New Study Purports to Show Equivalency Between Rural and Urban "Child" Gun Deaths

Status
Not open for further replies.

P.O.2010

Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
133
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_he_me/us_med_children_gun_deaths

CHICAGO – Children in the most rural areas of the United States are as likely to die by gunshot as kids in the biggest cities, a new analysis of nearly 24,000 deaths finds.

Not surprisingly, murders involving firearms are more common among city youth. But gun suicides and accidental fatal shootings level the score: They are more common among rural kids.

"This debunks the myth that firearm death is a big-city problem," said lead author Dr. Michael Nance of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "This is everybody's problem."

The findings were published Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

The researchers analyzed data on nearly 24,000 gun-related deaths among children 19 and younger from 1999 through 2006. That included about 15,000 homicides, about 7,000 suicides and about 1,400 accidental shootings for the eight-year period.

The researchers sorted them by county then compared the gun death rates for the most urban counties_ those with populations of 1 million or more, like Dallas County in Texas — and the most rural counties — the ones far from cities or with fewer than 2,500 people, like Powder River County in Montana. They found essentially the same rate, about 4 deaths per 100,000 children.

A previous analysis of adult deaths found similar patterns.

The new findings add important information to what's known about guns and kids, said Dr. Elizabeth Powell of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, who has conducted research on firearms in Chicago, but was not involved in the new study.

"Prevention strategies need to be targeted to youth in rural areas as well as urban areas," Powell said


---------------------------------

I find the timing of this report to be somewhat, ah, convenient for those who want to further restrict ownership of firearms especially with McDonald pending.

In addition they once again trot out the tired "19 year old child" routine. Most of these so-called "children" die by gunfire as a result of drug dealing, organized crime, gang activity and other criminal factors. A 16-19 year old predator with gang ties is hardly a child. Typical bait and switch; make people think of their 10 year old and then lump in gangsters who are old enough to vote and be sentenced to death.

As for the suicides, by their criteria they could very well include an 18 or 19 year old Soldier or Marine returning from down range who commits suicide due to PTSD or any other number of factors. Should those deaths be counted in the category of children? As a veteran, I certainly don't think so.
 
Personally I don't know how they get away with including 18-19 year olds in the "child" range at all. Every state in the country considers an 18 year old a legal adult as far as I understand.
 
No freshman in a statistics class could pass this off as a proper study. If guns have anything to do with the number of killed, be it by accident, murder, or suicide, then they would not be looking at the number of events per 100k people, but they would need to look at the number of guns per 100k people. If guns are the problem, then the number of guns is a factor, not where the population resides.
This is yet another cheap attempt to make guns into the villians.
 
*Sigh!*
Another silly study.

If guns have anything to do with the number of killed, be it by accident, murder, or suicide, then they would not be looking at the number of events per 100k people, but they would need to look at the number of guns per 100k people. If guns are the problem, then the number of guns is a factor, not where the population resides.

Yup.

But they're not trying to present a legitimate study, they're trying to convince us we need more "gun control."
 
From the article:

Not surprisingly, murders involving firearms are more common among city youth

If you believed gun control was effective, why would that be surprising? The only reason I can think of is you must believe that city youth are more violent. Are they really saying that? I don't know, I can't find the "study" at the linked Pediatrics website. Everything I found (searching "firearms" & "guns") was a short list of assumptions about guns being dangerous. Can anybody find the actual study?
 
lead author Dr. Michael Nance of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

The new findings add important information to what's known about guns and kids, said Dr. Elizabeth Powell of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, who has conducted research on firearms in Chicago, but was not involved in the new study.

Again, why are medical doctors "doing studies" and compiling data regarding firearms ? They are not a medical tool. These people would not bother with this if it didn't fit into their agenda.
 
Crap from the get go.

The moment a category of "gun death" is created, the conflation of cause and effect is setup.

Murder, suicide, and fatal accident are all very different phenomena, sharing in common only the resultant corpse.

Adding the method of the phenomena to the mix does not provide additional knowledge, only the implication of a "solution".
 
No freshman in a statistics class could pass this off as a proper study

Many years ago in a college course on Statistics, one of the first things taught was that statistics can show anything the author wants it to show.
 
I still question what "gun related" means. I've heard tell that "gun related" runs the gamut from overdosing on aspirin, and accidental drowning, to being struck by lightning, as long as there is a gun near by.
 
In order for a death to truly be "gun related," it would have to be a death that can certifiably be considered to have only happened because the gun was there, i.e. accidental discharges (mechanical malfunctions, not idiots with itchy fingers on the trigger). Last I checked, discharges caused by mechanical failures in firearms were extremely rare; deaths caused by them rarer still.

Any other deaths which involved the use of a firearm, can not be considered to have been preventable if the firearm were not present.
 
When the anti-gun rhetoric starts to heat up............

around this time every year, someone in Congress is about to present a Federal Assault Weapons Ban bill.

