what other hospitals do, so while I can say an age is not standard throughout the state, I can say that not everyone sticks with the same age regarding data reporting. There is no issue with continuity of care, even if you have to ship a patient elsewhere a hospital is free to accept or deny based on age, regardless of how we (or anyone) classify a patient's age.
It's been a good while since I worked in management of the trauma program, but the definition can change based on treatment modalities. We had more adult trauma surgeons than peds trauma surgeons, so to lighten their burden the adult trauma team accepted patience at 16 years old, and the peds guys would act as "consulting physicians." When agencies or academics came a'calling for data, that is how we reported the data: adults 16 and over, peds 15 and under. I have no clue what other hospitals do, so while I can say an age is not standard throughout the state, I can say that not everyone sticks with the same age regarding data reporting. There is no issue with continuity of care, even if you have to ship a patient elsewhere a hospital is free to accept or deny based on age, regardless of how we (or anyone) classify a patient's age.
Interesting, thanx. I can see how that has the potential to skew data reporting, especially if someone has an agenda/bias and is just hunting for the term "child" to flog in a study.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.