Misleading guns report; One in four injured youth owns a gun
James sends us a link to a Reuters article entitled “One in four injured youth owns a gun: study” a terrifying tale of a heavily-armed population of young people trolling our cities’ streets each with an “automatic or semi-automatic firearm”.
Close to one-quarter of teenagers and young adults treated for assault injuries in a Michigan emergency room reported owning or carrying a gun, according to a new study.
Most of those weapons were obtained illegally, researchers found, and 22 percent of young gun owners said they had an automatic or semi-automatic firearm.
“I think the surprise, if there is any here, is the numbers really are quite high,” said Dr. Robert Sege of Boston Medical Center, who wrote a commentary published with the new report in the [J]ournal [of] Pediatrics.
An emergency room in Michigan. You know, rural Michigan with pink-cheeked, pigtailed, innocent children. Well the one emergency room that the good doctor surveyed happened to be in Flint, Michigan. Business Insider named Flint, Michigan the single most dangerous city in the US last month. So, who is surprised that the doctor would find a quarter of the patients in an emergency room in Flint “owned” guns. And, even the “owned” thing can come into question. Dr. Patrick Carter’s (from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor) survey was of ER patients ages 14-24, and as far as I know, it’s illegal for most of the people in that age group to “own” a gun.
More than 80 percent of gun owners said they obtained their firearm from an illegal source – including family and friends, or through a cash purchase.
Gun owners were more likely than other members of the study group to use illicit drugs and to agree that “revenge was a good thing,” the researchers found.
So, the point of the survey?
But the U.S. Congress remains divided on issues of gun control, with the Senate rejecting a plan to expand background checks for gun buyers in April.
So how will a strengthened background check regimen stop the proliferation of guns in these cases? Will 14-year-olds voluntarily show up from a NICS check before they get their Glock? Should one of the questions on the application for a gun purchase ask if the buyer thinks that “revenge [is] a good thing”? It already asks about illicit drug use. Of course, the paragraph above is just Reuters interjecting their editorial opinions into the article, since the doctor who did the survey leans more towards getting parents to change their children’s attitudes towards guns.
“I would say to parents, talk to your kids about firearms and the dangers associated with firearms and try to look at ways to prevent kids from getting involved in both substance use and violence.”
That, at least, makes more sense than expanded background checks. Of course, the title of the piece extrapolates the number of armed teenagers in Flint to the rest of the country, which is totally irresponsible journalism.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Media
Yeah the number is certainly LOW for Flint, as it would be for Baltimore, D.C., Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, and anywhere there is moral decay, one-parent families, no work ethic, poor schooling, and absolutely no respect for authority, among other things.
I used to wonder is they were really stupid, then this happened:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/florida-banned-computers_n_3561701.html
Then I’m just sure they are stupid .. they use their own research to shut down their own validity of the situation *slow clap*
I thought we ceded Detroit to Cananda.
I think the last responsible journalist for Reuters passed away in the 60’s. They pronounce it “royters”, but I think it is more correct to say “rooters”, such as the rooting noses one finds in the slop of an unkempt pig pen. Genius reporting!!! “Duh, I wunder if gang bayngers is responsible gun owners?”
A typical propaganda piece from the anus of the new world order.
WTF. The article said the kids owned or carried guns, but did not say the guns had anything to do with the assaults in question. If their attitudes and drug use are a factor in the assaults like the article says, then what does it matter if they’re carrying or not? They’re still going to get into fights (WHICH HAS SQUAT TO DO WITH GUN CONTROL).
I’ve been to Flint….I’m sure the number is higher….
OK, for starters: 18 years old and older can buy and own rifles (except semi-autos in sme states.)|
21 and older can legally own whatever they want given no criminal record. So given that the older ones are more likely to be able to own legally, what does that leave of the original 22%?
Did any of these weapons actually have anything to do with the ER visits? If I have a gun at home and get muugged – what does that have to do with it? (Other than shame on me for not carrying it).
How is a “cash purchase” illegal? Only if the rest of the purchase is.
Skewed and slanted BS from start to finish….. what a shock.
@3, The Canadians were too polite to refuse outright, but they left it on the back porch and left. Dammit.
Seeing another opportunity here! We could study this ER and an assortment of others. We might even discover that the vast majority of patients from whom bullets are removed have been in the presence of someone who “owns” a gun in the preceding 24 hours.
Oh, the grant money we could earn with a study such as this! And it would make no less sense than the one which is being reported.
Saying irresponsible journalism is rather redundant these days.
The Canadians would probably take the Tigers and Red Wings, but nobody wants the Lions.
Hey, ya know, 15 years ago in rural southern California (no sarcasm, in my home town in eastern San Diego County the elevation significantly exceeds the population) I was an injured teenager who owned guns.
Really! I jacked up my shoulder playing football in high school, and at the time I owned a .243 deer rifle, a 20-guage shotgun, and an M1 Garand. Obviously, if I hadn’t had access to firearms at home, there’s no way I could have suffered a musculoskeletal injury while playing a full contact sport at school, right?
Wow! I can’t believe I never reached this logical conclusion on my own! How lucky I am that the libtard media is there to tell me how to think!
The obvious decision here is to legalize drugs so these poor youth aren’t criminalized further!