This time Mexican President Calderon will be their poster child.
 
It's always fun to write these people and ask for the raw data to verify the findings. I can't help but wonder if there wasn't an anomaly in the rural area that would have upped the raw numbers if no weight had been given to it.

Consider if you will: Taking raw data for the Columbine area within an 8 year period with the high school shooting event in the center of the range. Then expand the range from three years before the shooting to seventeen years after.
 
It's all environment.

An urban kid is likely to be shot by a friend showing off his mom's gun while the parents are at work, or by another kid in a crime/ bullying incident.

Rural kid is more likely to be shot hunting, or crawling out of the neighbor's hay barn with an angry father in hot pursuit of his daughter's good name.
(not to mention the generally wider acceptance and exposure and at younger ages outside of the cities.... the looks I get here in Portland sometimes just Mentioning guns....)


My old man still regales me with his tales of shooting .22's in the high school Gym in the 50's.

Knowledge and prudence always a better safety than fear and ignorance.
 
So urban youths are supposed to be more homicidal but less suicidal or less accident prone than rural youths, who are supposed to be less homicidal but more suicidal and more accident prone, and it all equals out to more gun control is good.

Do youths involved in crime, or suidical ideation, or unsafe gun handling need adults getting involved in going after guns, or would they be better off with adults getting involved in helping youths?

It is easier to fixate on a symbol: Demon Rum (1910s), Reefer Madness (1930s), Killer Komix (1950s), Mail Order guns (1960s) and scapegoat and ban a thing, but does that really help people?
 
I wonder how those rural gang members are counted, maybe they went up to 25, or included anybody still living with their parents...
 
Anytime you see the world "child" or "children" in a study, be on guard. In no ordinary definition of the term would a 15 year old murderous gang banger be considered a "child." Indeed in almost all jurisdictions in the US they would be considered adults in criminal court.
 
I'm sure if you did an actual study (not one weighted to reach a pre-determined conclusion), you'd find the lowest gun deaths (of all types) in the areas with heaviest per capita gun ownership. I don't know a single person without a gun, and most people I know have multiple guns. Average number of gun deaths per year? Zero.

In places where people own guns, there's simply no novelty about them - kids are less likely to play with them. Gun ownership not only reduces crime, but it also encourages a culture of gun safety which kids are exposed to from an early age.
 
All this shows is that in places where there is a restriction on guns, the same amount of children are being killed.
 
I have some problems with this . . .

The researchers sorted them by county then compared the gun death rates for the most urban counties_ those with populations of 1 million or more, like Dallas County in Texas — and the most rural counties — the ones far from cities or with fewer than 2,500 people, like Powder River County in Montana.
Why most urban vs most rural? I'll bet they'd get quite a large disparity if they contrasted most affluent vs most impoverished.

This jumped out at me, also:

A previous analysis of adult deaths found similar patterns.
So, age makes no difference . . .
 
Dnaltrop wrote: "Rural kid is more likely to be shot hunting, or crawling out of the neighbor's hay barn with an angry father in hot pursuit of his daughter's good name."

Get real.
 
From reading through the 212 comments on yahoo, it seems the majority of people there figured out this is a crock.
 
Aside from being the age at which most states consider a person to be an adult, 18 is the age at which a person can legally purchase a rifle or shotgun without parental consent. So a study covering children must cut off prior to the 18th birthday.

Since a study of guns per capita, guns per person or guns per household is impossible because no one really knows how many guns are in civilian hands or where they are, a rigorous study would have to be of juvenile fatalities where an injury caused by a bullet discharged from a firearm was the actual cause of death. Once you have those figures, you can parse them all sorts of different ways.

While Dallas County was quoted, I think the stats from Cook County, Illinois, Los Angeles County, California, and the various boroughs of New York City might be more enlightening, especially the juvenile homicide rate in Cook County when 314 kids were shot in a single year. Then let's compare them to Niobrara County, Wyoming, or Garfield County, Montana. Actually, I would be interested to see the stats from the counties listed above to Dallas or Harris County in Texas or, better yet, Maricopa County in Arizona.

The problem is that it would take an organization like the NRA to conduct such a study and even they would probably have to find a generous sponsor. It takes a lot to gather the statistics, verify them (Chicago is notorious for not releasing such information). There are 3,140 counties in the U.S. and the study cited above covered the years from 1999 to 2006. Incidentally, that works out to an average of 1.27 juvenile fatalities per county per year.

However, I would bet the study showed that homicides were high in counties with strong gun control, proving (again) that restricting lawful gun ownership doesn't work. Sure, we'd like to cut down on hunting and other accidents, something that could be achieved with firearm and hunter safety training for all children, but homicides are the factor we really must address because that's the fear factor.
 
Does anyone really pay attn or buy into this garbage anymore?

Back in the '70's this would have been big news---in 2010 all bogus reports have been discredited by 30 years of reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top