Last time I check assault was a crime and considering most crime is committed by young people I’m shocked the number isn’t even higher.
HAHAHAHAJAHA, Their conclusions presuppose that these feral savages have parents that give a damn. I say that if an armed teen is shot by another armed teen they should send the victim to the hospital by city bus. An armed teen that shoots another person should be an adult under the law and face mandatory prison time. Five years, federal time. No probation!
Aw, “own” meaning to have a stolen or otherwise illegally obtained “gat” stuck in their waistband ’cause they’re under 21… obviously, more gun control laws disarming law-abiding citizens will fix that right up according to control-freakin’ left/libtards.
Of course it’s irresponsible journalism, Jonn, because that’s all that they know or were taught in journalism school by their far left profs. Did you expect them to be objective? Ha!!When it comes to this subject, they are going to stack the deck as much as they can. Maybe they should ask why, for the first part of the year, there have already been 1073 shootings in Chicago?
I grew up in the rural suburbs of Detroit, Flint and Pontiac. 3 out of 4 (more in some circle of friends) people I grew up with owned and currently own guns. Surprise, surprise none of us have ever fired a weapon in anger outside the service. The cities of Detroit, Flint and Pontiac are the problems not guns. I love the gun debate with the more left leaning people I know, it generally leads to yelling and name calling.
Did any one read the actual study. It appears the press report extrapolated some things that weren’t in the study.
First the study cautioned about extending it’s conlusions to other environments. “Causal attributions are not possible with a cross-sectional study design and the single urban site limits generalizability to other settings”
Second the one implication the researchers where willing to draw based on the small sample was that efforts should be made to limit ILLEGAL gun possession by urban youths.
“These findings have implications for injury-prevention efforts at the community and law-enforcement levels in
terms of the high numbers of firearms obtained illegally, the ease of obtaining illegal and highly lethal firearms,
including automatic/semiautomatic weapons, diversion of legally obtained firearms, as well as hospital ED–based
initiatives”
I think we can agree that the reduction of illegal gun transactions is not a bad principle. (Just to be clear I mean gun transfers to those without training or criminal/juvenile records or mental issues. And I do mean principle not the actual implementation of that principle which sometimes falls short of what is desirable)
I originally was interested to see if this was an actual peer reviewed journal as there is whole lot of pseudo academic journals out there these days. It appears to be. Thus it appears once again to be a poor job of science reporting where the journalist imputes more to a study than the researchers are willing to conclude.
any time I see anything which implies a higher rate of lethality to automatic/semiautomatic weapons (cuz you know that FMJ nine is ‘way worse than an ordinary 125gr JHP .357, right?) I’m almost 100% guaranteed that any conclusions drawn are fallacious.
Transfers to those without training is illegal? And how, pray tell, will they BECOME trained? Or are you advocating mandatory training (from whom? Who authorizes? What costs? Who certifies th course and re they agenda-free?) It is someones responsibility to become trained, but bureaucratic pre-permission is NOT.
“Most of those weapons were obtained illegally.”
Check!
So we are now talking about those poor little emerging criminals who accidently shoot themselves or their idiot friends.
SO FU*KING WHAT?
What I want to know is: What is the percentage of weapon caused injuries within the ranks of responsible gun owners?
David @ 19 I assume that was directed at me. As I tried to make clear I was talking a general principle. I agree that there is a whole lot of devil in the details problems. But I tend to think that giving a youth a firearm without supervision or training on firearms is a bad idea. But I could be wrong. I don’t think you can extrapolate from that position that I favor heavy handed federal gun training restrictions, because I don’t.
@ 20 I am sympathetic with your view point. In skimming the article I do not see the data cross tabulated that way. In fact there are several additional cross tabulations that could’ve been insightful. Such as gang membership and “lawful” firearms possession. Intoxicant use at time of injury. etc. Obviously another peer reviewed article is in order.
I was intrigued that the largest reported firearm possession were shotguns, not including sawed off variety (29) followed by standard rifles (24) which didn’t include automatic/semi-automatic rifles (16). If one were willing to draw a conclusion from a small sample size and an unrepresentative sample area one could argue that an “assault weapons” ban would have minimal impact on injury rates.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, one question for the group If a lawful firearm owner accidently injuries (as opposed to a mechanical malfunction or self defense) someone with the firearm does he still qualify as a “responsible” gun owner? Just curious on the consensus here.
@ 22 …
You ask: “At the risk of sounding pedantic (MCPO Note: what ever the hell that means – big words and clowns frighten me), one question for the group If a lawful firearm owner accidently injuries (MCPO Note: I think you meant “injures”) (as opposed to a mechanical malfunction or self defense) someone with the firearm does he still qualify as a “responsible” gun owner?
I say: “Yes, accidents do happen.”
Any more questions?
@22 I say no; I don’t believe in accidents with guns. When you are handling a firearm, your world better by-god revolve around that weapon until you secure it.
The only thing that “responsible” gun owner is, after injuring someone, is “responsibe” for medical bills and legal entanglements.
@21 – Think there is general agreement that training is an absolute must. Think it would probably also be agreed that if you let that get legislated, quicker than you would believe the whole process would be come as political as the famous Sullival law which outlawed so many guns for so many years (if you weren’t politically connected.)